Sure, but gene expression response to the environment is reversible and can go back and forth more than once. Still feels that it can’t quite be equated with development.
In fairness, "phenotype" covers a lot more than mere gene expression. Sure, there's nuance, but it's a great point and a super visual. Now wondering what other classic album covers we can co-opt to explain Genetics... something simple, neat, comprehensible, uncluttered...
phenotype = f(genotype, environment) could be a tad reductionistic unless you put a lot of work in the f. Maybe p =f(gen, dev, env)? Or even phenotype = development(genotype, environment)?
Sometimes I argue with people when they say phenotypic behaviours are "innately encoded in a genome", cos it is a gnomic statement to me. One reason for this is that a phenotype is a spatially extensive network of millions or billions of genomes, whereas a zygote has only one.
It's one of the greatest misunderstanding and paradox of biology, some want to frame genetic factors (a cognitive trait variant, a Y chromosome) as having deterministic effects while in fact, genetic interactions of all sorts diffract and create a rich gamut of variation
Comments
(Pink Floyd's 1973 “The Dark Side of the Moon” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gilmour
...too bad COBOL documentation has been lost to antiquity following the library of alexandria's destruction