|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2008 : 11:55:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Also, you should consider a dictionary so you can stop confusing word definitions for words that are clearly not synonyms.
You are out of your depth here, and its obvious that you have no intention of engaging anyone here in an actual discussion. |
Maybe he's French?
Dave and Kil, I'm sorry about not having kept up with my moderation duties in this thread. This guy is almost as obnoxious and obtuse as Jerome, and cartainly as prolific. I haven't had the time or the patience to keep up. Cudos to Cune for trying.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 12:26:21 [Permalink]
|
Yes indeed, but now we're talking symbiosis.
|
Oups; I missed this particular statement.
I don't think we can really speak of symbiosis here; symbiosis would be integrating living planktonic cells.
Here, the nudibranch break the cells apart and steal some of its organelles for its on purpose.
Ok; here do use the term symbiosis.
Although here they use a different term: Kleptoplasty. It sounds better to me. These are different mechanisms after all.
Also; please let me know when I am getting obnoxious.  |
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 |
| Edited by - Simon on 06/11/2008 12:27:35 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2008 : 13:16:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by Kil
filthy:
Proceed whence? I find this thread baffling to the extreme. |
No shit.
At some point I should probably put on my administrators cap. The only reason I haven't is that lots of folks seem to want to play and there have been no real violations (unless you count being purposely obtuse and treating regular members as if they just fell off the back of a turnip truck as a violation.)
|
Nah. We get that turnip truck stuff all the time. It doesn't bother me if you can live with it.
But I'm beginning to find it a pretty good place to elaborate on what could be quite an interesting topic. All you have to do is stop being led along.
|
refusing to be led, without sufficient reason, might not look so good, if one is pursuing the topic.
|
I think that I have sufficent reason for refusing to be led. Before one can lead, one must first have a direction and some sort of forward motion. At this juncture, I haven't seen much of either.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 14:14:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Yes indeed, but now we're talking symbiosis.
|
Oups; I missed this particular statement.
I don't think we can really speak of symbiosis here; symbiosis would be integrating living planktonic cells.
Here, the nudibranch break the cells apart and steal some of its organelles for its on purpose.
Ok; here do use the term symbiosis.
Although here they use a different term: Kleptoplasty. It sounds better to me. These are different mechanisms after all.
Also; please let me know when I am getting obnoxious.
|
You are being obnoxious! Go wash your mouth out with cheap bourbon!
"Symbiosis," like many another term, can sit between fuzzy lines sometimes. The nudibranch's aquisition of it's prey's stinging cells is not an example of such because it does not benefit the jelly/anemone/other nudibranch/whatever at all, indeed, quite the contrary, as the doner is not only robbed, but eaten. The cell theft is but a side effect of predation.
The Komodo's bacteria-caused infected gums and loose teeth are closer to being symbiosis due to the lizard giving the microbes (some 9 species if memory doesn't fail me) opportunities to increase their reproductive range, with the deer, water buffalo and swine that are the prey acting as temporary, intermediate hosts, albeit dead hosts. This is a rather horrid form of it, but symbiosis never the less, and it has been in place for a very long time.
Another odd example is the pea crab's relationship to oysters. The oyster provides hearth & home for the tiny crab, but gets nothing in return beyond the company. Indeed, the crab might even nibble at it's generous host and suddenly we have an exoparasite rather than a symbiote.
But drifting back toward the topic of the OT.... I think.... Maybe. The crustations that give flamingos it's color is no more than a curiosity to the naturalist. The process has been described, and has become little more than a factiod useful only in a basic biology class or a trivia game. What is interesting is that this bird is a filter-feeder, rather like a baleen whale in scrawny, bipedal microcosm. It's bill has very deep and close serrations that allows it to scoop up water and expell it through the serrations, trapping it's prey. Of course, it takes a lot of minute crustations to make a meal, so a flamingo could be observed for some considerable time, just wading along and scarcly lifting it's head other than to check for danger. It's bill is bent at an extreme angle and it's nostrils are located far up at the it's base so that it can easily breath while feeding.
Is that cool, or what?!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 17:54:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
From this post:
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
with your statement, Cune, when the genetics are acted upon by the environment, the birds turn pink.
Unfortunately, not always so : If there is no pigment feed, no pink.
so bad. Bery bsd ! |
Oh, come on!
If a flamingo eats a lot of beta carotene, it presents a different environment to its genetics than if it does not.
The same genotype (flamingo) combined with different environments (high in beta carotene or not) results in different phenotypes (pink feathers or white feathers, respectively).
|
for sure ! good thought. We need to add it to make Cune's statement make sense if one is unfamiliar with all of this stuff.
Conversely, if a flamingo does not eat beta carotene, it presents a different environment to it's genetics than if it does. That different environment might make a white bird stay white.
so we need to cover that. it's not just any environment that turns them pink. |
You have to be joking. This is what everyone here has been saying through the entire thread. Seriously. We have all know this.
Now that it's taken us 16+ pages to agree on something that no one has disagreed with (?), make your point.
(Edit: post #4000)
|
Congrats on post #4000, Cuneiformist!
I disagree with MuhammedG's statements which I've bolded above. A flamingo's genes or genetics are not affected by its environment, including diet. I haven't found any information which suggests that gene transcription is affected by the presence or absence or beta carotene in the diet (though gene transcription in general does definitely depend on a number of factors, & some genes are induced by presence of a particular substance).
Flamingos are white birds which happen to display a pink coloration when their diet contains certain molecules, or precursors, which absorb light in the wavelengths we experience as "red". In the wild, their diet normally contains a large quantity of these molecules. The coloration is reversible; with a change in diet, the pink coloration will fade. I can't find specific mention of why it is that flamingos (and some other birds) manifest color based on diet & others don't. However, I'm also not finding mention of genetic variation among flamingos in how they handle & display this diet-induced-coloration. (The only mentions of "albino flamingos" I find seem to be jokes - a white bird of some other sort who lives among a flock of flamingos, that sort of thing.) If the basis for the variation between members of a species is not ultimately genetic, then the variation is not phenotypic.
Human skin appears yellow-orange after a person ingests a large amount of beta carotene. Not genetic, except that this color is more visible in someone whose skin contains little pigment, and less visible or not visible in someone whose skin contains alot of pigment. Still, the beta carotene is there.
MG, repeat after me: Phenotype does not include acquired nongenetic characteristics such as haircut.
[edited to fix quote]
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
| Edited by - Zebra on 06/11/2008 17:55:30 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2008 : 18:23:25 [Permalink]
|
Heh, handling certain high explosives such as trinitrotolene (TNT) bare-handed can quickly make you look like you have jaundice. it's pretty much the same deal, really; coloration, but not pigmentation, from an outside source.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/11/2008 18:31:35 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 19:04:15 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Zebra for the congrats.
As for flamingos and turning pink-- I think it is genetic. Notice my comments here.
But you're right-- the genes don't change. That should be clear. But the phenotype (genes plus environment) does.
At least, that's the reading I've gotten from various sources over the last week or so. |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 21:01:24 [Permalink]
|
Ah, yes, thanks Cuneiformist - I'd forgotten about that link, from ~20 pages ago.
But have you found any actual information about where/how the coloration occurs, & specifically whether or not it's on a genetic basis? Have you found any information to suggest that there is genetic variation among flamingos in how they handle carotenoids, & how pink they get?
The most detailed description I've found so far is in Chapter 6 here, in an online biology text from UMass, under "The Skin of Birds" (bolding added by me):
| Colors in feathers are the product of two mechanisms: physical structure and the presence of chemical pigments. Red, yellow, brown, and black are chemical pigments, whereas physical structure and the associated light scattering produce white, blue, and iridescent colors. Brown and black are caused by melanin taken up from the germinal region of the follicle. Red, orange, and the pink of the flamingo are caused by carotenoids in the keratinized cells of the feather and are of dietary origin. White is produced by air in cells and by the polygonal shape of the barbule cells, which breaks up the light and reflects and refracts all wavelengths. Blue is caused by the scattering action of particles in cells located beneath the outer layer of the feather barbs, resulting in the reflection of blue, whereas the longer wavelengths are transmitted. The combination of structural blue with yellow pigment results in green. |
This doesn't explain for me why flamingos, but not some other white birds, turn pink when eating a diet high in carotenoids - maybe flamingos absorb carotenoids freely from their GI tract & many other white birds don't? Maybe flamingos don't have a system for metabolizing &/or excreting carotenoids, whereas other white birds do? Maybe there's some difference as to how/why/when the carotenoids get from the bloodstream into the keratinized cells of the feathers? If flamingos invariably turn pink when they eat their usual diet because all of their cells are steeped in carotenoids, & other white birds wouldn't turn pink on this diet because they handle carotenoids differently, then there is a genetic difference between the species, but the basis for the flamingos pinkness is not, I'd claim, "genetic".
(There isn't - to my knowledge - a known difference in how humans "handle" a large oral intake of carotenoids. Beta carotene acts like a pretty widely distributed "dye" in us, I think).
Anyone find any evidence that there's genetic variation within/among flamingos with respect to the "handling" or "display" of carotenoids?
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 22:24:54 [Permalink]
|
| I was under the impression - because unhealthy flamingos lose coloration - that the pink is also sexually selected, in which case the environment would affect the genes over time. Becoming pinker with less beta carotene would offer a competitive advantage. |
- 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 - 06/11/2008 : 23:58:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
From this post:
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
with your statement, Cune, when the genetics are acted upon by the environment, the birds turn pink.
Unfortunately, not always so : If there is no pigment feed, no pink.
so bad. Bery bsd ! |
Oh, come on!
If a flamingo eats a lot of beta carotene, it presents a different environment to its genetics than if it does not.
The same genotype (flamingo) combined with different environments (high in beta carotene or not) results in different phenotypes (pink feathers or white feathers, respectively).
|
for sure ! good thought. We need to add it to make Cune's statement make sense if one is unfamiliar with all of this stuff.
Conversely, if a flamingo does not eat beta carotene, it presents a different environment to it's genetics than if it does. That different environment might make a white bird stay white.
so we need to cover that. it's not just any environment that turns them pink. |
You have to be joking. This is what everyone here has been saying through the entire thread. Seriously. We have all know this.
Now that it's taken us 16+ pages to agree on something that no one has disagreed with (?), make your point.
(Edit: post #4000)
|
Congrats on post #4000, Cuneiformist!
I disagree with MuhammedG's statements which I've bolded above. A flamingo's genes or genetics are not affected by its environment, including diet. I haven't found any information which suggests that gene transcription is affected by the presence or absence or beta carotene in the diet (though gene transcription in general does definitely depend on a number of factors, & some genes are induced by presence of a particular substance).
Flamingos are white birds which happen to display a pink coloration when their diet contains certain molecules, or precursors, which absorb light in the wavelengths we experience as "red". In the wild, their diet normally contains a large quantity of these molecules. The coloration is reversible; with a change in diet, the pink coloration will fade. I can't find specific mention of why it is that flamingos (and some other birds) manifest color based on diet & others don't. However, I'm also not finding mention of genetic variation among flamingos in how they handle & display this diet-induced-coloration. (The only mentions of "albino flamingos" I find seem to be jokes - a white bird of some other sort who lives among a flock of flamingos, that sort of thing.) If the basis for the variation between members of a species is not ultimately genetic, then the variation is not phenotypic.
Human skin appears yellow-orange after a person ingests a large amount of beta carotene. Not genetic, except that this color is more visible in someone whose skin contains little pigment, and less visible or not visible in someone whose skin contains alot of pigment. Still, the beta carotene is there.
MG, repeat after me: Phenotype does not include acquired nongenetic characteristics such as haircut.
[edited to fix quote]
|
NOTE TO KIL:
As you could see - if you wanted to see - I agreed with some of Dave's statement, he apparently agreed with my additional comments, Cune insists we are all saying the same thing * as you also insist most vehemently.
well, how wrong can one be ? pretty wrong, as seen here:
what happens ?
Zebra disagrees with something , something that he seems not to understand, that I offered a type of corollary in agreement with Dave's statement.
I don't think Zebra's position is resolved yet, in fact; his position relating to his interpretation of my statements, or his own position on some of the factual matters, neither is stable.
Please quit the bullshit that I used up all the thread space. I'm not the only one here.
There are conversations, between others, that are going on here, and there is also plenty of slag from your side which is occupying serious amounts of the thread too.
I am not involved in this recent conversation, for instance.Yes indeed, but now we're talking symbiosis.
Oups; I missed this particular statement.
I don't think we can really speak of symbiosis here; symbiosis would be integrating living planktonic cells.
Here, the nudibranch break the cells apart and steal some of its organelles for its on purpose.
Ok; here do use the term symbiosis.
Although here they use a different term: Kleptoplasty. It sounds better to me. These are different mechanisms after all.
Also; please let me know when I am getting obnoxious. |
It took this long and still I have to correct people who disagree with me when I agree with Dave.
You blame me for not answering a question where I must agree with a mock-up construction of my position, or I face a penalty.
If I take apart the construction word by word, then you will slam me some more for for doing word by word critique.
I had great difficulty trying to get them to accept my wording on that simple sentence that you finally OK'd.
It was my wording, for me to use.
It is OK'd now....as legitimate and understood by all; a sentence that was described as "holding water"... not a leaky vessel.
What a struggle with you guys just to accept a sentence. You guys offering me weak versions to use instead.
Yet I am to be compelled to accept someone else's wording or get penalized.
So cork it Bud.
It was not the length of the thread, nor the communications difficulty you say I present. Difficulties are surmountable for patient people.
No , it was the subject matter.
We are not all saying the same thing. Stop telling that particular untruth, please.
I'm calling your bluff again, Kil, in case you were in doubt.
Your screaming insistence that I answer a post is out of line. Many many posts were addressed to or at me and I answered as I had time. It took a lot of my time, too.
So you know where to put your demand that I have to do this or that. Let the thread proceed naturally.
Enjoy, or close, your choice. or boot.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 02:40:28 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 00:48:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Let's see if Berkeley responds, so that I don't take up too much more of your time. |
I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but what, exactly, did you ask them?
|
I'm not sure why you're asking, since you seem to have given up on trying, then come back again, give up, come back...
oh...what I am asking them ?
"Do you really mean what you wrote ?" that would be something, yeah. Biologists don't "mean it like that", you know ? I've learned that here.
biologists don't mean it like that.
Let's see if they reply.
So what,exactly, if anything, would you like to know from them ? or nothing ?
Just curious ?
any way, this is the way I look at it:
our whole disagreement on one matter rests within one post, between Dave and me.
on the broader view, if Dave is correct, ( that's the way I also used to understand it ) then they should make some changes in their webpage, possibly. I can't see children not taking the words at face value.
If Dave is wrong, then you're all wrong, and I get the Pope's Crown, and you should give me a spot here, "Muhammed's Meme-Busting Corner" , just in return for putting up with you.
So it's win/win
Here, in essence, is reason for them to change it if Dave is right
MG said:
If you insist on inserting words , then your problem is with Berkeley, or with your memes. |
Dude said
My "problem" is your refusal to comprehend basic English sentences.
The Berkeley site contains only basic data. Just because they do not include more detailed info on phenotype does not mean that this is all the data there is on the subject.
Get over yourself and go learn something. |
MuhammedGoldstein
Skeptic Friend
I had previously asked if there were any objections to using the site.
I take it that this information is too basic?
"The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink." Berkeley
too basic or too clear ? Remember, this group is putting it out for teaching kids, this info from them.
Will kids, just learning, think it means what you think it means, or what Berkeley wrote ?
fancy it up for them, will ya |
| A change in the environment also can affect the phenotype. Although we often think of flamingos as being pink, pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
Seeing Cune's success with composing one sentence, I am encouraged to invite all of you to "fancy it up"; reword that passage so that it doesn't read like that. Show us how it should read, the way biologists would teach it on a website for children's education. Go ahead, SFN. Improve on Berkeley's sentence without making it mean the opposite of what it clearly says now. Or admit that it needs to be fixed !
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 04:03:48 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 02:13:24 [Permalink]
|
dave| You're reading something into Berkeley's words that isn't there: "pink is not encoded in the genes" doesn't mean "pink is 100% due to the food." |
N.B. Dave's foolish neglect of wording here. It's no wonder he feels free to change my words. Here he uses "genes" synonymously with "genotype", not understanding the difference ! The significance being, that the genotype referred to is only in regard to one item. The bird has genetic encoding for "pigment-use enabling", but no gene exists for pink. That is up to the pigment feed to accomplish - just as I have hair that is encoded for as to it's characteristics, so that it does hold a dye for a month or so, but the actual colour, the observable colour of my hair, may depend on my choice of dye, after I bleach it.
MGwe all are prone to alter wordings, but when it's pointed out, it is only proper to retrace and start again.
Berkeley
| Although we often think of flamingos as being pink, pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. |
Dave
| You're reading something into Berkeley's words that isn't there: "pink is not encoded in the genes" doesn't mean "pink is 100% due to the food." |
Berkeley
The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
MG
[quote]Now it's only for people to dismiss Berkeley's statements as mistake or say "It really doesn't mean that" |
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 03:46:44 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 03:58:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Heh, handling certain high explosives such as trinitrotolene (TNT) bare-handed can quickly make you look like you have jaundice. it's pretty much the same deal, really; coloration, but not pigmentation, from an outside source.
|
excellent point that is often missed. Take dogs that are black and brown, like a german shepherd,
the breeders often speak of pigmentation, not colour. but they are usually correct, in that case, because they are speaking on the level of depth of pigmentation. a very rich "colour" vs. a more faded look.
So the colour of the dog is known as black and red/gold, let's say.
And that comes in a range of pigment depths. So they talk about pigmentation as the variable. When they say "strongly pigmented" it does not mean a dark-coloured dog. Gold colour can be said to be very strongly pigmented too. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 04:07:17 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 04:03:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
NOTE TO KIL:
As you could see - if you wanted to see - I agreed with some of Dave's statement, he apparently agreed with my additional comments, Cune insists we are all saying the same thing * as you also insist most vehemently.
well, how wrong can one be ? pretty wrong, as seen here:
what happens ?
Zebra disagrees with something , something that he seems not to understand, that I offered a type of corollary in agreement with Dave's statement.
I don't think Zebra's position is resolved yet, in fact; his position relating to his interpretation of my statements, or his own position on some of the factual matters, neither is stable. |
Well, it's pretty simple. The information I presented (gained, ultimately, from a web site you provided) suggested that there was a genetic factor that distinguished flamingos from, say, egrets, white ibis, and swans in terms of beta carotene turning them pink. That's about the best I can do, since I'm not a biologist. Zebra wants some more concrete proof of the genetic aspect-- which is fine. But I'm not in a position to provide it.
If this has been your position all along, then stand back in awe of your complete inability to express it. Zebra did it in one post which everyone understood quite well. You? Well, let's just say that even after 20 pages, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.
| Please quit the bullshit that I used up all the thread space. I'm not the only one here. |
No, but you are the only one who doesn't make any sense, sending us all around in circles.
| There are conversations, between others, that are going on here, and there is also plenty of slag from your side which is occupying serious amounts of the thread too. |
The man doth protest too much, methinks.
What a struggle with you guys just to accept a sentence. You guys offering me weak versions to use instead.
Yet I am to be compelled to accept someone else's wording or get penalized. |
So cork it Bud.
It was not the length of the thread, nor the communications difficulty you say I present. Difficulties are surmountable for patient people. |
OK, "bud" but I lost my patience quite awhile ago. Your position and your point are still unclear.
| We are not all saying the same thing. Stop telling that particular untruth, please. |
That WHAT are you saying?!?!
|
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 04:19:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
NOTE TO KIL:
As you could see - if you wanted to see - I agreed with some of Dave's statement, he apparently agreed with my additional comments, Cune insists we are all saying the same thing * as you also insist most vehemently.
well, how wrong can one be ? pretty wrong, as seen here:
what happens ?
Zebra disagrees with something , something that he seems not to understand, that I offered a type of corollary in agreement with Dave's statement.
I don't think Zebra's position is resolved yet, in fact; his position relating to his interpretation of my statements, or his own position on some of the factual matters, neither is stable. |
Well, it's pretty simple. The information I presented (gained, ultimately, from a web site you provided) suggested that there was a genetic factor that distinguished flamingos from, say, egrets, white ibis, and swans in terms of beta carotene turning them pink. |
therefore you're stumped because of the words "beta caroteine turning them pink".
..it tells me that you know it is the pigments. Yet you know there is a genetic component> So you mix the sentences, and come up with an answer.
That's about the best I can do, since I'm not a biologist. |
I have confidence that you CAN do better, and don't need to be a biologist in order to figure this out.
Zebra wants some more concrete proof of the genetic aspect-- which is fine. But I'm not in a position to provide it.
If this has been your position all along, then stand back in awe of your complete inability to express it. |
or it's your meme-locked minds. I chose not to use words that you insist on using incorrectly. So you couldn't comprehend. That's your problem. I can pull up posts to show that I did say it over and over. I am only shocked that you finally realized it. I thought you never would.
You guys even tried to defend evolution, as a knee-jerk reaction to seeing something about it challenged, or so you thought. It's like being covered in ants, you know. Not every move looks so co-ordinated.
but you stomp em in the end.
If you're not a liar.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 04:28:55 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut 2
