|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2008 : 19:03:52 [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: | 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 are you trying to found the field of quantum biology?
| 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. |
There aren't two views here. The statement from the Berkeley website is ambiguous, but I'm sure that if you asked them, they would agree that it is more than just environmental factors.
| Except for the parts where you disagree with me, we are in agreement. |
Brilliant.
| 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. |
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree: flamingos are not born pink. And depending on what they eat, they may never be pink. But I don't get the last part.
I take it (no offense) that English is not your native language?
| 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. |
I don't even understand what you're getting at.| 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. |
My reading comprehension must be poor. You've lost me completely. A human haircut is not a manifestation of internally coded, inheritable, information any more than someone cutting of my hand is.
The genotype codes for the phenotype. Cut off my hair, or cut off my head-- neither is anything coded by my genotype. Unless you're going to argue that my skin's inability to repel a sharp sword and my hair's inability to repel scissors is some how something coded in my genotype. But that's stupid. As Dave has suggested, then "phenotype" has no meaning at all. Cut my hair, it's a phenotypic difference. Eat a bowl of soup? Phenotypic difference. Breath air at the top of Mt Everest? Phenotypic difference.
It's worthless. |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 19:19:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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
absolutely.
| and you're testing nothing but how often that phenotype is expressed compared to another phenotype, "uncut hair." |
precisely.
| The experiment doesn't test or answer the question of whether "cut hair" is a phenotype. |
No, that is chosen. Our choice what to study. what question to ask about anything, and what what instrument to use. Our choice to choose what the phemotype categories are. everything is our choice. the choices would be ignorant if not informed by what we know, what prompts the quesiton.
Context.
So we assume that cut hair can be seen by observation, to be known as such. Cut arks, for instance will tell the story. We assume that uncut hair will show no cut marks.
thsi we can call it "haircuts". for convenience, when really it is "cut marks or no cut marks", to be more specific.
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. |
hahrrumph !
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. no, of course you didn't. I did. I gave a comparison to what the chimps were doing, but it would likely not be anything comparable in behaviour, I assume, so I then explained "WHAT IF" gloss wearing also included "not on the lips area specifically",, as in with dogs.
I also made reference to "WHAT IF' lip gloss on the lips of dopgs was being checked for, and cautioned that the tasty flavours of some is something we have to watch out for in these experiments.
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. |
But we don't know that: there may be a genetic component to how much a dog roams about, stepping on things.
[quote]
An entirely environmental difference, |
just shown not to be[quote] whereas phenotype is the result of genes interacting with environment. |
the coefficient can be from 0 to 100, that is all. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 19:37:32 [Permalink]
|
.... 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. |
and that is why you got the answer you did. you supplied a bird that cannot turn pink !!
I'm not sure how we got here, but just understand that:
flamingo :: pink ≠ human :: haircut
|
MG wrote
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 are you trying to found the field of quantum biology? |
will that information help you in some way ? or a gratuitous comment...I hope we aren't going to make this a pile-on of comments. there are more of you than me, and I am not offering any, not consciously. Indeed, it is not difficult, it's simple. You have two questions and you are mixing them together.
Mg wrote| 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 in 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. |
| There aren't two views here. The statement from the Berkeley website is ambiguous |
Recognition of ambiguity is good. In comparison to a locked-in view.
, but I'm sure that if you asked them, they would agree that it is more than just environmental factors. |
They state both yes and no for different reasons. Different QUESTION ASKED. Context Context.
MG WROTE| 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. |
| I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree: flamingos are not born pink. And depending on what they eat, they may never be pink. But I don't get the last part. |
what I'm getting at is that there are two questions here. Thus two answers. You just mixed them again.
the two questions are :
1/ [Simply]" Is the ability to go pink encoded for ?" The answer we see, is "yes".
2/ {Simply} Is pink colour on flamingos heritable ? The answer we see is "no". Colour is a quale, and is observed as pink or not , in this case.
Pink flamingos don't produce pink, they produce white. White flamingos also produce only white.
But ALL CAN GO pink.
That's an answer to your other question again though. Question 1/... If they can go pink is already answered by 1/, regarding genetics.
This "no" answer to 2/ is the one you have difficulty accepting, is it not ?
Berkeley folks ain't stupid. They did not say "White phenotype is not encoded for" they said "Pink" was not encoded for.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 20:05:33 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:04:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
2/ {Simply} Is pink colour on flamingos heritable ? The answer we see is "no". Colour is a quale, and is observed as pink or not , in this case.
Pink flamingos don't produce pink, they produce white. White flamingos also produce only white.
But ALL CAN GO pink.
That's an answer to your other question again though. If they can go pink is already answered by the previous question regarding genetics.
This "no" answer to 2/ is the one you have difficulty accepting, is it not ? |
I accept is as far as they aren't born pink. But they have some genetic quality that is passed on that reacts with their typical food to turn them pink. And that quality is obviously heritable. A haircut, last time I checked, isn't. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:06:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
hahrrumph ! |
You can be indignant all you like, but you asked a question, then chose an answer for it (admittedly), and then protested that "We are asking questions, not supplying pre-known supposed answers." Harrumpf, yourself.| But we don't know that: there may be a genetic component to how much a dog roams about, stepping on things. |
If you're going to grasp for straws that much, I'm sure you'll agree that if we deposit a single square inch of grass-green, non-aromatic dye onto a large, freshly-cut golf green at random, and then set a dog loose nearby at another random location, then whether its paw gets dyed green or not, "there may be a genetic component" hidden in the results. Seems to me like an attempted argument that any trait is part of a phenotype, no zero coefficient is possible.| An entirely environmental difference, |
just shown not to be |
Except that you had to invent, out of thin air, the possibility that an accidental footstep might have a genetic component. That's not a demonstration that I was incorrect, only a demonstration of your ability to fabricate (a phenotypic trait!).| the coefficient can be from 0 to 100, that is all. |
The question was whether zero is the only possible value for non-phenotype traits, but you now seem to be doing your best to eliminate zero as a possibility using the art of making stuff up. |
- 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 : 20:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
2/ {Simply} Is pink colour on flamingos heritable ? The answer we see is "no". Colour is a quale, and is observed as pink or not , in this case.
Pink flamingos don't produce pink, they produce white. White flamingos also produce only white.
But ALL CAN GO pink.
That's an answer to your other question again though. If they can go pink is already answered by the previous question regarding genetics.
This "no" answer to 2/ is the one you have difficulty accepting, is it not ? |
I accept is as far as they aren't born pink. But they have some genetic quality that is passed on that reacts with their typical food to turn them pink. |
"But. but...some genetic quality".... my English is good enough to know we just covered this multiple times. It is, again, question 1/, to be sure.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 20:08:28 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:18:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
It is, again, question 1/, to be sure. |
And question one was| 1/ [Simply]" Is the ability to go pink encoded for ?" The answer we see, is "yes". |
So as soon as you demonstrate that "getting a haircut" is encoded in our genes, you can call it a phenotype. Specifically "getting a haircut," and not "grooming behavior." |
- 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 : 20:21:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
hahrrumph ! |
You can be indignant all you like |
just an attempt at humour.| but you asked a question, then chose an answer for it (admittedly), and then protested that "We are asking questions, not supplying pre-known supposed answers." Harrumpf, yourself. |
I did it for fun. that's the difference. I know it
is not correct to guess and assert like that.
MG| not correct.But we don't know that: there may be a genetic component to how much a dog roams about, stepping on things. |
| If you're going to grasp for straws that much |
grasping for straws to help your dog example, only !
, I'm sure you'll agree that if we deposit a single square inch of grass-green, non-aromatic dye onto a large, freshly-cut golf green at random, and then set a dog loose nearby at another random location, then whether its paw gets dyed green or not, "there may be a genetic component" hidden in the results. |
very unlikely to get information that is useful from that strawman situation. Put him a thousand miles away why don't you ? Give them a room and ten lipsticks on the ground, and we may get some usable information on rolling behaviour by counting marks.again, though, I'm only helping with hypotheticals for your example of the dog. Thanks for bearing that in mind.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 20:23:37 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:34:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
It is, again, question 1/, to be sure. |
And question one was| 1/ [Simply]" Is the ability to go pink encoded for ?" The answer we see, is "yes". |
So as soon as you demonstrate that "getting a haircut" is encoded in our genes, you can call it a phenotype. Specifically "getting a haircut," and not "grooming behavior."
|
you are still missing it.
phenotype categories are used to answer questions
I don't have to show any such thing as a genetic component, encoding for, with colour. Or with cut marks on hair, as we discussed, in order to ask a question and investigate.
Just as I didn't have to have any such genetic information to investigate simply if colour pink is on the bird, I don't need anything other than hair and cut marks or not, to class a phenotype. Either they got a haircut or not, observable by cut marks.
this question of heritablility of choosing to have haircuts is very complex, though. Not so with the flamingos example. Very very simple... |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 20:38:37 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:36:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
"But. but...some genetic quality".... my English is good enough to know we just covered this multiple times. It is, again, question 1/, to be sure. |
No, no it's not. Flamingos are born white, and some genetic feature makes it such that after eating lots of shrimp, they turn pink. It's really simple.
Humans have hair on the top of their heads. If someone opts to cut some of those hairs, what does that have to do with biology? Is my hair cut passed on to my children?
A haircut is not a manifestation of a genotype. Pink flamingos are. Please explain how a haircut is a manifestation of a genotype!! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:39:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
you are still missing it.
phenotype categories are used to answer questions
I don't have to show any such thing as a genetic component, encoding for, with colour. Or with cut marks on hair, as we discussed, in order to ask a question and investigate.
Just as I didn't have to have any such genetic information to investigate simply if colour pink is on the bird, I don't need anything other than hair and cut marks or not, to class a phenotype. Either they got a haircut or not, observable by cut marks. |
This is completely wrong. Otherwise, a one-legged man who lost his leg because of a shark attack is, in your mind, a phenotype. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:45:55 [Permalink]
|
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:49:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
"But. but...some genetic quality".... my English is good enough to know we just covered this multiple times. It is, again, question 1/, to be sure. |
[quote]No, no it's not.
|
yes it is . I was just referring to if we had, or not, gone over this before !
You are deficient equally, or more so, in this particular example of comprehension. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 20:52:43 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:50:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
So as soon as you demonstrate that "getting a haircut" is encoded in our genes, you can call it a phenotype. Specifically "getting a haircut," and not "grooming behavior." |
But that's just it, Dave. I don't think he's saying "one example of the human phenotype is getting haircuts" (or, for that matter, grooming). I think he's saying "if I take my long hair and get a buzz cut, that is a phenotype as opposed to all other haircuts."
I think.
I could be wrong, but then-- as you note-- the argument because "'human grooming' is a phenotype" and it's a totally different discussion. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 20:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
you are still missing it.
phenotype categories are used to answer questions
I don't have to show any such thing as a genetic component, encoding for, with colour. Or with cut marks on hair, as we discussed, in order to ask a question and investigate.
Just as I didn't have to have any such genetic information to investigate simply if colour pink is on the bird, I don't need anything other than hair and cut marks or not, to class a phenotype. Either they got a haircut or not, observable by cut marks. |
This is completely wrong. Otherwise, a one-legged man who lost his leg because of a shark attack is, in your mind, a phenotype.
|
absolutely is a phenotype...To ascertain an answer FOR A CERTAIN QUESTION.
therefore, I am not in contradiction of myself.
eg. Quesstion: do sharks prefer a certain trait in their human bait. "legs shark-attacked" people vs. non, for example, might be helpful phenotypes.
having a mole on the buttocks is not likely a good phenotype to choose for an investigation of shark attack.
but leg lost is, perhaps.
A question arises, and we choose phenotypes to look for. Totally arbitrary choice of question and of phenotype categories.
Most people in research would try to be practical, pragmantic, in how they allotted their expenditure of time, I would think. those are limiting factors. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 21:05:55 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
