is Phenotype All ?

Esteemed scientists say it is so - it's so regardless of your experiences.

No, I don't see that, am I just missing it? He talks about philosophers' coinage of different terms, and he talks about the so-called gene-p as an abstraction of the genetic determinant of a phenotype, but he to my reading doesn't talk about differential usage in different fields of science.

Most geneticists and many evolutionary biologists use an abstract gene concept.

Esteemed scientists aren't what matter. It's usage that matters. But since you bring them up I've worked with a lot of esteemed scientists in this field and while I won't speak for them they all have a consistent use of a basic word like "gene". And Dawkins esteem isn't as a scientist, by the way. He's a writer with popular appeal to atheists who feel affronted. I'm an atheist who has no need for his point of view.

I'm quoting here...

they are what matters for our discussion, as I'm knitting together what esteemed scientists say !

That's a very vague statement and I don't agree that what he's communicating is the presence of some sort of lexical division within the biological sciences.

Most geneticists and many evolutionary biologists use an abstract gene concept.

Well, it may be interesting to see, but unless you get them all in a room and ask them all the exact same question, then their musings on the subject aren't going to shed light on the functional use of a word like "gene" in science. They may alternatively define it, but then again 100 esteemed sciences may also alternatively define "dog" or "amoeba".

If you really want to answer this question, just go into medline or some other scientific journal search engine and type in "gene" as a search term. Then go through articles and determine whether there is a consistent difference in its use between medical scientists / physicians, evolutionary biologists, developmental biologists, molecular biologists, etc.

What is he communicating, then? To me, it seems very clear and concise. He talks of the two general classifications that are used, and tendency to use them by which kind of scientist.

his only elaboration is in philosophers' uses of the term.

Either way, this is not even his point -- his point that which follows, i.e. the source of a gene transcript can be a number of complex variants. His (very!) brief statement about the semantics of a gene is just a prelude.

But again, the way to prove this one way or another is to study it. Study usage of the word in practice by looking at the actual literature. If that's even important enough a question to demand the effort...

There are no RNA genes except in RNA-based viruses like HIV and influenza.

His "point" is not important to this discussion. His point is about his use. His preamble tells you that I was correct; that evolutionary biologists and geneticists often use the abstract concept.

I have been searching and searching through papers...you can tell, that for an uneducated person, I have the on-topic links to show that I have been searching...

Again, all he offers is a vague generalization about evolutionary biologists and geneticists (even though those two terms are FAR more vague than the term "gene"). I am asking you for a systematic demonstration that the word "gene" and the idea of "gene expression" are synonymous, which is what launched this discussion.

I believe you, but you're not going to get a credible answer by searching through blogs

simply because this is not a method of science communication that has any sort of checks or balances. Anyone can write a blog. Not anyone can pass editorial muster to write a journal article. People have been talking about the scientific lexicon for generations, and they've been talking about genetics since Mendel, so we can do better than blogs.

Blogs by scientists can show that what I claimed is not my imagination working overtime, as seemed to be suggested. I have been reading PAPERS, was what I said.

anyone can claim that a scientist who writes peer reviewed literature blogs not believable evidence, too

so peer review might be what you think it is, or it might not be.

what you're saying is that I need to build a case that's strong, to show that my whimsical proposition can be backed with solid research. but I only only asked where my proposition was obviously wrong.

Definitions of "phenotype" are usually shown in contrast to "genotype"...
So how is it that the genotype is never thought of as part of a possible phenotype ?

Now, if you are a prof that will get me an honorary degree in one of those vaguely defined scientific areas from a respected university if I do so, it might be different.

Well, if there is semantic disagreement about whether a gene is a thing (or group of related things) as opposed to a process that concerns this thing, then it will only be revealed through this search of papers.

[And I think you'll find that processes concerning a gene are referred to by the name of the process, be it gene expression or gene silencing or whatever.

But the blog is not peer reviewed.

I know what it is, having peer-reviewed grants and peer-reviewed papers of my own. The world is sometimes small and rarified in science, and people know each other, it is true. And peer-review is not failsafe. But at least it upholds a certain quality threshold that does not exist in journalism, in blogs, in opinion pieces, etc.

You propose something that is unorthodox, so shouldn't you own the responsibility of supporting it?

But it wasn't in your first post that I had any disagreement. Here is your first post:

I don't have a problem with this. My response was more or less that regulation of gene expression is a phenotype unto itself. If I could elaborate, what I mean is that the most fundamental manifestation of phenotype is indeed the control of gene expression.

Why would I not include gene expression under the conceptual umbrella of a "gene"? Simply because the gene is what is inherited, and it's fundamentally what specifies all phenotypes including its own regulation.

I am a prof, and from a quite well respected university, but regrettably I don't have influence over honorary degrees

Incorrect. What would be revealed is ( in peer reviewed papers) which scientist used it which way, and when, and then numbers put to it.

Sure, they use those terms to talk about the different processes, but that doesn ot mean that they don't also refer to the group of processes or things as a "gene", as already shown.

It's just not the kind of peer review you would demand. Whether or not you give credence to books, articles, blogs, or lectures is your decision.

then why should I be concerned with finding, analysing, and supplying the result of order to satisfy an uneccessary, onerous demand ?

We're not concerned with "which scientist". Many scientists do a combination of things in their research. Furthermore, nearly all papers have multiple authors and numerous collaborations. What we're concerned with is the domain-specific use of the term. So you'd need to categorize papers based on the type of scientific question being asked.

Well, if there is semantic disagreement... then it will only be revealed through this search of papers.

Shown where?? All you've shown me is one guy who claims that this is true in philosophical terms, and then makes an unsupported vague statement that you have yet to demonstrate with any specific corroboration.

It should be an enobling challenge if you are actually interested in asking this question. It is only onerous if you're satisfied with a half-assed generalization (and no offense is intended by that -- but you're standing quite firm for something you've made little effort to support).

Of course I stand firm. Why wobble ?

Because those who are wise know that they forever might be wrong