What's the difference between a Coral Glow and a Banana?

[dgring]

Its kind off like butters and lessors

[Pythonfriend]

you cannot prove that they are the same morph, but the reason for this is NOT that they are different, the reason is that logic only allows you to prove certain things. and this is not something you can prove.


well, actually, now you can, with genetic sequencing. that aside....

what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. since there is no evidence of the morphs being different, the claim that they are different can be dismissed.

claiming that they are the same, until someone actually comes up with evidence that shows that they are not the same, is a good position to take.

like, with god, ähem, no, i mean, fire-breathing dragons: i say im quite sure there is no such thing, and i will stand by that position until someone can prove that fire-breathing dragons do exist. and when people claim that fire-breathing dragons do exist, i ask for evidence, and as long as there is no evidence, i am under no obligation to further consider the claim. after all, if fire-breathing dragons are real, there should be some evidence. and if banana and coral glow are not the same morph, there also should be some evidence.

this is also consistent with occams razor: when different hypotheses compete, the one that requires fewer assumptions to explain all the facts should be selected. the facts are that we have BPs with new cool visuals, black dots, weird sex ratios and stuff. one hypothesis says that its a morph, and it has two different names. the other hypothesis says that its two morphs, with one name for each. the first one is better because it explains the facts just as nicely as the second one, but only assumes one new morph instead of two. as soon as new facts come along that require two seperate morphs in order to be explained, the first hypothesis would no longer work because it fails to explain all the facts, occams razor would no longer apply, and the second hypothesis, that banana and coral glow are different, would win the battle.

so there are no fire-breathing dragons, and banana and coral glow are the same morph. prove me wrong and i stand corrected.

*puts his philosophers hat aside*

[OhhWatALoser]

Morph has a vague definition. Sometimes it is referring to the phenotype. Banana and CG have the same phenotype. Proving without a doubt they are the same morph.

[Pythonfriend]

Morph has a vague definition. Sometimes it is referring to the phenotype. Banana and CG have the same phenotype. Proving without a doubt they are the same morph.

*puts on philosphers hat*

actually its not proven at all. lets say, 20 years from now, some scientist figures out that all bananas have a certain proteine in their blood, that coral glows dont have. or 10 years from now, some kind of disease comes along, some BP superbug, and coral glows turn out to be resistent, but not bananas. you cannot prove without a doubt that something like this will never happen, you just dont know. yes its unlikely, but its not impossible. and something like that would be part of the phenotype, even if they still look the same.

the hypothesis that they are the same morph can be disproven, its falsifiable. but the hypothesis works, and as long as its not disproven, its the best one. proving stuff is for mathematicians.

*puts philosophers hat aside*

[Badgemash]

*puts on philosphers hat*

actually its not proven at all. lets say, 20 years from now, some scientist figures out that all bananas have a certain proteine in their blood, that coral glows dont have. or 10 years from now, some kind of disease comes along, some BP superbug, and coral glows turn out to be resistent, but not bananas. you cannot prove without a doubt that something like this will never happen, you just dont know. yes its unlikely, but its not impossible. and something like that would be part of the phenotype, even if they still look the same.

the hypothesis that they are the same morph can be disproven, its falsifiable. but the hypothesis works, and as long as its not disproven, its the best one. proving stuff is for mathematicians.

*puts philosophers hat aside*

phenotype - noun
BIOLOGY1.
the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

Blood proteins and immune responses do not fell under the definition of phenotype, you cannot see them. You are referring to genotype.

[Pythonfriend]

phenotype - noun
BIOLOGY1.
the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

Blood proteins and immune responses do not fell under the definition of phenotype, you cannot see them. You are referring to genotype.

ob·ser·va·tion (bzr-vshn)n.1. a. The act or faculty of observing.
b. The fact of being observed.

2. a. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
b. The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.

3. A comment or remark. See Synonyms at comment.
4. An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing.


---------

anything that can be measured with any device or instrument is observable. that includes not just your eyes, but also your ears, sense of smell, your infrared temp gun, the hubble space telescope, the results from gas chomatography or X-ray crystallography and a multitude of other things. we have no human eyes on mars, yet we observe a lot. thats how it is in science, and a scientific definition of "phenotype" would obviously utilize the scientific definition of "observation". no one has ever seen an atom, or a neutrino, or a supermassive black hole, but we can observe them. thats good enough, our eyes are quite limited anyway.

[OhhWatALoser]

Morph still has a vague definition, I'm going to use in in referring to the characteristic I can personally observe, as most still do. Now proven without a doubt.

[Badgemash]

Pythonfriend, I think you're getting a bit buried in semantics and missing the main idea, especially when there's no properly constrained definition of "morph."

[Pythonfriend]

Pythonfriend, I think you're getting a bit buried in semantics and missing the main idea, especially when there's no properly constrained definition of "morph."

not semantics, its all about ontology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

and when you look at the pointless quarrels in the first two pages of this thread, and since it is all about identifying if banana or coral glow are two seperate entities or just one, this is right on the money. i am sorting out all the crap that came up during the first two pages of the thread by introducing the philosophical analysis that is required to properly sort it out.


and my conclusion is simple: banana and coral glow are the same unless proven otherwise. and when really big and experienced breeders say they see no difference, this is not an appeal to authority, it merely shows that banana and coral glow being seperate morphs is unlikely.

for example there was:

Originally Posted by MarkS

The originators of those morphs are Kevin for the coral glows and Will Slough for the banana, Kevin had hatched quite a few. I think Brock has both lines and has also hatched quite a few so is in a position to make comparisons between a lot of different babies from both lines.

Can you still provide evidence that states they aren't besides asserting we should believe a big name cause they say so?

Originally Posted by wienkeg

virtually impossible to disprove a negative

So, no one can prove they aren't. We should just take someone's word for it.

Got it.

i just had to step in with some philosophy. when people demand someone proves something that is FUNDAMENTALLY UNPROVABLE, how can you sort it out without going a bit deeper into philosophy? i am a science nerd, and also quite a nerd about the history of science and natural philosophy. on the side, i also showed why the most rational position to take when it comes to religion is that god does not exist, unless you are convinced that there is evidence that god does exist.

for me, on the specific issue, the thread is pointless anyway: banana and coral glow are identical until PROVEN otherwise. that they are identical CANNOT be proven. (well, with genetic sequencing actually its now possible, but to do that beyond reasonable doubt would require us to sequence the genome of quite a lot of ball pythons). but that they ever turn out to be dissimilar is extremely unlikely. i delivered the tools that are required to understand why that is the case. but the tools i delivered have other uses as well, you can apply them to questions like: did aliens visit earth? does god exist? does homeopathy work? should i or should i not vaccinate my children against diseases that could kill them? is Uri Geller for real? what really happened on 9/11? is global warming / climate change for real?

what i did is nothing more or less than a decent reality check. if you want to argue, and we all like that, better be properly prepared.

basically, tools for correct thought, that were missing in this thread and were necessary to settle the issue on hand.

[Kodieh]

Philosophy is for people who don't want real jobs. If they cut Phil out of all colleges, nothing would be different.

That being said, OWAL is right and you are splitting wrong hairs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk