|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2008 : 20:29:54 [Permalink]
|
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.
|
willing to include as truth ? no.
And from my perspective you did not answer Cune's question. Are you unwilling or unable to answer.
|
false dichotomy. I have tried to answer many questions and from different people, and I gave him some answer. I know I did not answer fully, but I have been busy, in case you hadn't noticed.
Further, I have already addressed that question repeatedly through-out.
I think we can talk about it in a non-rushed fashion, if he didn't get my many attempts to explain it. I will try again. No problem . |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 20:38:27 |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 20:32:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
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.
|
you had nothing to offer, from the start till now. You have made no point. You merely troll and offer nothing. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 20:53:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
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 ! |
The genetic involvement in a haircut? I'm really lost. Please provide some specifics about what you mean.
| 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. |
But you can't. You've already said as much. The second you record something about me, I'm different. A new phenotype. And then the test is already ruined.
In general, I'm lost as to your point. Maybe you have some concrete example of who the haircut-as-phenotype is valid and of value?
| 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. |
The gay jokes are hil... oh, wait-- no they aren't! In any case, you seemed to have missed the point. You want to suggest that anything may have some genetic basis. But this approach is about as valid as assuming a priori that everything-- even haircuts-- have some genetic basis. Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 21:14:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
The useful part I mention, is that that we are able to test, without a priori knowledge of genetic involvement. That is very useful ! |
Can you describe how such a test might be performed for, say, coaching a Little League team? |
- 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 : 22:32:59 [Permalink]
|
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 ! |
| The genetic involvement in a haircut? I'm really lost. Please provide some specifics about what you mean. |
yes, without knowledge of genetics involvement, we can test for sunburn affect, for instance. cut vs noncut.
| 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. |
| But you can't. You've already said as much. The second you record something about me, I'm different. A new phenotype. And then the test is already ruined. |
no, you are confusing the different ways in which phenotype csn be used.
If your phenotype, is for instance, black haired, then in most tests the amount of weight change in that second is not going to affect the experiment, to ruin it.
In general, I'm lost as to your point. Maybe you have some concrete example of who the haircut-as-phenotype is valid and of value? Not offhand.
| [quote]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. |
The gay jokes are hil... oh, wait-- no they aren't! In any case, you seemed to have missed the point. [quote]oh, a bisexual ? still a no go.
Was there a point. really ? I didn't see any point worth addressing, but could let me know ? Was it that that you can waste your life being paranoid of closets if you wish to ? is that the point Dave makes ? Yes you can.
[quote]
You want to suggest that anything may have some genetic basis. But this approach is about as valid as assuming a priori that everything-- even haircuts-- have some genetic basis. Or am I missing something?
|
anything about us may have some genetic basis |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 22:43:53 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 22:35:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
The useful part I mention, is that that we are able to test, without a priori knowledge of genetic involvement. That is very useful ! |
Can you describe how such a test might be performed for, say, coaching a Little League team?
|
Little League coach ...yikes. Now you're scary. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 22:46:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 23:01:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Little League coach ...yikes. You're scary. |
So the answer is that you prefer off-topic remarks, instead of answering simple questions.
You also wrote:| yes, without knowledge of genetics involvement, we can test for sunburn affect, for instance. cut vs noncut. |
And we can do that without calling haircuts phenotypic, so what does such a distinction add? Can you describe how a test for sunburns in those with haircuts versus those without haircuts tells us something different if we consider haircuts to be phenotypic instead of non-phenotypic?| I didn't see any point worth addressing |
But you addressed it, anyway, and continue to do so even though it's off-topic.| anything about us may have some genetic basis |
And that's so trivially true that it doesn't tell us anything we didn't know before your assertion was made, nor does it present a learning opportunity or forward the dialog. |
- 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 - 06/10/2008 : 04:44:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Little League coach ...yikes. You're scary. |
So the answer is that you prefer off-topic remarks, instead of answering simple questions. |
NO. I'm sure you could teach them how to switch hit,
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 04:54:37 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 04:53:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Little League coach ...yikes. You're scary. |
So the answer is that you prefer off-topic remarks, instead of answering simple questions.
You also wrote:| yes, without knowledge of genetics involvement, we can test for sunburn affect, for instance. cut vs noncut. |
And we can do that without calling haircuts phenotypic, so what does such a distinction add? |
you seem unable to grasp a simple fact, Naming it is just naming it. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 04:55:49 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 05:03:25 [Permalink]
|
| anything about us may have some genetic basis |
And that's so trivially true that it doesn't tell us anything we didn't know before your assertion was made, nor does it present a learning opportunity or forward the dialog.
|
you are a wonderful troll. An answer's worth to you may reflect on the nature of the question. Nothing earth-shattering for you ? C'est la vie |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 05:06:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 05:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
you seem unable to grasp a simple fact, Naming it is just naming it. |
Trivially true. Categorizing is just categorizing. It doesn't net us anything unless the categories mean something. What would it mean for haircuts to be part of a phenotype? How does such a categorization aid us in our quest for knowledge? What would be different when compared to the scenario where we do not consider haircuts to be phenotypic? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 06:01:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
| anything about us may have some genetic basis |
And that's so trivially true that it doesn't tell us anything we didn't know before your assertion was made, nor does it present a learning opportunity or forward the dialog.
|
you are a wonderful troll. |
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.| An answer's worth to you may reflect on the nature of the question. Nothing earth-shattering for you ? |
This doesn't make any sense.
In any event, your argument is getting lost. Now, since any possible part of a human-- down to the color shirt a person is wearing or the act of getting a hair cut-- can have a genetic component, then each human is her or his own phenotype. At that point, the word phenotype becomes a synonym for human, and then it's essentially worthless. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 07:48:35 [Permalink]
|
MG said:
| you had nothing to offer, from the start till now. You have made no point. You merely troll and offer nothing. |
You describe yourself perfectly. Good to know you have that level of self awareness.
It isn't possible to have a debate with you because you haven't actually said anything. All you have done is babble.
Just admit you have no idea what "phenotype" means and move 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 |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 08:12:04 [Permalink]
|
it is simply observation and report.
|
Yes; you observe and report on something, namely, what I'd call, a trait.
In science, there is a concious effort to only use terms which have a precise and unambiguous definition.
Of course, scientists are people and people get sloppy and lazy; but in general scientific terms have a pretty narrow definition.
The definition I have for phenotype is: 'The observable manifestation of a gene or a group of genes'.
That is the definition I have always used and seen used.
Changing this definition can only lead to confusion. If you want to talk about something else or to widen the range of observations and include non genetically encoded phenomenon, it would be better to use another term.
| you seem unable to grasp a simple fact, Naming it is just naming it. |
But it's not.
If you all the sudden decide to name blue object pink; you are impairing your communication.
If you decide to replace the expression 'thank you' by the word 'fucker' you may very well be going to run into troubles.
The most basic use of a language is to be a tool for the interaction between two people and it relies on commonly accepted rules including shared definition for the words.
By unilaterally deciding to modify the accepted definition of a word; you are setting yourself up for confusing people. |
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 |
| Edited by - Simon on 06/10/2008 09:16:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 08:12:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Nothing earth-shattering for you ? |
Well, hey. The only people who should find the idea that any feature on any creature might be a part of its phenotype (or any other sort of naive truism) "earth-shattering" are guys at 2 AM on a Saturday in a freshman dorm room after smoking a few too many zepplins. What are you going to do next, MuhammedGoldstein, tell us that you find it fascinating that our solar system might be an atom inside a giant's fingernail? Perhaps you'll start a new thread comtemplating your hand ("they call em 'fingers' but I've never seen em fing").
Seriously, learning is important, and it's good that you're trying. But you lack the humility that serious students have. You've taken a week of study and turned it into a literally incredible arrogance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
