|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2008 : 14:34:36 [Permalink]
|
Simon has accepted some of the proposition. Step one to removing the grip of the bad memes.
|
Well... not really.
I put the caveat that the tendency to get a particular haircut needed to be genetically encoded.
That's a pretty big one, one that most people would disagree with.
If that was the case, we would see lineages of people harbouring the same hairstyle. That does not strike me as happening.
Let me try a third definition:
A phenotype is something that you can observe and or measure and that allows you to make a prediction about the genetic of a given individual.
If we get back to the example of your flamingo.
We observe the non-pinkness and assume that we are observing a phenotype and that the flamingo must not be able to produce the pink pigment, hence we make the deduction that he does not have the genes.
Except that, in this example, we would be wrong.
What we would be observing is not a phenotype but a purely environmental effect. |
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 |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 14:36:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
you refused to even support your own claim, so I wait for Ricky to offer what he thinks is reasonable. |
Aside from Ricky, who is this "you" person you are addressing, and to which claim are you referring, MuhammedGoldstein?
And what about your own claims that you refuse to support?
|
ah, thank you for pointing this out to me.
Ricky, I apologize for my blindness and wrongly attributing a refusal to support a claim.
It was not you that I intended to address that criticism to. I apologize, and hope you accept that my eyesight is very poor and I am a bit overtired.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 14:37:10 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 14:47:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Simon has accepted some of the proposition. Step one to removing the grip of the bad memes.
|
Well... not really.
I put the caveat that the tendency to get a particular haircut needed to be genetically encoded.
That's a pretty big one, one that most people would disagree with.
If that was the case, we would see lineages of people harbouring the same hairstyle. That does not strike me as happening.
Let me try a third definition:
A phenotype is something that you can observe and or measure and that allows you to make a prediction about the genetic of a given individual.
If we get back to the example of your flamingo.
We observe the non-pinkness and assume that we are observing a phenotype and that the flamingo must not be able to produce the pink pigment, hence we make the deduction that he does not have the genes.
Except that, in this example, we would be wrong.
What we would be observing is not a phenotype but a purely environmental effect.
|
not really...yes, I know you only accept a portion, not this portion yet :)
But what if we deny that any genetic link is necessary, in order to name a phenotype ? What if we deny that you even have to think about genetics at all, in order to name a phenotype ?
Then we have no such problem, do we ? We wouldn't make those erroneous assumptions, and then apply the supposed knowledge if white was just white and pink was just pink. No prejudicial information inserted into it ?
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 14:52:53 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 15:28:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
You see, when you ask "so what"? i understand that I should supply some information, perhaps. Pragmatically sopeaking, a chrome swan may be a "so what" for you, understood. |
Wow, you really don't get it, do you? The "so what?" doesn't refer to the chrome swans (which would be really cool), it refers to the "doesn't mean there aren't any." Massive grammar error you've made, there.Not at all. The fact that we can use epigenetics now, that is the overriding factor here, as I explained.
Pragmatically, we do not toss everything now, and your argument following is null. I also say that any categoriztion as "not worthy of attention" may or may not be not be justified.
I said that pragmatically, now, perhaps chrome swans are not of value to you. It turns out they are. Nonetheless, it is poor way to select against what is non-valuable, based on personal tastes.
You may note that I do talk about the weaker type of argument, acknowledging the subject you say I missed totally.
Your take is unimportant overall, but you don't recognize that, and that's your problem here.
since epigenetics now uses the entire set of information, none is useless, non is meaningless, non is disposable, in the area of human phenotypes.
You're blown out of the water but don't know it.
[quote]
the "what" is that pragmatism here is takes over in the case and once we see that in the area of medicine, we can see that epigenetics , taking into account the total load of everything, can offer learning opportunities. |
[quote]Unsupported claim. |
this is where you show foolishness. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 15:32:01 [Permalink]
|
| You see, when you ask "so what"? i understand that I should supply some information, perhaps. Pragmatically speaking, a chrome swan may be a "so what" for you, understood. |
| Wow, you really don't get it, do you? The "so what?" doesn't refer to the chrome swans (which would be really cool), it refers to the "doesn't mean there aren't any." Massive grammar error you've made, there. |
Not at all. The fact that we can use epigenetics now; that is the overriding factor here, as I explained. Two parts of your defunct argument is all I saw, both disabled anyway; thus no massive error. An insignificant error.
Pragmatically, we do not toss everything now, and your argument following is null. I also say that any categorization as "not worthy of attention" may or may not be not be justified.
I said that pragmatically, now, perhaps chrome swans are not of value to you. It turns out they are. Nonetheless, it is poor way to select against what is non-valuable, based on personal tastes.
You may note that I do talk about the weaker type of argument, acknowledging the subject you say I missed totally.
Your take is unimportant overall, but you don't recognize that, and that's your problem here.
since epigenetics now uses the entire set of information, none is useless, non is meaningless, none is disposable, in the area of human phenotypes.
You're blown out of the water but don't know it.
the "what" is that pragmatism here is takes over in the case and once we see that in the area of medicine, we can see that epigenetics , taking into account the total load of everything, can offer learning opportunities. |
now about my video on epigenetics; epigenetics does offer learning opportunities. Or does it ?
| Awesome! This piece is quite good at showing that epigenetics are a part of a creature's phenotype. |
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 15:38:58 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 16:00:47 [Permalink]
|
First you said I said something. |
Yes, and it wasn't what you you said I said.
| No direct quote was necessary, because I didn't quote you (like you falsely claim I did). |
Did you mean to say "as you falsely claim " ?
Moving on, yes, you did make a claim that I brought genotype into it, and then offered your substitution, "traits".
when you say that I said some specific words, that is your claim that I said them. | I never said genotype is eliminated from it's definition. |
the concept is simple. use my words if yuo intend to claim I said them.
if you are going to substitute, and add to them,, just do not say I said it.
Why not start with my own words, and then transform them using synonyms or other means, in to manipulate the idea ? If that's what you want to do.
Why not just start by from using my own words ?
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 16:33:57 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 16:09:47 [Permalink]
|
Is it just me, or is this guy less coherent the longer this thread goes on?
|
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 - 06/09/2008 : 16:19:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Is it just me, or is this guy less coherent the longer this thread goes on?
|
poor quality troll. I admitted I was tired, so yes, I made errors. I like to admit them immediately.
also, I am terrible at using pc, editing and so on to get the boxes to come out right, as I can hardly see some of the printing.It is a major chore which took quite a bit of my attention there. so I apologize to all for the poor job.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 16:29:01 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 16:51:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Dude
Is it just me, or is this guy less coherent the longer this thread goes on?
|
poor quality troll. I admitted I was tired, so yes, I made errors. I like to admit them immediately.
also, I am terrible at using pc, editing and so on to get the boxes to come out right, as I can hardly see some of the printing.It is a major chore which took quite a bit of my attention there. so I apologize to all for the poor job. |
Dude is hardly a troll. He has made almost 5,000 posts here. Even at SFN, where we're pretty lenient, a real troll wouldn't last that long here.
I'm sorry about the problems with your vision. I think it's possible to adjust the size of the font to make it easier.
Either way, though, maintaining the quote tree can be difficult.
But back to the topic at hand-- it's still not clear why you think that one getting a haircut represents a phenotypic difference. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 17:03:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
The fact that we can use epigenetics now... |
What, exactly, does it mean to "use epigenetics?"| You may note that I do talk about the weaker type of argument, acknowledging the subject you say I missed totally. |
In reality, you still haven't acknowledged, addressed, or otherwise indicated that you've understood the point I said you missed. Chrome swans and epigenetics had nothing to do with it, so the fact that you spoke about those things (only!) in response to being told about your error means that you don't understand the error you made. Your error was one of basic logic.| Your take is unimportant overall, but you don't recognize that, and that's your problem here. |
If my "take is unimportant," why are you spending so much time addressing it?| since epigenetics now uses the entire set of information, none is useless, non is meaningless, none is disposable, in the area of human phenotypes. |
Unsupported claim.| You're blown out of the water but don't know it. |
Blow-hard arrogance.| now about my video on epigenetics; epigenetics does offer learning opportunities. Or does it ? |
Every subject offers "learning opportunities." What does that have to do with anything in this thread?
You also wrote:| Moving on, yes, you did make a claim that I brought genotype into it, and then offered your substitution, "traits". |
Unsupported claim. I never once substituted "traits" for "genotype."| when you say that I said some specific words, that is your claim that I said them. |
When you say I made a particular "substitution," that is your claim. And I never said that you used some specific words, other than "quale," which you've already admitted to, and "phenotype," which appears in your OP.| Why not start with my own words, and then transform them using synonyms or other means... |
That's what I already did, and you replied by falsely claiming that I had misquoted you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 18:08:33 [Permalink]
|
| The fact that we can use epigenetics now... |
| What, exactly, does it mean to "use epigenetics?" |
you watched the video. If you are unable to understand it, I doubt I can help you. Some of the ways we can use it are made clear on the video.
| You may note that I do talk about the weaker type of argument, acknowledging the subject you say I missed totally. |
| In reality, you still haven't acknowledged, addressed, or otherwise indicated that you've understood the point I said you missed. Chrome swans and epigenetics had nothing to do with it, so the fact that you spoke about those things (only!) in response to being told about your error means that you don't understand the error you made. |
not at all, again. Your arguments were swept away. I admit that error in logic. It is small error overall, not affecting any of my main arguements, or the correctness of not tossing everything out.
| Your error was one of basic logic. |
yes.
| Your take is unimportant overall, but you don't recognize that, and that's your problem here. |
| If my "take is unimportant," why are you spending so much time addressing it? |
I like to argue with people who use deception and lies ? I consider it exercise.
now about my video on epigenetics; epigenetics does offer learning opportunities. Or does it ? |
| Every subject offers "learning opportunities." What does that have to do with anything in this thread? |
the learning can be about genotype, phenotype, and more. thus related to this thread.
You also wrote:| Moving on, yes, you did make a claim that I brought genotype into it, and then offered your substitution, "traits". |
[quote]Unsupported claim. I never once substituted "traits" for "genotype." |
no, first you said I DID use the words I was claiming I hadn't.
That is a claim of yours, that I said it, and I hadn't. not genotyoe or traits. You were trying to twist words that I did not even use. Ridiculous , scurrilous behaviour.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 18:15:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 18:24:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
you watched the video. If you are unable to understand it, I doubt I can help you. Some of the ways we can use it are made clear on the video. |
Oh, that. That which has little to do with what you appeared to be talking about, given the context.| I like to argue with people who use deception and lies ? |
You haven't encountered any such people here.| no, first you said I DID use the words I was claiming I hadn't. |
Unsupported claim. Show me where I said that you used words that you claimed you hadn't. Use my words, why don't you?| That is a claim of yours, that I said it, and I hadn't. not genotyoe or traits. You were trying to twist words that I did not even use. Ridiculous , scurrilous behaviour. |
All unsupported claims. You are tremendously hypocritical, and once again have focused on distractions instead of forwarding the dialog at all. Nor have you supported your previously unsupported claims, you've simply added to them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 18:26:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Dude
Is it just me, or is this guy less coherent the longer this thread goes on?
|
poor quality troll. I admitted I was tired, so yes, I made errors. I like to admit them immediately.
also, I am terrible at using pc, editing and so on to get the boxes to come out right, as I can hardly see some of the printing.It is a major chore which took quite a bit of my attention there. so I apologize to all for the poor job. |
Dude is hardly a troll. He has made almost 5,000 posts here. Even at SFN, where we're pretty lenient, a real troll wouldn't last that long here.I was using it as a description of his action.
[quote]
I'm sorry about the problems with your vision. I think it's possible to adjust the size of the font to make it easier. |
thanks
Either way, though, maintaining the quote tree can be difficult.
But back to the topic at hand-- it's still not clear why you think that one getting a haircut represents a phenotypic difference.
|
thank you for getting back to the topic. Now, i see several objections to it being seen as a phenotypic difference. One is definition. there are always definitions that may be more current, more applicable, or more suitable.Another is protest due to difficulties envisioned, or rendering the word meaningless.
I see there is very good reason to include every darn thing measurable as phenotype, not just the encoded for items.
Why ? Not least because we do not know if they are encoded for before we start investigating.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 18:34:20 [Permalink]
|
| Unsupported claim. Show me where I said that you used words that you claimed you hadn't. |
I already have.repeatedly. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 18:35:47 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 18:36:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
just because the same response can be made for almost any claim, doesn't make it meaningless, either. Another non sequitor. |
Originally posted by DaveW
Not "almost" any claim, any claim. It is trivially true that just because I've never seen a chrome swan, that doesn't mean that there aren't any, but so what?
|
You see, when you ask "so what"? I understand that I should supply some information, perhaps. Pragmatically speaking, a chrome swan may be a "so what" for you, understood.
We can't be on the lookout for all kinds of things which we don't have time for.
Now.
Once we get into humans and medicine, we may see about "so what".
the "so what" is that pragmatism here is used when we see that in the area of medicine, we can see that epigenetics , taking into account the total load of everything, can offer learning opportunities, and so we do not discard everything Dave might think is meaningless, for some types of experiments.
Even though the portions may be called insignificant by some or by all, none of them are insignificant yet; we don't know which ones are and which ones aren't. so the rest of your post is done with.
You always assume a priori knowledge and intend to use it. funny guy.
|
Just to be clear I am quoting you. Within the span of few words you went from "We can't be on the lookout for all kinds of things which we don't have time for." to "taking into account the total load of everything, can offer learning opportunities, and so we do not discard everything Dave might think is meaningless, for some types of experiments." Now, I am not quoting you, but rather summarizing the meaning of your words. You went from "we do not have time to consider everything" to "for the learning opportunities we need to consider everything".
Do you suppose there is a reason this thread has gone on for 10 pages and you still haven't made yourself clear? What point is it that you wish to make?
edited to add: I added the bolding as well. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 06/09/2008 18:42:37 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
