|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:45:25 [Permalink]
|
| Good. So I don't understand what your problem is with this. A hair cut isn't a phenotypic difference. Neither is a tattoo or lip gloss. |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:48:49 [Permalink]
|
Let me show what a test for Ibis would look like, from what i understand.
You take the originally white ibis, and feed half the shrimp, the other half feed them regular diet for white ibis.
If none of them turn pink...we then REPORT
one phenotype. white.
we conclude :
heritability coefficient of pinkness in white ibis from pigment diet is zero.
we can also conclude that white ibis do not have the ability to turn pink from shrimp feed, thus not having the genetics to allow it. None of them do. None have "PE". |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 13:53:24 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 14:00:58 [Permalink]
|
noted that you said "if you feed it to a different white bird, it won't turn pink." I challenge this statement - or are we limited to choosing to select only birds that do not turn pink, as you did ?
When you apply your statement to all birds, you may have many types of birds that can show some pink, I would venture to say. Are there no other pink birds that you can think of ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 14:03:53 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 14:21:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Good. So I don't understand what your problem is with this. A hair cut isn't a phenotypic difference. Neither is a tattoo or lip gloss.
|
Good question, but only good at this point, and a few others .
I see the hypothetical study on flamingos as dealing with a question which we hypothetically DO NOT know an answer for before the experiment.
We see that adult normal wild flamingos are all pink
Now we want to know the effect of pigment feeding on flamingos, to SEE, visually, the colour change, in order to reason if there is some genetic relationship, encoding for the ability,
The ability, NOT the observance, of "pinkness".
Smply feeding white birds, such as egrets, white ibis, and swans, with a carotenoid-rich diet will not turn their plumage reddish, as these birds lack the genes to produce the pigment cells in their feathers. |
We ALWAYS are seeing the pinkness,in normal wild flamingos but now we are testing for a genetic causal relationship.
get it ?
so we add pigment to half. They turn pink. We don't add pigment to the other half. they remain white.
therefore, there is a genotype that produces pinkness in flamingos, when fed pigment.
100% correlation, in fact, for flamingos. a 100% heritability coefficient.
We can ascertain this, by never breeding ( by killing all pinks as they show, before breeding ), killing always - and yet, what happens ? White birds produce pink offspring under the experimental conditions named.
that's the experiment when viewed as to question asked THIS time, in this post.. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 14:31:32 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 14:35:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
noted that you said "if you feed it to a different white bird, it won't turn pink." I challenge this statement - or are we limited to choosing to select only birds that do not turn pink, as you did ?
When you apply your statement to all birds, you may have many types of birds that can show some pink, I would venture to say. Are there no other pink birds that you can think of ? |
 how are we still having this conversation. You wrote: | a change in phenotype such as from white to pink, through SOLELY an environmental change ( diet) produces two different phenotypes. that is clearly said, is it not ? |
But this isn't true. It is the environment plus the gene. And yes, we can apply this to all birds: any bird that had the gene that turns them pink when they eat lots of shrimp will turn pink then they eat lots of shrimp. However, it is not "SOLELY an environmental change" that does this. The genetic aspect is needed, too.
I'm not sure how we got here, but just understand that:
flamingo :: pink ≠ human :: haircut |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 14:39:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Good. So I don't understand what your problem is with this. A hair cut isn't a phenotypic difference. Neither is a tattoo or lip gloss.
|
to disagree: yes they all are, under the expanding view which seems to me, correct. The view of remembering what we are testing for, and what we test with.
anything you wish to call "physiological relationship" involved with the trait is taken care of.
down to what the appearance ( our observation of differences )will be.
Our observing instrument, the eye, for instance, is a factor held constant.
The qualities of skin that allow tattoos to be effectively seen are the things you are looking for. And we have them. Generally, in Spades. Until we get older and the tattoo degrades. We may not have good apparatus for observing brown tattoo on brown skin. Lip glass has sheen on any colour, and can be seen depending on lighting. Each item can be viewed in phenotype examination for anything you like, but you must use the right instrument as per your intentions. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 14:44:34 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 14:45:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Good. So I don't understand what your problem is with this. A hair cut isn't a phenotypic difference. Neither is a tattoo or lip gloss.
|
to diagree: yes they all are, under the expanding view which seems to me, correct. |
Uh, no they aren't. On the website you originally linked to, they had a section labeled "Get more information on Genotype vs. Phenotype." Go there. Under "definition" it says:| Every living organism is the outward physical manifestation of internally coded, inheritable, information. |
It goes on to define the phenotype as "the 'outward, physical manifestation' of the organism."
A haircut is certainly an outwards physical manifestation, but it's not an outward physical manifestation of internally coded, inheritable, information. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 15:22:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
noted that you said "if you feed it to a different white bird, it won't turn pink." I challenge this statement - or are we limited to choosing to select only birds that do not turn pink, as you did ?
When you apply your statement to all birds, you may have many types of birds that can show some pink, I would venture to say. Are there no other pink birds that you can think of ? |
how are we still having this conversation. You wrote: | a change in phenotype such as from white to pink, through SOLELY an environmental change ( diet) produces two different phenotypes. that is clearly said, is it not ? |
But this isn't true. It is the environment plus the gene. And yes, we can apply this to all birds: any bird that had the gene that turns them pink when they eat lots of shrimp will turn pink then they eat lots of
shrimp. However, it is not "SOLELY an environmental change" that does this. The genetic aspect is needed, too.
I'm not sure how we got here, but just understand that:
flamingo :: pink ≠ human :: haircut
|
they are not mutually exclusive as you might suppose. They are both correct contextually, though apparently contradiction exists, if either one is viewed out of context.
Each reflects what is being looked at in a particular experiment, or can reflect a view of experimental results - two different things, also.
So I support Berkeley in that statement on viewing the influence on colour, of the environmental factor (diet), and I also endorse the view that we can test for the ability itself iin another, separate, correct view of the same experimental results, pertaining to this said ability to use pigments, "PE", or "pigmentation enabled" (as all of you are arguing) - which I also do agree with.
Except for the parts where you disagree with me, we are in agreement.
So you now may logically agree with the Berkeley site, stating "No encoding for pinkness" (in context, of course), as well as agreeing that encoding certainly exists for the ability, a question not asked by them when looking at the effect of diet on colour. Therefore it is not contradictory for me to answer two different ways, when one is looking at the influence of diet on colour, and one is then looking for a genetic causal relationship for the ability behind it.
so that flamingo pink does equal human haircut. Simply a change in obvservable traits, any of them. You continue to co-mingle views on what we are looking for in context of each question. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 15:39:20 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 15:41:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
noted that you said "if you feed it to a different white bird, it won't turn pink." I challenge this statement - or are we limited to choosing to select only birds that do not turn pink, as you did ?
When you apply your statement to all birds, you may have many types of birds that can show some pink, I would venture to say. Are there no other pink birds that you can think of ? |
how are we still having this conversation. You wrote: [quote]a change in phenotype such as from white to pink, through SOLELY an environmental change ( diet) produces two different phenotypes. that is clearly said, is it not ? |
But this isn't true. It is the environment plus the gene. And yes, we can apply this to all birds: any bird that had the gene that turns them pink when they eat lots of shrimp will turn pink then they eat lots of
shrimp. However, it is not "SOLELY an environmental change" that does this. The genetic aspect is needed, too.
I'm not sure how we got here, but just understand that:
flamingo :: pink ≠ human :: haircut
|
they are not mutually exclusive as you might suppose. They are both correct contextually, though apparently contradiction exists, if either one is viewed out of context.
Each reflects what is being looked at in a particular experiment, or can reflect a view of experimental results - two different things, also.
So I support Berkeley in that statement on viewing the influence on colour, of the environmental factor (diet), and I also endorse the view that we can test for the ability itself iin another, separate, correct view of the same experimental results, pertaining to this said ability to use pigments, "PE", or "pigmentation enabled" (as all of you are arguing) - which I also do agree with.
Except for the parts where you disagree with me, we are in agreement.
So you now may logically agree with the Berkeley site, stating "No encoding for pinkness" (in context, of course), as well as agreeing that encoding certainly exists for the ability, a question not asked by them when looking at the effect of diet on colour. Therefore it is not contradictory for me to answer two different ways, when one is looking at the influence of diet on colour, and one is then looking for a genetic causal relationship for the ability behind it.
So that flamingo pink does equal human haircut. Sometimes. Depends what you're looking for.
Simply a change in - observable, in this case - characteristics - observing, for the quale of any of them.
It is actually necessary to proceed from the known to the unknown in these cases. Assuming a genetic factor before we know that information is an error. What we do is test for it and observe, unprejudiced.
first we determine the question of the genetic factor,are flamingos or some flamingos carrying it, then we do as Berkeley did. Find out the relationship of diet and colour. Colour, in THIS experiment, was environmentally influenced at 100 correlation.
In THIS experiment, we checked only for colour with our instrument. We did not check anything else. We toggled diet. And found a ....100% correlation, in this EXPERIMENT.
You continue to co-mingle views on what we are looking for in context of each question.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 15:59:58 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 16:02:31 [Permalink]
|
please try and follow the apparently contradictory statements.
afterward, I will show some research that shows WHY we need to include lip gloss.
It's an exciting twist. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 17:01:53 [Permalink]
|
| delete |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 17:09:28 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 17:07:53 [Permalink]
|
Lip gloss wearing as phenotype
we run an experiment to see if there is a genetic component to "chimps applying human makeup; lip gloss".
Suppose we have seen that some of the chimps, repeatedly, or by habit, are wearing it as often or more often than humans might, under certain circumstances.
So we want to test for numbers of each chimp phenotype, gloss-wearing and non gloss-wearing, during our toggling experiments.
it's that simple. you class it a phenotype, whatever fits your question... whatever the question might be, in this arena.
question about lip gloss wearing and heritability ? mark your phenotypes. gloss wearing, and non.
by the same token, the phenotypes "gloss wearing or not" would not be terribly useful in a study of the running speed of horses as to heritability of speed.
It's all about choosing what part is useful information of the totality of information about the horses, useful for the particular question to be answered. Lip gloss information would likely not be helpful. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 17:21:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 17:27:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
we run an experiment to see if there is a genetic component to "chimps applying human makeup; lip gloss". |
Every behavior has some "genetic component" in the broadest terms.
Which is the phenotype?- Human ability to use tools
- Human ability to cut hair
- Human decision to get a hair cut
Some behaviors have a larger genetic component than others, but they all have a non-zero genetic component. Does one draw a line at some level of genetic involvement and say "anything below this isn't phenotypic?"
The only observable features of a creature which have no genetic component at all would be something like a dog accidentally rolling over on top of an open lip gloss. The presence of the gloss on the dog would be "environment only" (and thus not a phenotypic trait - nor genetic) since the behavior that caused it wasn't directed towards getting glossed. |
- 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 - 06/08/2008 : 18:38:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
we run an experiment to see if there is a genetic component to "chimps applying human makeup; lip gloss". |
Every behavior has some "genetic component" in the broadest terms.
Which is the phenotype?- Human ability to use tools
- Human ability to cut hair
- Human decision to get a hair cut
Some behaviors have a larger genetic component than others, but they all have a non-zero genetic component. Does one draw a line at some level of genetic involvement and say "anything below this isn't phenotypic?"
The only observable features of a creature which have no genetic component at all would be something like a dog accidentally rolling over on top of an open lip gloss. |
or a horse for top speed as to heritiability. same thing. useless for these purposes. You'll understand I hope!
Which is the phenotype ? As I have tried to explain, the answer to that lies in what your question is. The specific question, to which then I can reply.
e.g.
human decision. yes, testable under conditions of freedom of choice for participants to get their hair cut, and also the precondition that all are able to grow hair. If no hair, no haircut, obviously. We need a basis to work with. The subjects have to be able to choose long or cut hair !
so in that experiment, you might want to test the heritability of choosing haircut in humans. The phenotypes might be :"cut or uncut".
as to your other phenotype choices, they apply , when asked about a specific question.
You do not have to draw a line, the results speak for themselves !! We are asking questions, not supplying pre-known supposed answers.
In the case of the dog, the answers will speak for themselves, as always. I'll supply a presupposed answer for fun
there will be no heritability co-efficent other than zero, for lip gloss weariing on the lips , but there may be for rolling-about behaviours ! May be for the tasty flavours included in glosses. Watch out!! for the pitfalls and let the results speak, as you measure .
If you forget that shrimp have highly pigmented shells, and have less pigmented meat, so if you don't include shells in the "pigment diet", then you're not testing for what you thought you were testing for. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 19:00:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 18:59:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
so in that experiment, you might want to test the heritability of choosing haircut in humans. The phenotypes might be :"cut or uncut". |
Then in that experiment, you've already decided that "cut hair" is a distinct phenotype, and you're testing nothing but how often that phenotype is expressed compared to another phenotype, "uncut hair." The experiment doesn't test or answer the question of whether "cut hair" is a phenotype.| You do not have to draw a line, the results speak for themselves !! |
What "results?"| We are asking questions, not supplying pre-known supposed answers. |
Except for you, of course.In the case of the dog, the answers will speak for themselves, as always.
there will be no heritability co-efficent other than zero, for lip gloss weariing on the lips , but there may be for rolling-about behaviours ! May be for the tasty flavours included in glosses. Watch out!! The chimps wore it on the lips. that's what prompted the investigation.
We need to be sure it's not tasty gloss too. |
I never said anything about the dog having gloss on its lips. If the dog simply stepped on the gloss, its presence on the dog's paw wouldn't be a phenotypic difference because there would be no genetic component to the gloss getting there. An entirely environmental difference, whereas phenotype is the result of genes interacting with environment. |
- 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
