a) The observable characteristics of an individual.
b) The expression of the genes present in an individual. This may be directly observable (eye color) or apparent only with specific tests (blood type). Some phenotypes such as the blood groups are completely determined by heredity, while others are readily altered by environmental agents.
c) The visible or measurable characteristics of an organism.
d) Physical, clinical or biological characteristics of an organism, determined by the interaction of its genetic make-up with the environment.
e) The visible properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
f) Observable characteristics of an organism produced by the organism's genotype interacting with the environment.
g) The overall attributes of an organism arising due to the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
h) the physical expression of the genotype, ie, that which is coded in the genes and observable in the physical structure of a given organism i) the genetically and environmentally determined appearance of an organism.
j) The outward appearance of an individual
k) The effect made on the organism by the genes that it carries. Some genes (see genotype) may have no effect.
l) the visually observed characteristics of an individual; physical appearance.
m) a set of observable physical characteristics of an individual organism. A single characteristic can be referred to as a "trait," although a single trait is sometimes also called a phenotype. For example, blond hair could be called a trait or a phenotype, as could obesity. A phenotype can be the result of many factors, including an individual's genotype, environment, and lifestyle, and the interactions among these factors.; The observed manifestation of a genotype. ...
n) what an organism looks like as a consequence of the interaction of its genotype and the environment
o) The phenotype of an individual organism is either its total physical appearance and constitution, or a specific manifestation of a trait, such as size or eye color, that varies between individuals. Phenotype is determined to some extent by genotype, or by the identity of the alleles that an individual carries at one or more positions on the chromosomes. Many phenotypes are determined by multiple genes and influenced by environmental factors. ...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Do you understand the distinction between phenotype and genotype from ALL of these definitions?
The overall attributes of an organism arising due to the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
From this definition it should be quite clear that it is and error to say that phenotype = genotype, for the same reason that it is and error to say that phenotype = environment.
Physical characteristics are shaped by environment, and or genetics and or happenstance, [ie convergent evolution] = correct.
Phenotype = happenstance = not correct.
Phenotype = environment = not correct.
Phenotype = genotype = not correct.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biology 111 Prof. Richard Fox, Biology dept. Lander University
Taxonomists use similarities to know which organisms are closely related and which are not.
As we have seen, our classification system is based on the evolutionary relationships between organisms.
The way we recognize the degree of those relationships is by looking for similarities of phenotype between organisms.
Those that are most alike are assumed to be the most closely related and those less alike are less closely related.
We take similarity (in appearance, anatomy, behavior, biochemistry, etc) to be evidence of genetic relationship but this is not always a valid assumption.
There are two kinds of similarity between phenotypes.
They are Analogy and Homology but only one of them is useful for establishing phylogenies.
The other is less than useful for it leads us into errors resulting in the construction of false phylogenies and classifications.
When two unrelated organisms end up resembling each other we refer to the process as convergent evolution and the resulting similarity is analogy. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
all of these definitions are essentially the same: an individual's physical appearance is determined by his genes and to some extent his environment; ie, an obese couple will usually produce an obese child. I don't see your objection to these simple explanantions...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The *distinction* between phenotype and genotype is fundamental to the understanding of heredity and development of organisms. - Richard Lewontin, Harvard University
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Environment and diet all affect impact / phenotype. In even some instance junk DNA may also figure (extent unknown)in the equation. In a homogenous population, the phenotypic visual representation of the individual is always the same (Sweden, e.g.). When you encounter places like Egypt, Brazil, Cuba and even areas of North Africa, the variability (phenotype) is so vast and 'extreme' (outliers) that it make one more cognizant of the variability/expression in the same gene(s).
I am looking at some of my friends, neighbours, etc and even though their parentage is native American, African for the most part, their children's phenotype is far removed from their parents.
My neighbour Mexican/Greek (husband) and African/Irish-English (wife) when you look at their blond chirren you are surprised. Or my Lebanese surnamed neighbour with his African wife with chirren looking like Italians! I have a cousin with African phenotyle (from an unnamed Caribbean island? and an obviously African phenotyped hushband with a 'European' looking child! C'est la vie!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol is correct about making a distinction of what "phenotype" is and what "genotype" is. This is the most basic stuff one needs to understand before even going into genetics, or biology.
Phenotype is the result of genotype, but it isn't genotype; genes undergo randam mutations, as well as influenced by external enviromental pressure.
Phenotypic similarities may be the result of gene flow or simply happenstance; hence, it doesn't necessarily imply genetic closeness.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: My neighbour Mexican/Greek (husband) and African/Irish-English (wife) when you look at their blond chirren you are surprised. Or my Lebanese surnamed neighbour with his African wife with chirren looking like Italians! I have a cousin with African phenotyle (from an unnamed Caribbean island? and an obviously African phenotyped hushband with a 'European' looking child! C'est la vie!
Why have you thrown this into the mix and reminded us that there are no simple answers.
I am only joking its always good to be reminded that there are no absolutes in sciences. Great comment.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It simply has nothing to do with "absoluteness"; it is simply wrong to mistake phenotype with genotype. Thus, we can "absolutely" say that doing so, is wrong; plain and simple. What a genotype is, is "absolute". What a phenotype is, is also "absolute". The meanings of these terms are not subject to personal interpretation. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Thus a modern day white American with blonde hair and blue eyes may still have black African ancestry from as recently as a few centuries ago and as genetic studies show, some do in the form of maternal lineage.
If you were to look at me, you would easily categorize me as Caucasian. I'm the ruddy sort that burns quickly, with reddish hair now shading into white. Most people hazarding a guess might say Scottish, which is what I have always said. Just to be sure, I recently submitted my DNA to see what the incontrovertible scientific evidence might show. The result was surprising (though in some ways not surprising): I carry the DNA marker found in great abundance among the Fulbe tribe of contemporary Nigeria.
Sure, maybe the marker is about as significant as my Charlemagne genes. On the other hand, that very Nigerian coast is the tribal location where many slaves were captured and held in the notorious slave castles until traders' galleys could transport them to American ports. The main harbor that received more slaves than any other on the eastern seaboard was Charleston, South Carolina. My mother's family has lived there nearly 300 years. Maybe I have a Thomas Jefferson problem.
Whenever it was that a black woman(FN3) entered my bloodline (and my white ancestor entered hers), it's no longer apparent in the way I now look. I am Caucasian as surely as my Fulbe cousins are black, because race is a set of visual cues we all recognize--skin shade, nose shape, eyelid folds, cheekbone prominence, etc. We hold these vague blueprints of race in our heads because, as primates, one of the great tools of consciousness we possess is the ability to observe patterns in nature. It's no surprise that we'd train this talent on ourselves.
...So what is so surprising about dark-haired, dark-eyed Greeks having black ancestry from thousands of years ago?!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
NRY (Non-Recombining Y chromosome) "junk genes" are not known to be effected by environment nor linked to physical feature determining genes.
That's precisely why they're so excellent for reliable unbiased lineage tracing.
This is why some white males are shocked to find the E3b African lineage in their heritage when their physical features deny African intermixture. Likewise for some black males when they find R1b.
See Vallone (July 2004)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The *distinction* between phenotype and genotype is fundamental to the understanding of heredity and development of organisms. - Richard Lewontin, Harvard University
A typical example of bourgeois social scientists' compartmentalization of knowledge. There is no separation between phenotype and genotype in the creation of an organism. They are intrinsically linked. You will not have wooly hair if you don't have the wooly hair gene... This is a forum about Ancient Egypt and Egyptology and any usage of DNA here, IMO, should be directed towards using it to delineate the relations of the Royal lineages, and especially the common peoples, where it exists. Anything else is a pointless diversion...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^You are right that there is no seperation between genotype and phenotype, but here's the key things:
Phenotype = genotype + environment
This means that all observable phenotypic features are the result of genes as well as the organisms interactions with the environment.
You could have identical twins born with identical genes but leave one twin in an impoverished area with poor nutrition and the other in a wealthy area with plentiful food and you are going to have some differences such as height.
And..
Not all genotypes are associated with phenotype.
The genotypes that we speak up-- ones that determine lineage have no bearing whatsoever on phenotype.
Thus a person can look European but still carry recent African lineages.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...All genes determine the appearance of an individual, and have a direct bearing upon how an individual looks; thusly, all genotypes are intrinsically linked to the appearance of an individual.
There is absolutely nothing odd about a White guy who has in his background, some Black folks, or visa versa.
We need to start to become less fascinated with this embryonic 'science,' (does anyone remember the O.J. Simpson trial?) and get back to African history (use DNA as a discipline regarding Nile Valley civilization); this forum isn't about the story of mankind... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All genes determine the appearance of an individual
No Wally they do not. Non-coding genes have no effect on morphology at all. This means they are not subject to enviromental selection and modification. In turn this means that - in some cases - they function as excellent markers of time and ancestry. And this is the basis of lineage markers and of the molecular clock.
This may seem arcane - but it is very important to understand this material, if we truly want to advance our learning of African history.
It's time to move on beyound quoting Herodotus and leaning on Diop.
quote:There is absolutely nothing odd about a White guy who has in his background, some Black folks, or visa versa.
Who said it was odd?
The point alTakruri made is that skin color does not necessarily equate to lineage [or ancestry] and therefore does not define or prove "race" in biology.
There's nothing odd about that either, but amazingly some refuse to accept it.
quote:We need to start to become less fascinated with this embryonic 'science,'
Nah....Genetics is old, and gets older every day. People who refer to it as a "new science" get older still and eventually moot themselves by their inability and unwillness to grow intellectually.
quote:and get back to African history (use DNA as a discipline regarding Nile Valley civilization); this forum isn't about the story of mankind...
So much for your 'genotype is the same as phenotype' argument.
Didn't last long. At least you know when to quit. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So much for your 'genotype is the same as phenotype' argument.
...I never said that genotype is the same as phenotype; what I said is that they are intrinsically linked...
And the statement that skin color (or eye color for that matter) has nothing to do with ancestry is an example of the abuse of common sense.
The bottom line here, is that Herodotus and Diop have more to do with African history than does DNA, blood groups, etc, as discussed here on this forum.
Very few here seem to want to discuss the history of Nile Valley civilizations...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will only say this: Kennewick man was called "caucasian" because of certain features even though he bears only a distant relation to Europeans and a much closer relation to East Asians.
Melanesians and aboriginal populations of the Pacific share many features in common with Africans both in skin color as well as facial features, but their relation to Africans is even more distant than the Ainu relation to Europeans.
And again, phenotype is a result of genotype PLUS environment. Phenotype itself is a result of ancestry but cannot be indicative of a specific ancestry.
I hope this helps.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I never said that genotype is the same as phenotype; what I said is that they are intrinsically linked...
You orignally asked:
quote:How is it possible to say that phenotype and genitic lineage are two very different things? It isn't.
The answer is:
quote:The *distinction* between phenotype and genotype is fundamental to the understanding of heredity and development of organisms.- Richard Lewontin, Harvard University
You responded by mocking Lewontin remarks as "petty bourgiouse social science" - but Lewontin is a noted evolutionary biologist, it's actually your rejoinder that is social - really - pseudo - science.
Phenotype is distinct from genotype.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Just one point concerning the following:
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
And the statement that skin color (or eye color for that matter) has nothing to do with ancestry is an example of the abuse of common sense.
...basically what is being said, is that skin color cannot be used to predetermine genetic closeness between and among populations; hope that helps.
And now, good luck to those who wish to explain these issues further...it could be a long day.
lol, what we have here supercar is "petty-bourgeois" scientific illiteracy trying to pawn itself off as "common sense" Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has been bothering me for a while. Phenotype IS determined by genes or genotype. However all the genes that determine phenotype is so small and they DO NOT equal amount of relatedness. Other genes besides the ones that determines how an organism or individual looks is more strongly associated with ancestory especially since there is only one human race with different variations of features. So guys Wally is not wrong to say that how an organism looks is because of its genotype. I will write more when I have the time. I gotta run now!
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Do you understand the distinction between phenotype and genotype from ALL of these definitions?
The overall attributes of an organism arising due to the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
From this definition it should be quite clear that it is and error to say that phenotype = genotype, for the same reason that it is and error to say that phenotype = environment.
Physical characteristics are shaped by environment, and or genetics and or happenstance, [ie convergent evolution] = correct.
Phenotype = happenstance = not correct.
Phenotype = environment = not correct.
Phenotype = genotype = not correct.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This has been bothering me for a while. Phenotype IS determined by genes or genotype.
Under selective pressure from environment, correct.
quote:However all the genes that determine phenotype is so small and they DO NOT equal amount of relatedness.
Not only that, but similarity of phenotype does not equate to similarity of genotype.
Wings are a phenotype.
Flight is and attribute of the wing phenotype.
Birds have the wing phenotype imparting the flight attribute - result of genetics and environment.
Bats have the wing phenotype imparting the flight attribute - result of genetics and environment.
Bees have the wing phenotype imparting the flight attribute - result of genetics and environment.
Yet there is no genetic relationship between Bee's , Bats and Birds imparting this phenotype.
It is the result of analagous, not homolugus evolution.
quote:So guys Wally is not wrong to say that how an organism looks is because of its genotype.
Keins that is not in dispute.
What is disputed is his statement that genotype and phenotype are not distinct.
In fact they are and the distinction is very significant and crucially important, as you have just been shown, and as and evolutionary biologist has explained.
posted
The reason for the over-extended posting on what was essentially definitions of Phenotype, is that I sure know how to get rasol, supercar, and the other mtDNA heavy hitters worked up over this subject.
So much so that rasol made the following misstatement, more than once:
quote: You stated that "phenotype is not distinct from genotype". That statement is false. You will fail any biology course making that statement.
If memory serves, I got B's in biology (7th and 10th grades); since I never would make such a statement that "phenotype is not distinct from genotype," what I would say is what I have already said: phenotype and genotype are intrinsically linked."
quote: Intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing
You know like, no genes = no phenes But the gist of my follow up statements, really echo what Ausar posted 13 March, 2006
quote: Hello posters of the ancient Egypt and Egyptology section of Egyptsearch. I really appreciate the genetic and anthropological knowledge of various posters like rasol,Thought,supercar,and others, but one thing lacking is more discussions about the spiritual practices, cultural pratices, language and outlook of the ancient Egyptians themselves.
And to follow this and my own advice, I'm working up a posting on "The Essence of Maat" ...coming soon...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Indeed. You cannot run away from the FACTS that..
quote: Kennewick man was called "caucasian" because of certain features even though he bears only a distant relation to Europeans and a much closer relation to East Asians.
Melanesians and aboriginal populations of the Pacific share many features in common with Africans both in skin color as well as facial features, but their relation to Africans is even more distant than the Ainu relation to Europeans.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It is possible to reference combinations of phenotypical traits - which in turn would be caused largely be genetic factors in scientific terms.
Ectomorph: short upper body, long arms and legs, long narrow feet and hands, and very little fat storage. This body type has a narrow chest and narrow shoulders and long, thin muscles.
Basketball players for example, tend to be ectomorphic.
However - little to nothing can be inferred about the geneology or ancestry of ectomorphs.
Ectomorph is not a lineage.
Phenotype is not genotype.
And neither phenotype nor genotype nor lineage offer any proof of the existence of 'races', in humans. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic