Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2013,17:37) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,22:50) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,22:02) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,21:11) | | Go here, then search for "karyotype". |
See the reply in the Biology Online forum that mentions the Chromotype listbox used in the fusion illustration software:
http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146195
The word "Karyotype" becomes ambiguous in a theory where the important thing is what happens to the chromosomes. Terminology I used is more precise, less confusing, even though you are not used to using it. |
There's nothing ambiguous about the word karyotype.
At least, biologists don't have any such problem with it.
It is interesting that Gary thinks that karyotypes have to do with something other than chromosomes.
I do agree with something Gary asserted: I am definitely not used to using gibberish. |
In a computer program listbox for selecting DNA assemblies there can easily be more than one of the same Karyotype. Neanderthal is expected to have the same karyotype as we do. Therefore labeling the listbox "Karyotype" is simply wrong.
The word "Chromotype" worked in the software. If there is a better word found then I will change it to that, but that's where it stands. I could also call the listbox "Assembly" but that only works for DNA data, not organisms which all have nonidentical chromosomes (even though the karyotype may still be the same).
Your pompous scolding with "At least, biologists don't have any such problem with it." completely ignores the scientific issue you are supposed to be addressing. As a result, you don't even know what you're talking about, and are obviously just talking trash in order to shut down the scientific process. |
I was addressing an actual scientific issue, cladogenesis involving change of karyotype in biological lineages.
I was not addressing a VB program or its author's neologisms as might have been surmised by reading the link and understanding it had nothing at all to do with ad hoc programming.
Hope that helps.
The link did show that others had considered speciation via chromosomal rearrangements, and that such rearrangements are not uniformly an absolute barrier to reproduction with the parent population. "Soapy Sam"'s objection was essentially that chromosomal change was even less often a barrier to reproduction than my linked text discussed.
Nice attempt to digress away from your assertion that karyotypes are not about chromosomes. Not that it worked, of course.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
