Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 3, 2024, 8:10 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
(August 17, 2019 at 11:41 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(August 17, 2019 at 9:37 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: So a nest is not part of a bird but because birds make them it is part of its phenotype. It is a product of their behaviour.

So again behaviour IS part of the phenotype because its in the definition of phenotype.

My confusion arises from Dawkin's (2016) definition of phenotype:

"The manifested attributes of an organism, the joint product of its genes and their environment during ontogeny. A gene may be said to have phenotypic expression in, say, eye colour. In this book the concept of phenotype is extended to include functionally important consequences of gene differences, outside the bodies in which the genes sit" (p. 449). 

And his definition of the extended phenotype:

"All effects of a gene upon the world. As always, ‘effect’ of a gene is understood as meaning in comparison with its alleles. The conventional phenotype is the special case in which the effects are regarded as being confined to the individual body in which the gene sits. In practice it is convenient to limit ‘extended phenotype’ to cases where the effects influence the survival chances of the gene, positively or negatively" (p. 443).

Unlike your definition, a bird's nest would not be traditionally considered part of the bird's phenotype; the idea of the extended phenotype is there to account for it. If a distinction is going to be made between an organism and its environment, it places behavior at an awkward crossroads between the two. For example, there is no gene that takes its expression by producing the English language; there are indeed genes correlated with verbal behaviors such as motor abilities or brain regions for producing language, but speaking English isn't the product of genes. Given your definition, speaking English is a unique trait from speaking Spanish and both are part of the organism's phenotype.

I looked up multiple definitions of phenotype and everyone had behaviour listed as in integral part of the definition.

Wikipedias definition.

Quote:The phenotype (from Greek phainein, meaning 'to show', and typos, meaning 'type') of an organism is the composite of the organism's observable characteristics or traits, including its morphology or physical form and structure; its developmental processes; its biochemical and physiological properties; its behavior, and the products of behavior, for example, a bird's nest.

From Collins

Quote:https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio.../phenotype
1.
the manifest characteristics of an organism collectively, including anatomical and psychological traits, that result from both its heredity and its environment
2.
a.
a group of organisms having a like phenotype
b.
an individual of such a group

I bolded the psychological which would include behaviours.

From thought co

https://www.thoughtco.com/phenotype-373475

Quote:An organism's phenotype (physical traits and behaviors) are established by their inherited genes.

I could go on.

Phenotype does include behaviour by widely accepted definition.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins) - by Cod - August 5, 2019 at 5:44 pm
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins) - by Sal - August 6, 2019 at 12:58 pm
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins) - by downbeatplumb - August 18, 2019 at 4:58 am
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins) - by GUBU - August 17, 2019 at 1:29 pm
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins) - by GUBU - August 19, 2019 at 3:06 pm
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins) - by GUBU - August 18, 2019 at 12:52 pm
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins) - by chimp3 - August 25, 2019 at 11:49 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !! Otangelo 56 9352 January 10, 2020 at 2:59 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Richard Dawkins claims we should eat lab-grown human meat Alexmahone 83 11323 March 18, 2018 at 6:47 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Theory of Evolution, Atheism, and Homophobia. RayOfLight 31 5153 October 25, 2017 at 9:24 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Evolution and the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy Clueless Morgan 12 2341 July 9, 2015 at 10:17 am
Last Post: Clueless Morgan
  生物学101:Genetics and Evolution. Duke Guilmon 2 2160 March 14, 2015 at 12:32 pm
Last Post: Dystopia
  Death and Evolution Exian 4 1881 November 2, 2014 at 11:45 am
Last Post: abaris
  Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler Gooders1002 2 2056 July 8, 2013 at 11:59 am
Last Post: Tonus
  Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution. Mystic 59 31013 April 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Evolution, the Bible, and the 3.5 Million Dollar Violin - my article Jeffonthenet 99 56660 September 4, 2012 at 11:50 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  difference between Micro and macro evolution Gooders1002 21 9097 May 19, 2012 at 12:27 am
Last Post: Polaris



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)