|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2008 : 06:59:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
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 ? |
Oh my god. You aren't making any sense. I am skeptical of your claim that getting a haircut is a phenotypic difference. At this point (since you're making the claim that it is), you should offer convincing evidence.
| If you can show the genetic aspect of a haircut, then I'll obviously be wrong. |
Till then you're less obviously wrong ? |
No, till then, you will have failed to prove your point.| I haven't "reworked" any words or meanings. |
And thus, as I said, you are now unable to show what you claimed. |
No, you're unable to show that a haircut represents an observable characteristic of an organism that has resulted from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
I don't see how this can be. So again, please show me how a haircut represents an observable characteristic of an organism that has resulted from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
If you are correct, and if we assume that most humans have had a haircut in the last year, then we can posit that there are ca. six billion human phenotypes. At which point, "phenotype" has virtually no meaning. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/09/2008 07:01:17 |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 07:32:43 [Permalink]
|
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 ? |
| Oh my god. You aren't making any sense. I am skeptical of your claim |
You may indeed by skeptical about any part or whole of my claims. That is your right.
However, that matters little, as you outright refuse to back your claims. and the Berkeley site IS quite clear on both statements.
At this point (since you're making the claim |
yes, I am making a claim at this point. My claim, of course, is that you refuse to support your claim, when asked to. You make claims,then refuse to show any evidence.
All I can say at this point, is that your refusal is self evident, it is written above, and not worth pursuing.
Your opinion must be of fine grade for you to value it so highly against what the Berkeley people said :pinkness is not encoded for.
I have given as much explanation on any question as I could , to so many questions. Whether or not you accept any of it, is your choice, of course.
What you have done, though is to refuse to support your claim at all.
I spent pages explaining , but if you don't like the explanations, that is fine.
I accept that. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 08:48:07 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 08:00:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
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 ? |
| Oh my god. You aren't making any sense. I am skeptical of your claim |
You may indeed by skeptical about any part or whole of my claims. That is your right.
However, that matters little, as you outright refuse to back your claims. and the Berkeley site IS quited clear on both statements. |
I don't see any genetic aspect of a haircut. You haven't offered any. The Berkely site clearly says:| An organism's phenotype is all of its observable characteristics—which are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment. |
Clearly, there is a relationship there. I don't see that relationship in your haircut example.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 08:07:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
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 offered a detailed explanation of why considering a trait as a quale necessarily means that you're ignoring genotype and thus not discussing phenotype.| 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 ? |
Oh, please. The fact is that I didn't quote you (didn't use quote marks nor a quote block), I was referring to the meaning of the words you used. If you're going to level charges of intellectual dishonesty, you should look to yourself, first.| Yes,looking for only delta quale. I said that. Thank you ! |
And by saying that, you mean that genetics are ignored. If not, then you are using the word "quale" improperly.| 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. |
And you've got a great ability to ignore the point in favor of this sort of trivial distraction, and then you've got the nerve to complain about irrelevancies?As if the problem with the meanings of words is my fault.
You also wrote:| Offering such a thing and then scoffing at any replies is not going to get us on topic very well. |
And you making a generalization from me scoffing at your missing the point of my ludicrous "example" to me scoffing "at any replies" shows us where your logic ends. You've obviously got no evidence of anything related to phenotype and whatever point you're trying to make after your week-long search, otherwise you would have already delivered it. Is your intent to do nothing more than scoff at the scoffers?| Now you admit that it's not impossible for "haircut" to be a phenotypic difference ??? Good. |
And now you're being condescending, and also implying that I once held a position that I did not.| A question can be found to correspond with that phenotypic difference seen. |
And what question would that be?
You also wrote:| heres the credits. Do they mean what they said ? |
Ah, a massive argument from authority.
You also wrote:| They do not say that phenotype cannot have another relationship, such as environmental influence. |
Everybody here has been saying that phenotype is the combination of genes and environment. But if phenotype is everything, then the word loses its meaning. So the question remains: is a haircut phenotype or not? Have you not been paying attention?
Also: what "claim" is Cuneiformist making? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 08:15:47 [Permalink]
|
Hey, I never get haircuts. (Unless you count trimming off split ends from time to time.) I am of the greying ponytailed bearded phenotype. I also prefer wearing shorts to long pants in almost any weather (accept rain). Add that to my phenotype. My feet were hurting so I got some better tennis shoes. You know, good ones. Now my feet don't hurt. A slight adjustment to my phenotype in the tootsie region.
This is fun... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 08:19:26 [Permalink]
|
MGFirst 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 offered a detailed explanation of why considering a trait as a quale necessarily means that you're ignoring genotype and thus not discussing phenotype. |
first, you made a claim that I said something.
I asked for the spot that I said it.
You did not have a good reply, instead you claimed that I said it "because" I say ... "traits" !!
I ask you to show where I said "traits".
I get this substitution instead. You cannot show what you claim. fine.
I ask you to use my words. Is that so terribly difficult ? Why not do that instead of making up my words for me ?
| 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 ? |
| Oh, please. The fact is that I didn't quote you (didn't use quote marks nor a quote block) |
let's not play this game. You certainly did not supply a "meaning" of my words that I agree with in any way shape or form, so I object to your forwarding of these as my words.
That is simple and honest request, and I therefore expect you to do so if you would like a reply . |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 08:27:45 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 08:42:38 [Permalink]
|
now that I've taken care of the legitimacy of your requests for more explanation - when one is refusing to back up his claims, and the other is misquoting me time after time and demanding an explanation - both closed the door to dialog, IMO, - and thus do not deserve any more replies with explanations, until the one shows his proof and the other stops misquoting me.
However there are others, and I will reply to the requests for more explanation in this way:
It seems you are asking me to back up "my" claim that haircut is a phenotypic difference.
I started out by enquiring about it, and got some positive "no" answers. When I queried those answers, I did explain MY OPINION on why I think Berkeley said what it did, and why they are correct in regard to both questions, 1/ and 2/.
I wonder if I could get the proper quote of "my" original claim, that I might respond ?
I'd be more than happy to explain as best I can if someone is interested. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 09:00:21 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 09:03:43 [Permalink]
|
Let me repeat the definition of phenotype:
A phenotype is the expression of a given -or a given set- of inheritable genetic information.
The fact that it is genetically encoded is known or assumed in the definition of a given phenotype.
You can postulate that there is a encoded genetic propensy in getting a given haircut and, yes that would make it a phenotype as far as your postulate is concerned.
In fact, this is done routinely to investigate the genetic underpinning of some human characteristic or behaviour.
When scientists want to investigate the genetic cause of cancer, for example; they divide their group into two phenotypes: 'developed cancer' 'did not develop cancer' and look for similitude in their genetic (either by looking at the repartition of various lineage between the two groups or by looking at genes suspiciously super-represented by one group).
Similarly, the same approach has been to human behaviour such as violence of homosexuality.
People have assumed that they were phenotypes and started looking for genetic markers that would be more present in one of the group.
But such a correlation is difficult to establish unambiguously, unless there is some strong causation effect between the genetic and the phenotypes. This is the reason why the 'gay gene' has been announced multiple times to have been discovered and, yet, its existence still remain debated... |
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 09:29:21 [Permalink]
|
The Berkely site clearly says:| An organism's phenotype is all of its observable characteristics—which are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment. |
Clearly, there is a relationship there. I don't see that relationship in your haircut example.
[/quote]that doesn't mean there isn't one. As to "haircut", it may be that it has a heritable component, it may be that it has an environmental component, it may have both. But it can't have "none of the above".
Since Berkeley states that AN ORGANISM's phenotype is the whole of the observable characteristics, who are you to claim something is a characteristic or isn't a characteristic ?
Note that they did not say Phenotype, but an organism's phenotype as a whole.
"A" particular phenotype could be any of very many phenotypes we might choose to investigate - this does not have to involve the whole organism's phenotype - being influenced by it's genotype and the environment does not say " both at the same time acting together". It does not say "they act separately" either, in this definition.
As a matter of fact, we don't necessarily need to know know the strength of influences, when we experiment. We watch for changes.
So, though this definition is about the whole organism's observable characteristics. a grab bag. we also may be interested in examining a particular question, and use only whatever phenotypes may apply.
Thus there is "a" flamingo's phenotype.
If we wish to study something of interest, in the group, we proceed to
choose phenotypic differences that will tell us something when we toggle.
For instance, with flamingos, we toggled diet, searching for any effect of diet on colour white phenotype.
We found a 100 % correlation of colour change with diet change, from white to pink.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 09:36:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 09:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
let's not play this game. You certainly did not supply a "meaning" of my words that I agree with in any way shape or form, so I object to your forwarding of these as my words. |
That's exactly correct: you have been using your own, private meaning for words in a way that clearly disagrees with modern usage. I supplied proper usage (quale denies phenotype), and rather than correct yourself or supply any evidence or answer any questions or rebut any points, you have instead decided to play this game. And then you complain about playing the game you began, and you complain about being "misquoted" when you never were.
And to top it all off, you've now used this as a lame excuse to refuse to demonstrate that Cuneiformist was making a claim like you claim he is.
The more you continue along these lines, the more obvious it is that your OP was rhetorical, and you're simply here to scoff at those who might disagree with some agenda you've set for yourself regarding some secret point you think is just fascinating about phenotypes after a week of study. |
- 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 - 06/09/2008 : 09:43:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
that doesn't mean there isn't one. |
Exactly correct, but trivial for any claim.| As to "haircut", it may be that it has a heritable component, it may be that it has an environmental component, it may have both. But it can't have "none of the above". |
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Entirely environmental sources of observable features on animals are not phenotypic.| Since Berkeley states that AN ORGANISM's phenotype is the whole of the observable characteristics, who are you to claim something is a characteristic or isn't a characteristic ? |
You should look up the word "characteristic" as it applies to biology.| ..being influenced by it's genotype and the environment does not say " both at the same time acting together". |
The only way that a genotype can act is through its environment. An organism's genotype always acts "at the same time" with the environment throughout an organism's entire life to give it whatever phenotype it has at any given point in time. A genotype cannot possibly act independently of its environment.| This definition is about the whole organism's observable characteristics. a grab bag. |
If it were a grab bag, then we should be able to find instances of a cat mating with a dog and producing fish as offspring. That doesn't happen. Phenotype isn't random ("a grab bag"). |
- 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 : 09:44:02 [Permalink]
|
let's not play this game. You certainly did not supply a "meaning" of my words that I agree with in any way shape or form, so I object to your forwarding of these as my words. |
| That's exactly correct: you have been using your own, private meaning for words in a way that clearly disagrees with modern usage. |
Added: one more unsupported claim to the list.
First you said I said something.
After I asked for proof , you offered a second bullshit as my words.
Upon protest, you now offer a third unsubstantiated claim, on my usage of words....
this instead of just posting my words.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 09:47:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 09:51:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
First you said I said something. |
And you did.| After I asked for proof with a a direct quote, you offered s second bullshit as my words. |
No direct quote was necessary, because I didn't quote you (like you falsely claim I did).| Upon protest, you now offer a third unsubstantiated claim, on my usage of words.... |
Just because you refuse to read the substantiation doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.| this instead of just posting my words. |
Why should I post your words when I wasn't quoting you?
Do you deny that you used the word "quale" and tried to relate it to "phenotype" despite a quale being a property that is examined independent of anything which might have that property, while a phenotype is necessarily intimately linked to the organisms which express it? You already admitted to using the phrase "delta quale," but it can have no more relation to "phenotype" than does "quale."
And when are you going to substantiate your claim that Cuneiformist was making a claim? Pot, meet kettle. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 09:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Let me refine my definition.
There is actually two definition of the phenotype.
One one hand, an individual does not have ONE phenotype.
It has an almost infinite number of them, one for just about any of its gene or gene combination.
By this definition, when considering a phenotype you only are picking a few of all its phenotypes.
But, as a short-cut of short, I have seen people using the singular phenotype when it would be more clear for them to use 'phenotypes' in its plural form as they are talking about the totality of the possible phenotypes that constitute the characteristics of an individual.
Of course; this use is essentially in theoretical discussions as it would not be feasible to look at all the phenotypes of any given individual; let alone a population. |
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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
