|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2008 : 18:36:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
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. |
You've encountered both objections here, but you haven't offered any substantive response to either.| I see there is very good reason to include every darn thing measurable as phenotype, not just the encoded for items. |
Nobody has suggested that only "encoded for items" are phenotypic.| Why ? Not least because we do not know if they are encoded for before we start investigating. |
Ah, an argument from ignorance. |
- 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
26022 Posts |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 18:44:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
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?
|
If you don't understand, you could ask. You didn't. You made a judgment instead.
What you mights eee as contradiction is not.
As you might know, I was discussing our personal lives, where we must be pragmatic too.
So that is what I meant. Personally, we may not have time or it may not "pay".
However in science right now, we can't profitably throw everything out, because it it may be used, as I was pointing out.
thank you for being so clean in your representaion of what I was saying there. You made the effort, and i appreciate the different approach. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 18:47:34 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 18:52:08 [Permalink]
|
| 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. |
| You've encountered both objections here, but you haven't offered any substantive response to either. |
another unsupported, untrue claim.
I see there is very good reason to include every darn thing measurable as phenotype, not just the encoded for items. |
| Nobody has suggested that only "encoded for items" are phenotypic. |
unsupported and untrue claim
Why ? Not least because we do not know if they are encoded for before we start investigating. |
Ah, an argument from ignorance.
|
unsupported claim |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 18:54:37 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 19:03:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
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 ?
|
We would not have not such a problem... but we would not be talking about a phenotype.
The word phenotype has a definition and, even there is a tiny bit of ambiguity in this definition, as we have seen, this definition definitively include genetic.
The term phenotype, the whole concept of phenotype, was created in relationship with that of genotype. The assumption of a genetic cause is build in the word's definition.
What you are talking about, just an observation without assumption about the underlying genetics, is generally refereed to as a trait. |
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 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 19:06:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
If you don't understand, you could ask. You didn't. You made a judgment instead.
What you mights eee as contradiction is not.
As you might know, I was discussing our personal lives, where we must be pragmatic too.
So that is what I meant. Personally, we may not have time or it may not "pay".
However in science right now, we can't profitably throw everything out, because it it may be used, as I was pointing out.
|
So in our personal lives we must be pragmatic and judicious with our time. But for science you said we can't profitably throw everything out. Is it a pragmatic/judicious use of time to consider those things that are true only because they are not impossible?
edited: spelling |
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 19:21:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 19:07:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
another unsupported, untrue claim. |
Which is itself an unsupported claim.| Nobody has suggested that only "encoded for items" are phenotypic. |
unsupported and untrue claim |
Ah, you claim that the claim "Nobody has suggested that only "encoded for items" are phenotypic" is untrue, meaning that you have evidence that someone has claimed that only "encoded for items" are phenotypic. But your claim is unsupported.| Why ? Not least because we do not know if they are encoded for before we start investigating. |
| Ah, an argument from ignorance. |
unsupported claim |
Nah, the support is in the definition.
Nice how you couldn't remain on-topic for more than a single post. Instead of making any substantive response, you simply parroted me. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I thank you, but I'm married. |
- 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 : 19:23:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
If you don't understand, you could ask. You didn't. You made a judgment instead.
What you mights eee as contradiction is not.
As you might know, I was discussing our personal lives, where we must be pragmatic too.
So that is what I meant. Personally, we may not have time or it may not "pay".
However in science right now, we can't profitably throw everything out, because it it may be used, as I was pointing out.
|
So in our personal lives we must be pragmatic and judiscious with our time. But for science you said we can't profitably throw everything out. Is it a pragmatic/judicious use of time to consider those things that are true only because they are not impossible?
|
they are not necessarily true simply because they are not impossible. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 19:38:21 [Permalink]
|
Nice how you couldn't remain on-topic for more than a single post. Instead of making any substantive response, you simply parroted me. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I thank you, but I'm married.
|
I didn't even know you are gay. I'm not, so don't think another thing about it. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 19:39:42 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 19:42:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
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. |
Well, in general, any debate or discussion has to resolve issues of definition. If we're discussing the best football player in the world and I argue for Peyton Manning and you argue for Cristiano Ronaldo, we have a problem.
As far as we are concerned, I think most of us at SFN seem to think that some form of genetics+environment has to play a part in the definition. You seem less inclined to think so.
The "protest" you mention is really directly related to the definition problem above. If things like tattoos, haircuts, lip gloss, and legs being eaten by sharks constitutes new phenotypes (and thus against the definition most of us here would employ), then "phenotype" is just another way to say "each individual person at a particular point in her or his life" which isn't entirely useful.
| I see there is very good reason to include every darn thing measurable as phenotype, not just the encoded for items. |
Why? How does me trimming my thumb nail yesterday add anything useful for anything? Yet, you'd say I'm a different phenotype.
| Why ? Not least because we do not know if they are encoded for before we start investigating. |
But as Dave noted, using this logic, I don't know for certain that there is or is not a fire-breathing clown in my closet. Since I don't know, should I open my closet only after donning fire-proof gear, and perhaps arming myself with a gun and/or fire extinguisher? Every time I go to open the closet door? If you have a reason for thinking that there's something genetic behind the haircut, then go for it. Investigate the hell out of the problem (whatever it might be). But I'm skeptical that you have any reason for thinking this... |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 19:54:26 [Permalink]
|
We would not have not such a problem... but we would not be talking about a phenotype. |
according to some definitions, not according to others. which definition to choose is often related to the field of interest, and what work is intended.What reason do you have to say it wouldn't be?
The word phenotype has a definition and, even there is a tiny bit of ambiguity in this definition, as we have seen, this definition definitively include genetic. yes,but I don't see so much ambiguity as seeming contradictions.[quote]
The term phenotype, the whole concept of phenotype, was created in relationship with that of genotype. The assumption of a genetic cause is build in the word's definition.[quote] some definitions
[quote]
What you are talking about, just an observation without assumption about the underlying genetics, is generally refereed to as a trait.
|
it is simply observation and report. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 20:08:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
I didn't even know you are gay. |
Obviously, you still don't.
Getting back on topic (something you seem to find anathema), your position appears to be that we should consider all things measurable to possibly be a part of a creature's phenotype because those things might be a part of its phenotype. Clearly, that doesn't sound like science, so you throw around words like "quale" and "epigenetics" as if they're somehow relevant, while in fact regardless of whether we consider epigenetics or not your position wouldn't change from what I summarized, above (in still other words, without knowledge of epigenetics, it's still possible that any measurable thing on a creature might be phenotypic).
If this does not accurately describe your position, please let me know what would. |
- 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 : 20:12:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
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. |
Well, in general, any debate or discussion has to resolve issues of definition. If we're discussing the best football player in the world and I argue for Peyton Manning and you argue for Cristiano Ronaldo, we have a problem.
As far as we are concerned, I think most of us at SFN seem to think that some form of genetics+environment has to play a part in the definition. You seem less inclined to think so.
The "protest" you mention is really directly related to the definition problem above. If things like tattoos, haircuts, lip gloss, and legs being eaten by sharks constitutes new phenotypes (and thus against the definition most of us here would employ), then "phenotype" is just another way to say "each individual person at a particular point in her or his life" which isn't entirely useful. |
no, that's not all that this is about. The useful part I mention, is that that we are able to test, without a priori knowledge of genetic involvement. That is very useful !
| I see there is very good reason to include every darn thing measurable as phenotype, not just the encoded for items. |
| Why? How does me trimming my thumb nail yesterday add anything useful for anything? Yet, you'd say I'm a different phenotype. |
Yes. You are different every second, moreover. We are not trying to set a stable phenotype for your whole being, necessarily,or for all of humanity.We can, or we can choose to examine one aspect of you. For instance, something about your foot. We give it a phenotype that is appropriate for investigating what we want to know. Whether or not we see something useful to be gained, we CAN categorize, and learn from that, as with the flamingos. It may serve no purpose to you or I, to know that there is no encoding for pink, but it is likely useful information to someone.
| Why ? Not least because we do not know if they are encoded for before we start investigating. |
| But as Dave noted, using this logic, I don't know for certain that there is or is not a fire-breathing clown in my closet. Since I don't know, should I open my closet only after donning fire-proof gear, and perhaps arming myself with a gun and/or fire extinguisher? Every time I go to open the closet door? |
find a fire-breathing clown in your closet and we can have phenotypes for it. Dave should stay out of the closet, since he is already.
, If you have a reason for thinking that there's something genetic behind the haircut, then go for it. Investigate the hell out of the problem (whatever it might be). But I'm skeptical that you have any reason for thinking this... |
There may be. It does not need the hell investigated out of it, as far as I know. Whether or not there is encoding for it, we can still categorize as to phenotypes.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 20:21:21 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 20:20:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
If you don't understand, you could ask. You didn't. You made a judgment instead.
What you mights eee as contradiction is not.
As you might know, I was discussing our personal lives, where we must be pragmatic too.
So that is what I meant. Personally, we may not have time or it may not "pay".
However in science right now, we can't profitably throw everything out, because it it may be used, as I was pointing out.
|
So in our personal lives we must be pragmatic and judiscious with our time. But for science you said we can't profitably throw everything out. Is it a pragmatic/judicious use of time to consider those things that are true only because they are not impossible?
|
they are not necessarily true simply because they are not impossible.
|
From page 10 you appear to be willing to include everything that is not considered impossible.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
it's still not clear why you think that one getting a haircut represents a phenotypic difference.
|
... 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.
|
And from my perspective you did not answer Cune's question. Are you unwilling or unable to answer. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 20:26:46 [Permalink]
|
MG said:
Well, yes, you are a poor quality troll. At least you understand that much.
We are on page 11, and you have yet to make a point. In fact I can't even discern what point you migt be trying to make...
Obviously you do not grasp the concept of phenotype, and you seem to be making some absurd argument that hairstyle is part of a phenotype. Let me see if i can clarify this for you. Your haircut/hairstyle is not a phenotypic trait. Humans, as a species, cutting/styling their hair, could be called a phenotypic trait... if you want to bother listing all the things we use tools for and calling them phenotype traits. Seems like an absurd waste of time though.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
