|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2008 : 10:14:50 [Permalink]
|
Please tell me of what investigative use "phenotype" can ever be, if we must use
a priori knowledge of the cause in order to study the cause ???
|
Well, we now know MG's phenotype. He definitely expresses the retard phenotype.
Lets simplify this for you, retard.
When using the word phenotype in biology, you are looking for traits that are caused by genes, or the interaction of gene + environment.
It isn't our fault you are too stupid to comprehend that.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 10:27:15 [Permalink]
|
| Step up to the plate, my little troll. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 10:27:46 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 10:45:16 [Permalink]
|
"Evolution 101" is an attempt at entry-level, simplified explanation, for non-biologists. As has been said before, it's not the inerrant word of Biology-Definition God.
I've been trying to think of analogy in another field. Here's as close as I've been able to come. |
How about math? In middle school and high school, kids are taught that imaginary numbers are not real, that they don't exist. About 5-10 years down the road, you then find that you can prove the existence of i, based solely upon the real (actually, all you need are integers) numbers.
Or even simpler, you use arithmetic every day of your life. But you're never told about the mathematical construction of numbers. You're never told that every number is really just a set, that "1" is really just the null set.
Newtonian physics still being taught is another good example. Or how about the image kids are usually given of an atom comparable to a solar system. It's often said that DNA makes up our entire genetic structure without any mention of mitochondrial DNA. Geologists often talk about laws of superposition without talking about the complication; how rocks can actually fold completely over and lay upside down.
[joke]And no astronomer will ever tell you about the iron surface of the sun...[/joke] |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/13/2008 10:46:30 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 10:57:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
I DO recognize the contradictions, or apparent contradictions, in the material I've presented. |
apparent ????? Come now. No contradictions in the proper use of phenotype.
"Phenotype" is a biological term. Biologists are not linguists. |
your point ? That they do not use language , perhaps ? Do not use language in a rational way, perhaps ? Your point , please ? Is this actually an argument which you intend to present ?
"Phenotype" was coined by a botanist who was one of the first geneticists, almost 100 yrs ago, because he needed a word to describe the variety in appearance (size) |
Ah ha ! So an "appearance of difference" only, was the qualification that he saw as necessary. I see. I agree. You have made my point.
| when he looked at beans, because the variations were not fully explained by genetics, so he recognized that there had to be other factors in play which determined the appearance |
Still dealing with appearance. Thank you. You have made my point.| ...the physical development...the formation of the members of the group. |
Appearance. Thank you. You have made my point | He needed a word to describe the fact that there were observed differences in the group of beans. |
A word to describe categorization of the differences in appearance. Yes. Phenotype. Thank You. Thank you. You have made my point . Go on.
Yes, the definition you read for "phenotype" leaves open the possibility that it can be used for features which have nothing to do with genotype |
leaves the door open? no, it was invented to be used like that, so say YOU. Yes, in order TO INVESTIGATE any POSSIBLE GENETIC relationship to the observable difference| but that is not how biologists use the word. |
Please, do think about this: We have an example before us [Berkeley], of what you claim does not exist. Show evidence
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 11:13:10 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 11:02:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Mishugunah Goldstein.....
About that circumcism.......!
Seriously, MG, where in dshehenna are you going with this endlessly circular chase around the definition of "phenotype"? I am not a biologist and am not competent to parse the finer points of taxonomic definition in the discipline, but many here obviously are; and all I can glean from reading some twenty-odd pages is that you are concerned that there is an inherent ambiguity in the word "phenotype"! Is this correct?
If not, can you state in one simple sentence, what you are trying to state? Or question?
I'm not trying to rattle your cage, insult you or ridicule you. I truly don't understand what point you are trying to make! I am a reasonably well-educated layman with respect to the biological sciences, and I don't understand what it is that you are trying to say!
Everytime it starts to clear up, you say something that further convolutes the intent of your original OP. I think! Perhaps it's just my lack of advanced training in Biology, but there are folks here with extensive academic backgrounds in that science that don't seem to understand either!
Please explain to me, as you might to a reasonably intelligent child, what it is that you are trying to say!
|
I'm merely trying to say that a phenotypic difference can be solely an environmentally caused difference, as shown. See ? Easy. definition of phenotype is readily available in texts. End of story.
The frantic clawing that you see going on is quite remarkable, isn't it? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 11:35:54 [Permalink]
|
hmmm... http://www.chem.ucsb.edu/coursepages/archive/fall03/94-Reich/epigenetic_concepts.pdf
What they were looking at was the coupling
between genetic and phenotypic variation. The epigenetic approach
taken by Waddington and others was somewhat different. Of course they recognized
that studying the effect of genetic variation on phenotypic variation
is important, but they saw this as only part of epigenetics. They also wanted
to understand why very often genetic and phenotypic variations are not coupled.
In other words, they were interested in situations in which genetic variation
does not lead to phenotypic variation, and phenotypic differences are
not associated with genetic differences.
|
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 11:39:45 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 11:40:15 [Permalink]
|
| crown please |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 11:45:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Please tell me of what investigative use "phenotype" can ever be, if we must use
a priori knowledge of the cause in order to study the cause ??? |
Who would do such a thing? You've got the "investigative" part backwards, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 11:54:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Please tell me of what investigative use "phenotype" can ever be, if we must use
a priori knowledge of the cause in order to study the cause ??? |
Who would do such a thing? You've got the "investigative" part backwards, too.
|
whatever you say Dave. Look above you. see that ? guess who just won the thread ? backwards walking, talking crazy, and standing on my head, trolling with no knowledge to start with, I beat you guys to a bloody pulp !
I'm just teasing you about the crown.
How does the Agony of Defeat feel. Dave ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 11:57:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
crown please |
You are the quote-mining King for today.
|
I know. wasn't that a beaut ? I mean, just the way they phrased it. just screaming for size 6 bolding ?
I was praying for this break just before I googled. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 12:01:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
crown please |
You are the quote-mining King for today.
|
don't you have a nice smilie crown for me , though? pope's hat?
how about some ruby red slippers? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 12:06:27 [Permalink]
|
KhittanGoldstein.....
Okay. Your OP was, "If I get a haircut, is it a phenotypic difference?" I gather your opinion is Yes!
Granting for the moment (as I am in no way a biologist, but I fear I may become one soon!) that you are correct; and haircuts, in addition to a vast multitude of other environmental impactions on an organism, do constitute phenotypical differences, what are the implications?
Does this shatter the very foundations of evolutionary theory?
Or is it merely a nit-picking at the vocabulary of genetics; a plaintive cry for more precision in definition?
Which is your position? |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 12:16:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
KhittanGoldstein.....
Okay. Your OP was, "If I get a haircut, is it a phenotypic difference?" I gather your opinion is Yes!
Granting for the moment (as I am in no way a biologist, but I fear I may become one soon!) that you are correct; and haircuts, in addition to a vast multitude of other environmental impactions on an organism, do constitute phenotypical differences, what are the implications?
Does this shatter the very foundations of evolutionary theory?
Or is it merely a nit-picking at the vocabulary of genetics; a plaintive cry for more precision in definition?
Which is your position?
|
Are you asking for tips ?
I'm not more than a poor half bind pc illiterate troll out for fun, giving a drubbing to the overconfident blowhards called Skeptics.
Buck, I think that it shaped the foundations. As shown, it was the intent from the start, to use phenotype to investigate genetics.
Please see the video I posted relating to epigenetics. I'll try and bring it , near THE END.
yippeeeeee ! I have interested someone in this topic, someone who doesn't KNOW EVERYTHING already.
MG
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 12:28:37 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 12:30:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Zebra, perhaps we should list the ways in which "phenotype" is used. The different things ( a single character, a specimen of a species, or organism, a group of the organism ) it can apply to, in regard to studies it can be used in.
For instance, let's look at the cats with the deformed ears from the Berkeley site. If we look at a roomful of them, we name the phenotype of the "funny ear" (vs "regular ear"}, as a group phenotype.
Let's say this was the first time seeing it appear in cats.
We know nothing of the cause as yet.
We want to determine the cause...is it caused by a poisoning of the mother ? a certain cat food or human food ? A medicine ? Was it caused by some environmental factor or genetics ? We don't know. But we can find out if it is genetically related, *****BECAUSE****** we can test and study, controlling the variables. This is the essence of science in this instance.
so we want to STUDY this using "phenotype and genotype".
so we attempt to label the ear difference as phenotypes, and do the breedings.
But NO ! Since we do not yet KNOW that the funny ears are genetically caused, are heritable , we CANNOT call them a phenotype yet !
Please tell me of what investigative use "phenotype" can ever be, if we must use
a priori knowledge of the cause in order to study the cause ???
|
That is the way science works actually.
You need to make hypothesis and then test them.
You gather observations.
Then propose a testable hypothesis to explain this observation.
Then you use this testable hypothesis to make predictions.
Then you gather more data and see if they are what the hypothesis suggest they should be or if they contradict (and disprove part or the totality) or your initial hypothesis.
If we take your feline example.
You gather observations: some cats have the trait 'funny ear' and other have the trait: 'regular ear'.
You then build-up a hypothesis: the trait would be genetically encoded and, hence, would be phenotypic.
You can then start a breeding program and see if its results fit predictions based on Mendelian inheritance thus either disproving or failing to disprove that the cause is genetic and that the trait is indeed phenotypic.
Seems to be working fine for me.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut 2
