The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[omaghjoe]

Eh? Rhetorical? Right Come on now muppet thats a stretch

Let me get this right.

You post here knowing what is going on in the mind of another more than they do?



By the way, for clarification, that was rhetorical.



And.......

I am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA

Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different.

So for clarification Muppet can we establish that your last statement about DNA should be taken as written and was not rhetorical?

Yes, genes are sequences of DNA. If your genes are in any way different to someone else's, then logically your DNA is different.

I'm confused are they sequences of DNA or are they subsets/part of DNA? One statement would appear to be the opposite of the other. I am sure you can clarify?

Or is one rhetorical and one fact?

What is going on muppet please tell us straight out?

I was waiting for an enlightened comeback. Pity.

Your genes are a subset of your total DNA. [Subset def: division, portion]

Your genes are also made up of individual sequences of DNA. [gene def: ...a specific sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that is located usually on a chromosome.....]

That isn't too difficulty. But of course any can see what you are doing is diverting attention away from this statement of yours:

'I am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA'

Any chance you can explain how they can have identical DNA, but different genes?

My statement is correct, id twins have the same DNA but different genetic code. Genes are the arrangement of the DNA, so the DNA can be arranged differently, but the DNA remains the same.

I am not trying to deflect my statement, I am trying to get to the bottom of what you are trying to tell us because its contradictory at the moment, but I am sure you'll come around to making sense at the end of it?

Care to humour with what "total DNA" is? Would that be a chromosome, pair, nucleus, cell, body or what?

[muppet]

My statement is correct, id twins have the same DNA but different genetic code. Genes are the arrangement of the DNA, so the DNA can be arranged differently, but the DNA remains the same.

I am not trying to deflect my statement, I am trying to get to the bottom of what you are trying to tell us because its contradictory at the moment, but I am sure you'll come around to making sense at the end of it?

Care to humour with what "total DNA" is? Would that be a chromosome, pair, nucleus, cell, body or what?

Total DNA would be all of your DNA. 

A Chromosome would be a subset of your total DNA and a gene would be a subset of both. I.E. Gene < Chromosome < All of your DNA

Genes are the arrangement of the DNA, so the DNA can be arranged differently, but the DNA remains the same.

Oh wow.

Either the DNA sequences are the same, in which case they ARE THE SAME, or the sequences are different, in which case they ARE DIFFERENT. You claim the latter is the same as the former. I look forward to your Nobel Prize acceptance speech. 

[omaghjoe]

Listen muppet you can put up all the simley faces you want, twins have the same DNA but a different genetic code. I am sure you have googled it by now in any case and found out I am right and your trying to save face by trying to twist words much like you have been doing since we started  this conversation.

But if you want to continue tell I am happy enough......
So we have established that "total DNA" is not a chromosome so is it a pair?, a nucleus, a cell, an organ, or your body? 

I don't claim to be any expert I only know the basics of the basics and I also know that id twins have the same DNA, they cannot be told apart from DNA testing.

The genetic code can be different but the DNA is the same, if you can't grasp this basic concept then you have a total misunderstanding of what DNA is. Which i suspect is the case when you are talking about "total DNA"

I also know enough to know when someone knows sweet FA about something and try to make it up as they go along, but I hope it has been enjoyable learning in this unorthodox way.

BTW I called both you and Iceman out on it because you were both distorting the facts to support your argument when it was clear that neither of you had a bleedin clue what you were on about.

[muppet]

Listen muppet you can put up all the simley faces you want, twins have the same DNA but a different genetic code. I am sure you have googled it by now in any case and found out I am right and your trying to save face by trying to twist words much like you have been doing since we started  this conversation.

But if you want to continue tell I am happy enough......
So we have established that "total DNA" is not a chromosome so is it a pair?, a nucleus, a cell, an organ, or your body? 

I don't claim to be any expert I only know the basics of the basics and I also know that id twins have the same DNA, they cannot be told apart from DNA testing.

The genetic code can be different but the DNA is the same, if you can't grasp this basic concept then you have a total misunderstanding of what DNA is. Which i suspect is the case when you are talking about "total DNA"

I also know enough to know when someone knows sweet FA about something and try to make it up as they go along, but I hope it has been enjoyable learning in this unorthodox way.

BTW I called both you and Iceman out on it because you were both distorting the facts to support your argument when it was clear that neither of you had a bleedin clue what you were on about.

This is the post of the year!

I can see you almost having a straight face posting it.

Iceman will be in hysterics at you calling us both out, seeing as Iceman & I have completely disagreed for probably double your entire post count.

And as for your DNA lecture. 

"The genetic code can be different but the DNA is the same"

You might want to read this: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-dna-and-genes/

Especially the following:

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. This is the chain of 'links' that determines how the different cells in your body will function. Each of these links is called a nucleotide. DNA basically contains two copies of 23 chromosomes each, one from the mother and one from the father of the person. Only some of these complex cells carry the 'genetic information for your genes. These are the parts that decide what you basically inherit from your parents. This makes genes only a subset of the DNA.

For instance, if you thought about the human body as a book that contained only DNA, the genes would be the chapter containing instructions on how to make proteins and assist in cell production. The other chapters may contain other details like where the cells should start producing new proteins etc.

The DNA is like an instruction booklet that determines the traits you are likely to get. The entire DNA in a human body is packaged in the form of chromosomes. Each of these genechromosomes has definite characters that will determine a particular trait. This includes such details like your hair color and the color of your eyes. Each of these chapters that contain the codes for a particular trait is known as a gene. So, if you are confused, just think about the gene as a small piece of the total DNA that holds information about a particular trait you have.



But please, keep going. Don't read or try to understand any of the above and keep it coming.

[The Iceman]

I agree I don't know what I'm talking about. I read a report on some studies and through it out there as part of a discussion. Nature vrs nurture. Where does it fit in. You boys don't need to have a pissing contest about the semantics of it all.? And you didn't call me out on anything OmaghJoe (yes muppet I got a good laugh at that one) I claimed ignorance from the start.... Is ignorance part of our nature? Born or made ignorant... Eamonn there has to be an ignorant gene floating about Lurgan? What about fearmanagh???

[Eamonnca1]

In America "liberal" means anyone to the left of Mussolini. In Australia the word is closer to the British meaning which is about individual freedom, less regulation, more free trade and so on, so you can be "liberal" in that you're defending the liberty of people who want to do business.

It's a shame what happened to the Australian Liberal Party. They seem to have suffered the same fate as the American Republican Party in being overrun by enough ignoramouses that they can elect the intellectual zero and  "resident nutter" as their leader.

As for your man acting as an adviser to Alexander Downer, that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Downer was a disaster for the Liberals and Paul Keating ran rings around him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Ivp-A413A

[Eamonnca1]

I presume you're not suggesting that it would be OK to discriminate against gay people if they weren't born gay. This was the point of my post. The nature/nurture debate seems to have some kind of spurious status in the gay rights discourse. The "lifestyle choice" argument propounded by ant-gay elements makes hay with this bogus distinction. It seems to me that the concession of equal rights should not be determined by whether a person's sexual orientation is the result of genetics, conditioning or indeed choice.

I don't mean to portray homosexuality as a disability but for want of a better analogy, you wouldn't condone discrimination against disabled people on the basis that their disability was the result of an accident, rather than something they were born with.

Well. It can take a while for sexuality to emerge, can take until puberty. But I think you get my point. It's about treating people equally no matter what intrinsic and unalterable traits they have.

[omaghjoe]

Ahhhhh....that is infuriating simplistic I mean when they talking about the "total DNA" it actually seems like they are talking about the nucleus but it would appear they are talking about chromosome. There is also Genomes which is maybe what they are really talking about. Anyway I will out right disagree with them saying that genes are part of DNA, they are aren't, genes are an instruction taken from the code of the DNA. The problem with giving analogies to understand DNA is that it is extremely complex and difficult to understand.

Anyway twins have the same DNA here one source there are numerous others which I am sure you have found yourself

http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/Identical-Twins-And-Dna.htm

They are formed from the same cell so must have identical DNA

Ok Muppet!! Happy now? So we have both had our little laugh at each other and both proved ourselves right with our various source, I went a bit over the top fair enuff but your smiley faces got me and I replied faster than I should have. (In Joe Brolly code that's an apology)

My understanding that DNA is the molecules that forms structure that creates a code. So to use the book analogy of your article the DNA is the letters, which form words and these form sentences and paragraphs. The paragraph creates a meaning, this meaning would be the genes and other types of code that are used to create cells. Each chapter would be a chromosome and the cell or nucleus a book. However the story would be the code or instructions that is gathered from all those words and chapters to make the cell. Another way might be think of it as us reading our posts differently (rhetorical and all that), or computer programs reading the same code differently.

So in twins I imagine the letters, book and paragraph are all the same but they can be read differently or read from different points thereby making the decoded genetic meaning different even tho their DNA is the same. I am no expert and the analogy is again rather simplistic for an extremely complex subject.

So to conclude (in a civil manner) I'll stand by what I said "twins have the same DNA and are genetically different" and that your statement about "Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different" is incorrect. However I can see why you would have thought that as it is a complicated area and much of the info supplied on the internet uses analogies that are only attempting to give us a basic understanding. 

[muppet]

I agree with the majority of the above, including the book analogy.

However if you have the same DNA, i.e. the same letters in the same order everywhere, then you have the same genetic coding, your genes are identical along with everything else on your chromosomes. If your 'book' is the same as your identical twin, it can't have paragraphs or chapters that are different.

The reality is that the book has differences, even in identical twins. Your statement regarding the genes being the same, but the DNA different is still wrong.

I posted this earlier: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.

........

"Maybe we shouldn't call them identical twins," Harvard's Bieber says. "We should call them 'one-egg twins.'"


I am a well intentioned amateur and a million, million miles from being an expert (the experts disagree on almost everything - just google the number of genes for example), but I have been dipping away at this for a while now.

Results finally starting to come in.

I don't understand the science so I have a lot of homework to do. There are matches with names that don't make sense to me but when I understand the science better it might be easier to understand.

One interesting thing is that my Paternal ancestors have been here a long time, before the Celts and subsequent arrivals. It seems we were here before 99% of the Irish arrived.

Can they be that specific ? What sort of era are they able to get back to ?

(NB: Take this with a serious health warning as I have only been reading this for the last few days and don't really understand how they came up with this info.)

Using genetic mutations as markers they can tell which descendant lines/branches, from our common ancestors in Africa, we are likely to have come from. One of mine appears to have happened when the North Sea was inhabited land (Doggerland) and thus it is likely that my ancestors lived there, probably around 13,000 years ago. When the water rose and cut Britain and Ireland off from Europe it appears that some of these people were cut off from Europe and lived on the Islands. Some appear to have been 'pushed' west and appear in Connacht from an early stage (Neolithic apparently) which predates the Celts etc.

If anyone can shed some clear light on how exactly they determine the various Haplogroups and Sub-Clades I would appreciate it.

I didn't know it when I posted that, but I had already answered my question at the end, with the earlier statement on genetic mutations.

[AZOffaly]

[muppet]

Don't get me started on the DNA sequences you are missing! 

[omaghjoe]

The DNA which is the physical structure is the same, apart from divergences over time. However the way genes reads it is different. The book analogy is not perfect prehaps I know so maybe think of the Genes as punctuation marks which can change the message (however that implies that the DNA structure and code is changing which its not), its not a perfect analogy. Genes being different does not change the DNA, it may change the message the DNA is trying to get across but it doesn't change the DNA structure.

The article is not incorrect but it uses terms rather loosely, DNA is the structure not the message, the total message is the genome. So it states that DNA differed at various points on its genome. The DNA is the same, but the genome, (ie the message) differed. If you email Carl Bruder I think he will agree with this.

Another analogy might be sheet music, being played through different instruments compare a banjo to a fiddle. The fiddle is smooth and holds notes where as the banjo is sharp and can't hold notes, so they produce a different sound but the music remains the same.

I don't want to be pedantic and our arguments aside if you want to have a basic understanding of DNA its quite an important concept.

[muppet]

The DNA which is the physical structure is the same, apart from divergences over time. However the way genes reads it is different. The book analogy is not perfect prehaps I know so maybe think of the Genes as punctuation marks which can change the message (however that implies that the DNA structure and code is changing which its not), its not a perfect analogy. Genes being different does not change the DNA, it may change the message the DNA is trying to get across but it doesn't change the DNA structure.

The article is not incorrect but it uses terms rather loosely, DNA is the structure not the message, the total message is the genome. So it states that DNA differed at various points on its genome. The DNA is the same, but the genome, (ie the message) differed. If you email Carl Bruder I think he will agree with this.

Another analogy might be sheet music, being played through different instruments compare a banjo to a fiddle. The fiddle is smooth and holds notes where as the banjo is sharp and can't hold notes, so they produce a different sound but the music remains the same.

I don't want to be pedantic and our arguments aside if you want to have a basic understanding of DNA its quite an important concept.

Bruner said this "In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence,'.

He states the DNA is different and he called this genetic divergence.

I'll tell you what, you email him and tell him his article is poorly written and you correct him.

The stupid thing is we both agree that identical twins can have a gay twin and a straight twin. Iceman was assuming this wasn't possible and was basing a claim that one 'chooses' to be gay, upon this assumption.

[omaghjoe]

I'll hardly bother Muppet!

Well I don't even care about the thread subject much, you guys just stumbled into a subject area I am interested in so I decided to go with it. I guess me and you are finished now tho

Although TBF to Iceman I don't think he was saying that, he was suggesting that it could be environment, and it very well could be environment TBF. Or it could be in their genes (but not their DNA )
Tho his assumption was based on that same DNA = same person which they aren't. However he has self confessed ignorance in this area. So he could be right about his suggestion it was how he arrived at it was incorrect

But he did make a good point that no conclusion has truly come from the scientific community on it. Even tho they are only too willing to explain a whole host of other things of our ethnic/racial, as your post about your origin in doggerland demonstrates, and the media are only to willing to latch on to it and relate it tribalist nonsense like nationality, which is ludicrous considering the concept of nations is a human invention only a few centuries old.
But then no one wants to touch the "gay gene" with a barge pole. I believe there may be a stigma attached to trying to explain it and this should not intrude into science.

In any case I think that it is irrelevant to our perception of what's acceptable whether it be choice, environment or in your genetic makeup, our perception is fairly basic:

"If someone isn't doin you any harm let them tear away!"

[LCohen]

Your brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.

I like this.

So are we just floating atoms and molecules?

Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?

As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.

Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?