|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2011 : 18:38:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
The subject is not phylogeny. |
That's bizarre. I would normally catch such an error in edit. Of course the subject is phenotypes.The subject is what caused the white flamingos to turn pink. It's about PHENOTYPES, not phylogeny. Like I said, stop changing the subject. I guarantee of you do that, your understanding of the problem would improve.
{laughing hard enough to cry }. Phylogeny indeed. |
Usually, with such a gross error, a "WTF?" would suffice.No, what is happening is that you are again trying to change the subject.
As well, I do NOT say anything like that. Neither did anything I've said, indicate it.
In fact, flamingos are not Cockatoos. Not elephants. Not roller coasters. Stop changing the topic, please !
Their genetics are NOT the same as all birds' genetics, or all white birds'. It is also not correct to say that all birds have the same genetics. They do not.
What nonsense. All nonsense. |
Yes, it is nonsense!
Flamingos have different genes than do cockatoos. You ask us to focus on the differences that cause things, and so I will:Cockatoo genes plus normal diet equals white birds.
Cockatoo genes plus carotenoid-heavy diet equals white birds.
Flamingo genes plus normal diet equals white birds.
Flamingo genes plus carotenoid-heavy diet equals pink birds. What is different, CRUX? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 18:47:02 [Permalink]
|
You should read more before you attempt to raise issues. Your repetitive accusations of not being answered correctly is overruled by the fact you are found lacking in comprehension, sound logic and quite colic in civil participation on a forum where skepticism should not be confused with a dependence to have everything explained.
|
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 18:49:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
The subject is not phylogeny. |
That's bizarre. I would normally catch such an error in edit. Of course the subject is phenotypes.The subject is what caused the white flamingos to turn pink. It's about PHENOTYPES, not phylogeny. Like I said, stop changing the subject. I guarantee of you do that, your understanding of the problem would improve.
{laughing hard enough to cry }. Phylogeny indeed. |
Usually, with such a gross error, a "WTF?" would suffice. |
Normally ! But in this case you have been determined to change the question, seemingly to anything else. Soon it will be that "Big Bang had a lot to do with the flamingo being alive and pink, thus is a HUUUUUGE FACTOR !!!"
hahaha
real bafflegab |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 18:51:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 19:10:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Normally ! But in this case you have been determined to change the question, seemingly to anything else. Soon it will be that "Big Bang had a lot to do with the flamingo being alive and pink, thus is a HUUUUUGE FACTOR !!!"
hahaha
real bafflegab |
So you're done addressing anything about "the question," and have simply moved on to insults. That's a brilliant rhetorical strategy.
So the most proximal cause of flamingo color change is that their feathers reflect less of the blue end of the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. More blue or less blue, that's the difference, but I would guess that you would reject that as the cause of the color change.
A more distal cause of flamingo color change is that their feathers experience a build-up of carotenoids, which absorb more blue light than red. More carotenoids in their feathers or less, that's the difference, but I would guess that you would reject that as the cause of the color change.
A more distal cause still is that a diet heavy in carotenoids leads to a build-up of carotenoids in their feathers. More carontenoids in their diet or less, that's the difference, and that's the only cause you accept as answering the question.
And a still more distal cause is that their genes create pigment cells in their feathers in which the carotenoids build up, cells which other white birds lack. Carontenoid-absorbing pigment cells or no carotenoid-absorbing pigment cells, that's the difference, but you flat-out reject that as the cause of the color change.
So really, it looks like you've just drawn an arbitrary line along the entire spectrum of causes and said, "that's the only spot that counts for this question." You'll need to do better than repeating the question with LOTS of RANDOM CAPITAL letters to defend your choice for what "the" cause is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 19:16:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
Normally ! But in this case you have been determined to change the question, seemingly to anything else. Soon it will be that "Big Bang had a lot to do with the flamingo being alive and pink, thus is a HUUUUUGE FACTOR !!!"
hahaha
real bafflegab |
So you're done addressing anything about "the question," |
False > you wanted to know why WTF was not the response I gave. I told you why. That's not "ignoring anything about the question".
So the most proximal cause of flamingo color change is that their feathers reflect less of the blue end of the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. More blue or less blue, that's the difference, but I would guess that you would reject that as the cause of the color change.
A more distal cause of flamingo color change is that their feathers experience a build-up of carotenoids, which absorb more blue light than red. More carotenoids in their feathers or less, that's the difference, but I would guess that you would reject that as the cause of the color change.
A more distal cause still is that a diet heavy in carotenoids leads to a build-up of carotenoids in their feathers. More carontenoids in their diet or less, that's the difference, and that's the only cause you accept as answering the question.
And a still more distal cause is that their genes create pigment cells in their feathers in which the carotenoids build up, cells which other white birds lack. Carontenoid-absorbing pigment cells or no carotenoid-absorbing pigment cells, that's the difference, but you flat-out reject that as the cause of the color change.
So really, it looks like you've just drawn an arbitrary line along the entire spectrum of causes and said, "that's the only spot that counts for this question." You'll need to do better than repeating the question with LOTS of RANDOM CAPITAL letters to defend your choice for what "the" cause is.
|
and Big Bang had something to do with it.You'll have to do something better than changing the question. My capitalization was not random. Don't you know anything ?
Your whole intent is to make no item identifiable as cause, and that is not the way it works in this field. It just isn't.
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 19:23:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 19:39:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
False > you wanted to know why WTF was not the response I gave. I told you why. That's not "ignoring anything about the question". |
I wrote quite a bit more in that post that included the WTF comment. You ignored most of it.| and Big Bang had something to do with it. |
More ridicule that doesn't address the question.| You'll have to do something better than changing the question. |
More ridicule that doesn't address the question.| My capitalization was not random. Don't you know anything ? |
My ridicule wasn't really about the randomness of it.| Your whole intent is to make no item identifiable as cause... |
No, that's diametrically opposed to my intent. They are all causes. They may be weighted differently as contributors to the visible phenomenon under consideration, but none of them can be tagged as the sole cause.| ...and that is not the way it works in this field. |
Then tell us how it works, oh expert phenotyper! Within the field of phenotyping, please use your expertise to tell us the cause of the appearance of this man's facial hair:
You can leave out all things common to all biology on Earth, like the Big Bang. There can be no differences based on it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 19:51:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
False > you wanted to know why WTF was not the response I gave. I told you why. That's not "ignoring anything about the question". |
I wrote quite a bit more in that post that included the WTF comment. You ignored most of it.| and Big Bang had something to do with it. |
More ridicule that doesn't address the question.| You'll have to do something better than changing the question. |
More ridicule that doesn't address the question.| My capitalization was not random. Don't you know anything ? |
My ridicule wasn't really about the randomness of it.| Your whole intent is to make no item identifiable as cause... |
No, that's diametrically opposed to my intent. They are all causes. They may be weighted differently as contributors to the visible phenomenon under consideration, but none of them can be tagged as the sole cause.| ...and that is not the way it works in this field. |
Then tell us how it works, oh expert phenotyper! Within the field of phenotyping, please use your expertise to tell us the cause of the appearance of this man's facial hair: |
Wrong kind of question, again, Dave W. If you have some CHANGE OR DIFFERENCE, to ask about, I might have an answer if I could investigate. It's all about differences, Dave W. All about differences.
You can leave out all things common to all biology on Earth, like the Big Bang. There can be no differences based on it.
|
So then you will leave out pigments and enzymes and all the genetics and such ! Why did you refuse to do that before ? It's simple once you remove the junk you've been inserting. Now you get the point about differences. What cause the difference observed ? Very very very very very very simple.
You give half the white flamingos in a group, a certain color-enhancing food. They turn pink. Their siblings who do not get that food, they remain white. What difference was there in treatment between the two groups ? Food. It's an environmental-input-caused change or difference.
Finis. That is the sum totality. bud. You are getting it! Everything else is that tricky "biology in common" - and to be ignored !!! YES Dave W !!!!!
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 20:17:54 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 20:25:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
The subject is not phylogeny. |
That's bizarre. I would normally catch such an error in edit. Of course the subject is phenotypes.The subject is what caused the white flamingos to turn pink. It's about PHENOTYPES, not phylogeny. Like I said, stop changing the subject. I guarantee of you do that, your understanding of the problem would improve.
{laughing hard enough to cry }. Phylogeny indeed. |
Usually, with such a gross error, a "WTF?" would suffice.No, what is happening is that you are again trying to change the subject.
As well, I do NOT say anything like that. Neither did anything I've said, indicate it.
In fact, flamingos are not Cockatoos. Not elephants. Not roller coasters. Stop changing the topic, please !
Their genetics are NOT the same as all birds' genetics, or all white birds'. It is also not correct to say that all birds have the same genetics. They do not.
What nonsense. All nonsense. |
Yes, it is nonsense!
Flamingos have different genes than do cockatoos. You ask us to focus on the differences that cause things, and so I will:Cockatoo genes plus normal diet equals white birds.
Cockatoo genes plus carotenoid-heavy diet equals white birds.
Flamingo genes plus normal diet equals white birds.
Flamingo genes plus carotenoid-heavy diet equals pink birds. What is different, CRUX?
|
White Flamingos are not white Cockatoos. That's the first difference there. The second difference is seen between the flamingos groups. The difference there - the SOLE difference - is the diet. For our science, that means "differing environmental input" is the SOLE cause of the difference seen. the third difference seen is between the different species. While white Flamingos color up with shrimp food, white Cockatoos do not. What is the cause of that difference ? Different genetic make up. THIS is where the talk of genes comes in.
The SOLE CAUSE of the coloring-up difference seen between the first two and second two groups, is "species difference". That is; the genetic make-up of the two species involved, is different - and indeed, you do see a different response to the dietary input in this case.
It's annoyingly simple, I know. It's perfect. I know that nobody else has ever explained it as I do, and it does seem "not right", that it could ever be so simple.
But I can explain why it's like that. If you have only one variable, any difference must indicate the SOLE cause. Yes.
Thank you all, and Good Night ! |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 21:47:14 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 22:14:54 [Permalink]
|
So finally CRUX in a round about way has accepted flamingos turn pink because of a combination of diet and genetics. The link I provided which he was asked to read already covered that and more. But CRUX kept insisting it was all diet.
original post by CRUX
Thank you. You're fully done now. Environmental change ( in diet ) alone, causes white flamingos to turn pink.
The link answer is irrelevant to the question posed about the change.
|
Here is what the link said about flamingos and other birds.
originally posted via link by Justintime
The pink or rosy plumage in flamingos results from a combination of their genetics, which produces the pigment granules in the feathers, and carotenoids in their food. Hence, zoo personnel have to provide flamingos with special carotenoid-rich shrimp in their diet if these birds are to maintain their natural color. Simply 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. Moreover, the red color in most birds, such as cardinals, tanagers, and red-tailed hawks, does not depend on their diet. |
http://accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=16&questionID=5678
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 02:23:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
The subject is not phylogeny. |
That's bizarre. I would normally catch such an error in edit. Of course the subject is phenotypes.The subject is what caused the white flamingos to turn pink. It's about PHENOTYPES, not phylogeny. Like I said, stop changing the subject. I guarantee of you do that, your understanding of the problem would improve.
{laughing hard enough to cry }. Phylogeny indeed. |
Usually, with such a gross error, a "WTF?" would suffice.No, what is happening is that you are again trying to change the subject.
As well, I do NOT say anything like that. Neither did anything I've said, indicate it.
In fact, flamingos are not Cockatoos. Not elephants. Not roller coasters. Stop changing the topic, please !
Their genetics are NOT the same as all birds' genetics, or all white birds'. It is also not correct to say that all birds have the same genetics. They do not.
What nonsense. All nonsense. |
Yes, it is nonsense!
Flamingos have different genes than do cockatoos. You ask us to focus on the differences that cause things, and so I will:Cockatoo genes plus normal diet equals white birds.
Cockatoo genes plus carotenoid-heavy diet equals white birds.
Flamingo genes plus normal diet equals white birds.
Flamingo genes plus carotenoid-heavy diet equals pink birds. What is different, CRUX?
|
White Flamingos are not white Cockatoos. That's the first difference there. The second difference is seen between the flamingos groups. The difference there - the SOLE difference - is the diet. For our science, that means "differing environmental input" is the SOLE cause of the difference seen. the third difference seen is between the different species. While white Flamingos color up with shrimp food, white Cockatoos do not. What is the cause of that difference ? Different genetic make up. THIS is where the talk of genes comes in.
The SOLE CAUSE of the coloring-up difference seen between the first two and second two groups, is "species difference". That is; the genetic make-up of the two species involved, is different - and indeed, you do see a different response to the dietary input in this case.
It's annoyingly simple, I know. It's perfect. I know that nobody else has ever explained it as I do, and it does seem "not right", that it could ever be so simple.
But I can explain why it's like that. If you have only one variable, any difference must indicate the SOLE cause. Yes.
Thank you all, and Good Night !
|
Brilliant move DaveW. Great line of questioning.
You finally got CRUX to explain in his own words why white Flamingos color up with shrimp food.
Originally posted by CRUX
white Flamingos color up with shrimp food, white Cockatoos do not. What is the cause of that difference ? Different genetic make up. THIS is where the talk of genes comes in. |
Here CRUX says the cause of that difference flamingos color up with shrimp food is their genetic make up. White cockatoos do not (color up) is again different genetic make up from the flamingos.
So genetics is what makes the difference which causes flamingos to color up with shrimp food.
And that is what we have been saying all along. It just takes some people a little longer to get it. Should we close this thread so we can prevent another rehash of a very silly argument by a very silly person.
|
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 04:30:02 [Permalink]
|
The set of untruths justintime has indulged in, above, is shameful.
He pretends that he has been "saying it all along", and that now I've confessed the truth, finally. That is a lie.
Here is justintine offering a sneaky untruth:
| justintime said: So genetics is what makes the difference which causes flamingos to color up with shrimp food. |
How is justintime creating the false rhetorical impression ? Does it matter which difference we are talking about ? Of course it does. Not to justintime.
He suddenly has untruths to fabricate, when "gene" and "difference" and "color" are mentioned together!
It matters not, to justintime, that the difference being talked about is not about white flamingos turning pink. It was about something else. It was this; | The SOLE CAUSE of the coloring-up difference ****seen between the first two and second two groups*****, is "species difference". That is; the genetic make-up of the two species involved, is different - and indeed, you do see a different response to the dietary input in this case. |
Now, once again to make sure nobody gets fooled by the untruthful justintime's bulky post: :
Regarding FLAMINGOS: What is the SOLE CAUSE of the difference in PHENOTYPE, between white and pink ?
| DIET difference, NOT genetic difference |
Regarding THE TWO SPECIES: What is the cause of the difference in RESPONSE, between the two species ? | GENETIC difference between the two species |
The wonderfully fun question and initial observations by M. Goldstein - after streamlining away from all the junk being thrown at it - comes out as a beautiful, clear, simple product. So easy - so true. Justice has been done at last.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UKvpONl3No
Sing-along with M Goldstein [to the melody "If I had a hammer" ]
"If I get a hair cut,
Da dum dee da da dum..."
Thank you, all
CRUX...if it matters |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 06:56:58 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 06:45:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
The set of untruths justintime has indulged in, above, is shameful.
He pretends that he has been "saying it all along", and that now I've confessed the truth, finally. That is a lie.
Here is justintine offering a sneaky untruth:
| justintime said: So genetics is what makes the difference which causes flamingos to color up with shrimp food. |
How is justintime creating the false statement ? Does it matter which difference we are talking about ? Of course it does.
Not to justimtime. He suddenly has untruths to fabricate, when "gene" and "difference" are mentioned together!
It matters not, to justintime, that the difference being talked about is not about white flamingos turning pink. It's about something else.
Now, once again to make sure nobody gets fooled bv the untruthful justintime's bulky post: :
Regarding FLAMINGOS: What is the SOLE CAUSE of the difference in PHENOTYPE, between white and pink ?
| DIET difference, NOT genetic difference |
Regarding THE TWO SPECIES: What is the cause of the difference in RESPONSE, between the two species ? | GENETIC difference between the two species |
The wonderfully fun question and initial observations by M. Goldstein - after streamlining away from all the junk being thrown at it - comes out as a beautiful, clear, simple product. So easy - so true. Justice has been done at last.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UKvpONl3No
Sing-along with M Goldstein [to the melody "If I had a hammer" ]
"If I got a hair cut,
La da dee dum dee dum..."
|
Give it up ragland. You never made any sense before and you still don't make any sense here. The play on the word difference does not change the fact neither does the attempt to cover your track with the word SOLE, you got trapped by DaveW.
You used the wrong line to cover your admission. 
Read it again.
Originally posted by CRUX
While white Flamingos color up with shrimp food, white Cockatoos do not. What is the cause of that difference ? Different genetic make up. THIS is where the talk of genes comes in. |
Slam dunk by DaveW I am not even taking the credit for this. That is the integrity I bring to this forum. 
|
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 06:58:42 [Permalink]
|
haha
the above purveyor of lies, said nothing. |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 07:01:09 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 07:39:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
haha
the above purveyor of lies, said nothing.
|
If people only knew what you are behind the anonymity of CRUX aka MG, aka ragland, How you live, your education level and your compulsive need to lie, distort and what else is evident here. They will be more sympathetic like I have been. Welcome!!!! |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 09:22:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| Your whole intent is to make no item identifiable as cause... |
No, that's diametrically opposed to my intent. They are all causes. |
To my mind, communication and building
of thought occurred, between Dave and I, at this juncture.
I would like to retract my statement about his intent. Once the difference became about a sole cause vs. untold number of causes all contributing, I think that is where the weather broke.
Regarding the proposed analysis on the beard pic: the concept of leaving out all the junk is now a common conceptual approach for us...
You can leave out all things common to all biology on Earth, like the Big Bang. There can be no differences based on it.
|
...which results in the consolidation of the notion that only the things that changed, are to be related. Under testing, only the diet was different, so the causal relation is the sole relation, and the relation is between change in diet and change in color, or phenotyype.
So it's good
"If I get a haircut,
Da dum dee da da dum dee..."
CRUX...if it matters |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 12:54:48 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut 2
