|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2008 : 22:13:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the word phenotype came around in light of evolution. It is used to measure evolution. By eliminating genotypes from its definition, it can no longer be used for that purpose. I find this to be a major and irreconcilable flaw in your usage.
|
I know you see only a contradiction. Perhaps I might lighten that problem by saying that I never said genotype is eliminated from it's definition. that is perhaps, your interpretation of what I've said. I never said it. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 22:15:51 |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 22:19:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
To ascetain an answer FOR A CERTAIN QUESTION. |
This doesn't make any sense at all.
|
Context not provided |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 22:20:32 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 22:26:20 [Permalink]
|
| I'll be back in a day or so to see how you're doing, guys ! |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 22:57:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
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. |
Then you are insisting that there is a genetic component to getting a haircut. |
incorrect.| If there is no such component (if the coefficient is zero), it cannot be a phenotype. |
As I said, that's what I would have thought last week. But that's not the case, even though that's the way I understood it last week. The problem is seen in weak correlations. Once they get near zero, we consider them zero, but they are not.
Within that zone, the next to zero, might lie the answer to the question of human haircuts. Prompting the need to be able to call it a phenotype even if we can't see any plausible connection to genetics. There may be one, and we don't want to state the positive, that there is none.
Cut hair may have some remotely connected genetic relationship, so we do not cast out anything with zero coefficient. We know that we are testing relatively crudely at times too. So we don't toss it out.
e.g. Of problems relating to zero coefficient, some might be relatively small samples and few years to test in.
If I catch a squirrel, give it a haircut and release it into the wild, no squirrel biologist who finds it and the "cut marks" would think it represents some new squirrel phenotype because the hair cut isn't the result of the interaction between the squirrel's genes and its environment.
|
of course, he would have to be very unusual biologist, to examine for cut marks on this particular squirrel fur, then to have reason to want to consider it a phenotype...to think there was an experiment going on and he didn't know about it, and recognize a phenotype for the experiment of squirrel haircut heritability,,, Very Unusual indeed. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 23:07:19 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 23:18:50 [Permalink]
|
| Simply put, is someone here contending that there positively is not ANY genetic link to me getting my hair cut ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 23:27:05 [Permalink]
|
| How is getting beaten and tattooed (I never said anything about "roaming") |
no, again - in effort to help your example along - I gave example of how conceivably one MIGHT connect it to getting bonked and tattood. You know, if you were a roamer of bad red light districts, and that was a strongly genetically influenced behaviour, we might have something to work with ...please don't lend great import to this, if I did or not help your example along...you picked a pretty wild example.
So if it had to be something, if I had to venture a hypothesis, then I think my "something" is remotely plausible,and is not as weird as you thought of, the tattoo-rape incident. You did pick an interesting example, after all.
If we can't find others, then you are it. Can we investigate just you, and how to do it ?
If not, can we dismiss it without investigation ? Effectively, yes, for some purposes, investigation would be ended before it began.
But if we choose to investigate it, then we have to pick for phenotypes that will possibly give us something. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 23:48:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 23:43:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
I know you see only a contradiction. Perhaps I might lighten that problem by saying that I never said genotype is eliminated from it's definition. that is perhaps, your interpretation of what I've said. I never said it. |
Yes, you did, by calling traits "quales" and in looking for only "delta quale." A quale is a property of objects when divorced from those objects. "Pinkness" is a quale when considered independent of anything which may or may not be pink. The pinkness of flamingos cannot be a quale because the pinkness is not independent of the flamingos. To consider it as a phenotype includes the impossibility of considering it as a quale, as phenotype is not independent of the animals expressing the phenotype.
You also wrote:| As I said, that's what I would have thought last week. But that's not the case, even though that's the way I understood it last week. The problem is seen in weak correlations. Once they get near zero, we consider them zero, but they are not. |
Speak for yourself. "We" consider no such thing. A phenotype includes a non-zero genetic component, by definition. All your "maybes" are simply ludicrous attempts to give non-zero genetic components to characteristics without a shred of actual evidence.
And to precisely such ends you wrote:| Simply put, is someone here contending that there positively is not ANY genetic link to me getting my hair cut ? |
The burden of proof would be on the person claiming that there is a genetic "link." Do you have anything to offer besides supposition? |
- 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 |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 23:54:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
So if it had to be something, if I had to venture a hypothesis, then I think my "something" is remotely plausible... |
Well, there's the problem. Plausible hypotheticals are only a rebuttal to claims of impossibilities, and nobody here is making such a claim.
Of course it isn't impossible that a hair cut is a phenotypic difference. But that doesn't mean that it is one, and so evidence that a hair cut is the result of a combination of genetics and environment is required if we're to agree that it is. |
- 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 : 23:59:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
I know you see only a contradiction. Perhaps I might lighten that problem by saying that I never said genotype is eliminated from it's definition. that is perhaps, your interpretation of what I've said. I never said it. |
Yes, you did, by calling traits "quales" |
First off, let me say that you originally claimed that I said now you change the claim to include | Yes, you did, by calling traits "quales" |
So you offer your interpretation only, seemingly my words are not enough to use. Please use my words when saying I said something. Connect them using logic if you wish, but don't say I said it. Please.
I've only been interested in this for a week, and you guys popped lots of questions. You need to quote me properly. I do try to avoid using "traits now..but old habits, you know. Where did I say "traits ", again, if I may ask ?
| and in looking for only "delta quale." |
Yes,looking for only delta quale. I said that. Thank you !
You need to use accurate quotes for me to respond to what I supposedly said, if you want to get anything that is relevant to the thread so far, . and not ask me to respond in defense of I never did say.
Try again. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 01:42:45 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 00:04:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
So if it had to be something, if I had to venture a hypothesis, then I think my "something" is remotely plausible... |
Well, there's the problem. Plausible hypotheticals are only a rebuttal to claims of impossibilities, and nobody here is making such a claim.
Of course it isn't impossible that a hair cut is a phenotypic difference. But that doesn't mean that it is one, and so evidence that a hair cut is the result of a combination of genetics and environment is required if we're to agree that it is.
|
that's not the problem. the problem was your tattoo rape example. of course, if you ask for a hypothesis to consider, it is weird. You gave a weird example. Not my problem. Your problem for offering such a twisted example, to need help.
Offering such a thing and then scoffing at any replies is not going to get us on topic very well.
The "problem" you mention now.
Now you admit that it's not impossible for "haircut" to be a phenotypic difference ??? Good.
That's all it takes. It's not impossible. therefor a "possible", and can be a categorization for answering a specific question.
A question can be found to correspond with that phenotypic difference seen.
You are even admitting that it But you just don't know if it is or not, concerning my haircut ? Is that it ?
If so, I invite all concerned to see if their own position is now the same as when I introduced the topic. Anyone for the "maybe, we just don't know", type of response ?
Anyone else choosing an "It's not impossible" reply ?
Berkeley| pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
I note that it hasn't been explained exactly how this "doesn't mean" what it says. That biologists "mean it" differently than these guys do.
They want it taught ! Or does it need need some special rephrasing to tell us what they meant ? Perhaps this sopecial rephrasing will be done as my words have been altered and put in my mouth.
so to your second claim: Where did I say "traits" ?
I find it much easier to trust that the Berkeley folks "mean what they say: more than you mean what you say !
How to see this quote from Berkeley 101 as other than it is ? By use of synonyms paraphrasing, and such ?
So you really prefer to think they have been ambiguous, rather than thinking that two opposite answers indicates two questions being recognized ?
"Ambiguous" does not even describe either of the two statements. Each is clear. Contradictory, when not in context,I'd say. Not ambiguous. Opposites, both clearly stated. "Ambiguous" might indeed be more a reflection of the poster's thoughts than a reflection of the two definite statements.
thanks
MG |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 03:00:23 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 00:32:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I can't wait to see where this is going...
|
tattoo rape. pass the twizzlers. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 01:49:44 [Permalink]
|
heres the credits. Do they mean what they said ?
This site is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.
Team Members:
Roy Caldwell is a professor in the Dept. of Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley and Interim Director of UCMP. Though Roy's early research centered on insect migration, now his interests lie in tropical marine invertebrate behavior and ecology. His current research is focused on the behavioral ecology of stomatopod crustaceans, a group of tropical marine predators commonly known as mantis shrimp. Roy received his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in 1969.
Jennifer Collins is a secondary life science teacher with a Masters Degree in Educational Technology. She has experience at both the middle school and high school level. In addition to teaching, she loves to design curriculum, lead workshop sessions, and assist her husband in biological field work.
Josh Frankel is the UCMP webmaster. He majored in Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley and has worked as a website producer/designer for several years. He's also a cartoonist.
Alan D. Gishlick is a Post Doctoral Scholar of the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. His research interests include the functional transitions in the history of life, their role in concepts of biological identity and their uses in interpreting patterns of evolution. He is also interested in the teaching of the history of life; and the interface between science and religion, especially as it relates to biological evolution. He received a Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics at Yale University.
Scott Hays has been involved in public school education since 1977. He taught 4-8th grade in a two-room, rural school for twenty years, spent about four years as a provider of professional development in the areas of science and language acquisition, and retired in 2005 after teaching seventh grade history and English/Language Arts. He teaches children, by the way, and not programs!
Crissy Huffard recently finished her graduate work in the Department of Integrative Biology. Her interests in the behavior, ecology and evolution of Cephalopods, particularly pygmy octopuses, have led her to describe the behavioral ecology of a type of octopus in the Indo-Pacific for her Ph.D. dissertation. In her spare time, Crissy creates scientific illustrations. She has helped prepare images and graphic designs for Understanding Evolution.
Al Janulaw serves as a Teacher Associate of UCMP and is past-president of California Science Teachers Association. He teaches the science methods course in the multi-subject teaching credential program at Sonoma State University. He has extensive experience working with inservice and preservice teachers on curriculum development and pedagogical strategies in grades K-12. In June 2001 he retired from teaching after 32 years of working with children in grades four through eight.
Sharon Janulaw was the Director of the North Bay Science Project, a California Science Project site housed at Sonoma State University. She is a Science Education Specialist with the Sonoma County Office of Education. Sharon is on leave from the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District where she has taught junior kindergarten, kindergarten and first grades, and taught science units, the GLOBE program, Science Olympiad, and the HP Mentor program in second through fifth grade classrooms.
Andrew Lee is pursuing a doctoral degree in the Department of Integrative Biology and is a student member of the UCMP. His research focuses on the relationship between structure and function of limb bones in dinosaurs. He is particularly interested in understanding how evolutionary changes in limb function influence the histology of those limb bones. Teaching is one of his other interests whether it is K-12 English, undergraduate biology, or leading museum tours.
David R. Lindberg is the Chair of the Department of Integrative Biology and past Director of the UC Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). His research interests focus on the evolution of select organisms (mostly Mollusca), and the resultant interactions between organisms and their habitats through time. He has done research and field work for more than 15 years along much of the eastern Pacific margin. Additionally he is the PI on three K-12 outreach projects at UCMP, focusing on the use of technology to increase access to scientific resources. He received a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Eric Meikle is the Outreach Coordinator at the National Center for Science Education. He was formerly a Research Associate at the Institute of Human Origins and Adjunct Professor in the Anthropology Department, Arizona State University. He has a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley, and has done research on fossil Old World monkeys. He has been teaching human and primate evolution for over twenty years.
Anne Monk has been a middle school science teacher for more than 10 years. She has also served as the Director of Education at Marine World, worked as a field researcher and naturalist, and been involved with informal science education programs for over 20 years. Anne is a founding member of the Mills College teacher training program: Leadership In Teaching Elementary Science (LITES). She is the recipient of the Craven and the Klingenstein Awards for excellence in teaching. Anne currently teaches middle school science at the Katherine Delmar Burke School in San Francisco, California.
Judy Sheen received her Ph.D. in Integrative Biology from UC Berkeley in 2001 and her undergraduate degree in biology from Harvard-Radcliffe college. While still a graduate student, she worked with the project team to gather content data on the importance of evolution to today's society. She is currently working in the field of environmental engineering as a planner.
Judy Scotchmoor is Director of Education and Public Programs at the UC Museum of Paleontology. Prior to this position, she was a 7th and 8th grade Science teacher for 25 years. Her love of paleontological fieldwork was contagious to her students and became the basis of her science curriculum, naturally integrating multiple disciplines of science. Judy also recognizes the use of technology as a tool to teach and to learn. Now, at the museum, her roles are many, but her primary interest remains the use of paleontology as a vehicle for improving science education in the classroom.
Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist, is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. She has written widely on the creation and evolution controversy, and is consulted by teachers, school boards, and the media for advice on the teaching of evolution. Genie was the recipient of the 2002 National Science Board Public Service Award.
Dave Smith fell in love with dinosaurs as a kid and dreamed of being a paleontologist. In college, Dave found that certain requirements like calculus, physics, chemistry, and computer science did not, well...agree with him, so he gave up all hope of ever digging up a dinosaur and fell back on his second love, art. Now Dave combines his talents as a graphic artist for the UC Museum of Paleontology and has been helping to dig up dinosaurs for the past fourteen summers.
Mark Stefanski is a 16+ year veteran of high school science classrooms, and he has taught at all four grade levels. Among the recognition he has received are an Access Excellence Fellowship and the NSTA's Ohaus Award for innovative teaching strategies in high school science. Mark is currently teaching at Marin Academy in San Rafael, CA., while also working as an independent education consultant. He is happily married to a middle school science teacher with two cats.
Caroline A.E. Strömberg is a postdoctoral fellow at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm. She recently finished her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. Her research focuses on the origin and spread of grasslands and how that influences the evolution of associated fauna (e.g., horses). She has done extensive fieldwork throughout central and western United States, as well as Patagonia and Colombia. She continues to be involved with educational outreach programs through the UCMP.
Mark Terry has been teaching at the secondary level in both public and independent schools for over thirty years, in New York, California, Oregon and Washington. He is co-founder of the Northwest School in Seattle, acting as Head of School 1983-1990, and then Head of Science Department since 1990. Mark authored a book on environmental education, Teaching for Survival (New York: Ballantine 1971) and has written associated essays over the years. Mark received a BA in Anthropology (Physical), University of Washington; MAT in Science Education, Cornell University; and completed one year toward his Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology, University of Washington.
Anna Thanukos is a Postdoctoral Research Assistant of UCMP, with interests in evolutionary genetics, phylogenetics, and science communication. She has a masters in Integrative Biology and a Ph.D. in Science and Math Education at UC Berkeley.
Colleen Whitney was UCMP's webmaster and participated in the initial planning and design of this website.
Carl Zimmer writes frequently about evolution. His books include At the Water's Edge (1998), Parasite Rex (2000), and Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea (2001). He contributes articles to magazines including National Geographic, Science, and Popular Science. His column "The Evolutionary Front" appears regularly in Natural History. A former senior editor at Discover, he has won several honors, including a Guggenheim fellowship, for his work. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 03:29:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
The first definition did not rule out hairdcuts, the list was not exclusive. |
Sure it did. The website you linked to also notes:The relationship between the genotype and phenotype is a simple one ...
The Genotype codes for the Phenotype |
|
so you see, they don't exclude. What they ACTUALLY say is different.
They state the relationship between genotype and phenotype. They do no ruling out here. They do not say that phenotype cannot have another relationship, such as environmental influence.
"Codes for" does not mean "made", in my books.
they said what genotype does for phenotype, but not what phenotype is.
and did not rule out haircut, as you say it did. Show where, please.
After you say haircut is ruled out as phenotype
you then go on to say that
So the human genotype does code for a haircut.
|
It ******"The HUMAN Genotype" ( new addition ) ...this, encodes for a haircut, but haircut cannot be a phenotype. I see your two claims. One of them, of course, is totally unsupported by the evidence.
No words saying haircut isn't, no words saying anything isn't. Except pink. Pink isn't, as to one test.
Totally dependent on your reworking of several words and their meanings.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 03:48:55 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 04:58:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
They state the relationship between genotype and phenotype. They do no ruling out here. They do not say that phenotype cannot have another relationship, such as environmental influence.
"Codes for" does not mean "made", in my books.
they said what genotype does for phenotype, but not what phenotype is.
and did not rule out haircut, as you say it did. Show where, please. |
No, how about this: you show where the human genotype has coded for a haircut.
| It ******"The HUMAN Genotype" ( new addition ) ...this, encodes for a haircut, but haircut cannot be a phenotype. I see your two claims. One of them, of course, is totally unsupported by the evidence. |
 We are talking about humans, aren't we? I don't see why the "new addition" is worth mentioning unless you've been talking about the hair cuts of some other organism? In any event, I'm not making two claims. Why you say this is unclear.
No words saying haircut isn't, no words saying anything isn't. Except pink. Pink isn't, as to one test.
Totally dependent on your reworking of several words and their meanings. |
If you can show the genetic aspect of a haircut, then I'll obviously be wrong. I haven't "reworked" any words or meanings. I am fairly confident that you getting a haircut is not a phenotypic difference, so it is now up to you to demonstrate how it is.
In the mean time, this is the worst Twilight Zone episode, ever. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 06:11:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
They state the relationship between genotype and phenotype. They do no ruling out here. They do not say that phenotype cannot have another relationship, such as environmental influence.
"Codes for" does not mean "made", in my books.
they said what genotype does for phenotype, but not what phenotype is.
and did not rule out haircut, as you say it did. Show where, please. |
No, how about this: you show where the human genotype has coded for a haircut. |
Did I take a left instead of a right ? Isn't this a skeptic site? Logic and all that in play ?
MGNo words saying haircut isn't, no words saying anything isn't. Except pink. Pink isn't, as to one test.
Totally dependent on your reworking of several words and their meanings. |
| If you can show the genetic aspect of a haircut, then I'll obviously be wrong. |
Till then you're less obviously wrong ?
I haven't "reworked" any words or meanings. |
And thus, as I said, you are now unable to show what you claimed. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 06:34:46 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
