|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 10:00:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
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.
| I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards. An individual organism's phenotype is the sum-total of all of its observable characteristics. A species' phenotype would be those characteristics that all individuals of that species share. But I think I've been sloppy a couple of times and used "phenotype" when I should have used "phenotypic." |
- 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 : 10:10:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
that doesn't mean there isn't one. | Exactly correct, but trivial for any claim. | please explain how it is trivial for any claim. This is more unsupported 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". | Yes, maybe.After all, it's a haircut ! Let's not lose sight of that fact.
Entirely environmental sources of observable features on animals are not phenotypic. | sez you. Unsupported claim again.
please show support for that. show a good site, stating exactly that, or as close as you can find.
The only way that a genotype can act is through its environment. | so ?
An organism's genotype always acts "at the same time" with the environment throughout an organism's entire life | so ? to give it whatever phenotype it has at any given point in time. | so you say ? pinkness is not encoded for. hehehe
A genotype cannot possibly act independently of its environment. | so you say ? I agree.
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").
| I definitely did not say "random". therefore your criticism is not on target.
It's more of your unconscious game. You just added a particular and strong word to mine and then proceeded. You did not quote me, that is true, but you took my words and added one, and thus you merely invalidate your own criticism. You argued against a strawman.
Gene influence can be seen across species boundaries. This is the grab bag, genes of the animal and all processes involved that give the organism "an ability" such as pigment utilization.
Indeed, the gene influence may be seen across species boundaries, some of the flamingo's grab bag may be present in a cat's bag of encoding, along with the mechanisms that afford a certain "ability". The Sonic Hedgehog story is a good example.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 10:36:55 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 10:16:43 [Permalink]
|
I said to another :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. |
You chime in with I don;t care if you then say I said another thing I didn't say..first you confirm, then you substitute, then you refuse to show where I said either one.
so please, please do say what I said. don't make stuff up for me. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 10:30:44 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 11:03:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
MuhammedGoldstein, your bastardization of phenotype makes the word completely useless. | Excuse, Ricky, but it was not I who did the alleged "bastardization", it wsa Berkeley. I did find out to my.
To my surprise, the "bastardization as you refer to it, widens understanding.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 11:05:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
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. | good work. I like that way of expressing the idea.
By this definition, when considering a phenotype you only are picking a few of all its phenotypes. | beautiful.
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.
| well done. Would be nice to work into epigenetics now, I think. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 11:10:53 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 11:20:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
please explain how it is trivial for any claim. | I've never seen a square circle, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. I've never seen a 500 MPH bicycle, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. I've never seen an invisible pink unicorn, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. It's trivial in that the same rejoinder can be made in response to any claim, so it's fairly meaningless.This is more unsupported claim. | No, in discussions such as this one, those things that are trivial should be self-evident. That's what makes 'em trivial.Entirely environmental sources of observable features on animals are not phenotypic. | sez you. | Since "phenotype" is defined as the combination of genetics and environment, a feature that appears on an organism for entirely environmental reasons would not be part of the phenotype (it wouldn't be a "trait" or "characteristic" then, anyway - lip gloss is not characteristic of chimpanzees or even of a single chimpanzee).No, just you seeming to want to use your own definitions.please show support for that. show a good site, stating exactly that, or as close as you can find. | The Berkeley site will be fine as support for the definition of "phenotype."The only way that a genotype can act is through its environment. | so ? | You spoke as if a genotype could act independent of environment.An organism's genotype always acts "at the same time" with the environment throughout an organism's entire life | so ? | You spoke as if a genotype could act independent of environment. to give it whatever phenotype it has at any given point in time. | so you say ? pinkness is not encoded for. hehehe | Pinkness is in the environment, and the genes simply encode for the allowance of the pinkness to propagate through the feathers. Pinkness is not encoded. The ability to turn pink in response to certain environmental factors is. And if carotene were green, flamingos would be, also, without any modification in their genes.I definitely did not say "random". therefore your criticism is not on target. | What one pulls out of a grab bag is random. That's the point. Once again, I didn't say that you said it, you just used words which meant it. A phenotype isn't random, it's nothing like a grab bag.It's more of your unconscious game. You just added a particular and strong word to mine and then proceeded. You did not quote me, that is true, but you took my words and added one, and thus you merely invalidate your own criticism. You argued against a strawman. | Not at all: you used a word incorrectly (again), and refuse to see how that diminishes the quality of the dialog, instead vainly trying to heap blame on me.Gene influence can be seen across species boundaries. This is the grab bag, genes of the animal and all processes involved that give the organism "an ability" such as pigment utilization.
Indeed, the gene influence may be seen across species boundaries, some of the flamingo's grab bag may be present in a cat's bag of encoding, along with the mechanisms that afford a certain "ability". The Sonic Hedgehog story is a good example. | And still you use the term incorrectly.
Oh, you also wrote:then you refuse to show where I said either one. | Again: just because you refuse to read the substantiation doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
On the other hand, I've asked you several times now to support your claim that Cuneiformist is making a claim. Why have you not done so? |
- 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 - 06/09/2008 : 11:54:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Entirely environmental sources of observable features on animals are not phenotypic. |
please show support for that. show a good site, stating exactly that, or as close as you can find. | Wikipedia:
The phenotype is composed of traits or characteristics. Some phenotypes are controlled entirely by the individual's genes. Others are controlled by genes but are significantly affected by extragenetic or environmental factors. |
The interaction between genotype and phenotype has often been conceptualized by the following relationship:
genotype + environment = phenotype |
|
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 12:11:15 [Permalink]
|
Nova Science NOW
[Edited link for layout purposes. //Dr. Mabuse] |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/10/2008 14:30:55 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 12:26:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Simon
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.
| I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards. An individual organism's phenotype is the sum-total of all of its observable characteristics. A species' phenotype would be those characteristics that all individuals of that species share. But I think I've been sloppy a couple of times and used "phenotype" when I should have used "phenotypic."
|
You are probably right; there;mea culpa.
But; I think that it is now accepted that the word 'phenotype' can be restricted to mean 'only the bit of the phenotype you actually are interested in'. I certainly have seen used in this sense often. But maybe we are all butchering the language. |
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 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 12:39:40 [Permalink]
|
Ugh. Nothing is worse than posting a link with no explanation. What a waste of 13 minutes. |
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/10/2008 14:31:50 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 12:40:46 [Permalink]
|
please explain how it is trivial for any claim. |
I've never seen a square circle, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. ... I've never seen an invisible pink unicorn, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. It's trivial in that the same rejoinder can be made in response to any claim, so it's fairly meaningless. | just because the same response can be made for almost any claim, doesn't make any particular one meaningless, either. Another non sequitor.
but if you claim otherwise, then we can add this claim to the list as well, the unsupported list.
You claim a tingle in someones arm is meaningless, yet they know better than to listen to you. It is is understood that you find no meaning in certain things.
MG
This is more unsupported claim. |
No, in discussions such as this one, those things that are trivial should be self-evident. That's what makes 'em trivial. | OK New Claim HERE. self-evident. That's what makes 'em trivial | Stop right here.
this is wonderful. I'll do my gloating in private.
plus
Simon has accepted some of the proposition. Step one to removing the grip of the bad memes.
GoodBye for Now !!
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 12:55:37 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 12:49:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
OK New Claim HERE. | No, it isn't. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of science should know when something is trivially true. That's what your "so?" responses meant, was it not?
I also note that again, you are focused on distractions and failing to discuss anything of import.
Hey, Cune: does it say anything in those 13 minutes about hair cuts being phenotypic? |
- 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 : 12:59:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
OK New Claim HERE. | No, it isn't. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of science should know when something is trivially true. That's what your "so?" responses meant, was it not? | No. it wasn't. I asked you to make your point, in other words.
Now. Again, you haven't demonstrated that it is "trivially true".
Though I do admire the new method of discernment. If something is self evident...then it's trivial.
We know I didn't say the first. We know I didn't say the second.
So where is it that you think I said it, so I may respond ?
why are you so hush about it ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/09/2008 13:05:09 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 13:00:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
just because the same response can be made for almost any claim, doesn't make it meaningless, either. Another non sequitor. | Not "almost" any claim, any claim. It is trivially true that just because I've never seen a chrome swan, that doesn't mean that there aren't any, but so what? It doesn't mean there are any, either. The trivially true construction "just because you haven't seen _____ doesn't mean there aren't any" is meaningless because it adds exactly nothing to a dialog. It isn't evidence, it isn't logical support for any position, it's nothing more than a sophomoric restatement of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (which itself is trivially true but sounds a lot better), which is why nobody was claiming "impossibility."but if you claim otherwise, then we can add this claim to the list as well, the unsupported list. | Can you support your claim that I (or Cuneiformist) have made unsupported claims?You claim a tingle in someones arm is meaningless, yet they know better than to listen to you. | Wow! Talk about putting words in someone's mouth! That takes the cake!You do have ideas on what is meaningless, though it is understood that you find no meaning in certain things. | Another trivially true statement. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|