The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[AZOffaly]

I just posted that. Am I on your ignore list?

And he's a Liberal I think

[muppet]

I just posted that. Am I on your ignore list?

And he's a Liberal I think

Oops, sorry and yes and eh how can he be a Liberal with statements like that? 

[AZOffaly]

Dunno, maybe that's Australian for Liberal, like Fosters is Australian for Piss.

[muppet]

Dunno, maybe that's Australian for Liberal, like Fosters is Australian for Piss.

Yes, maybe Liberal means Conservative in Oz. In fairness, it would be understandable if everything was upside-down there.

[omaghjoe]

So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?

I'm confused?

Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?

Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".

I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.

I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.

I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.

I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.

Look muppet this is what you posted

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.

I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else

However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.

[omaghjoe]

I often wondered about that definition in Australia but then it actually makes sense. I mean what does conservative mean? It means traditional, safe, sensible, logical.

Liberal on the other hand means out there, alternative, trying anything, no rules, free to do and say what you want. As you can see this guy along with alot of "conservatives" is far from sensible! I prefer to use left wing and right wing

[muppet]

So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?

I'm confused?

Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?

Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".

I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.

I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.

I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.

I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.

Look muppet this is what you posted

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.

I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else

However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.

I knew you misread it it.

I was responding to this which was highlighted in bold in my original post:

From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay

In response to that the first thing I wrote was: "That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me."

I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics.

I went on to show that tour DNA is almost identical to all of mankind, the point being that we still have all the diversity we have, despite the very similar DNA.

As an aside I then pointed out that there could possibly be mutations, even in identical twins, but I never linked that to anything other than the fact that research is limited on genetics.

[omaghjoe]

So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?

I'm confused?

Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?

Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".

I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.

I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.

I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.

I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.

Look muppet this is what you posted

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.

I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else

However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.

I knew you misread it it.

I was responding to this which was highlighted in bold in my original post:

From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay

In response to that the first thing I wrote was: "That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me."

I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics.

I went on to show that tour DNA is almost identical to all of mankind, the point being that we still have all the diversity we have, despite the very similar DNA.

As an aside I then pointed out that there could possibly be mutations, even in identical twins, but I never linked that to anything other than the fact that research is limited on genetics.

Muppet, what spawned your statement is fairly irrelevant. If you are saying one point in your post is unrelated to the next that's fine it doesn't read like that and is contrary to the style of most posts on this board

But even with that said I am having difficultly accepting what you are trying to say then with what you are trying to say now without assuming you are making a complete about turn how do you quantify these two statements for example?

"I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics."

and

"If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?"

[muppet]

So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?

I'm confused?

Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?

Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".

I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.

I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.

I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.

I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.

Look muppet this is what you posted

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.

I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else

However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.

I knew you misread it it.

I was responding to this which was highlighted in bold in my original post:

From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay

In response to that the first thing I wrote was: "That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me."

I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics.

I went on to show that tour DNA is almost identical to all of mankind, the point being that we still have all the diversity we have, despite the very similar DNA.

As an aside I then pointed out that there could possibly be mutations, even in identical twins, but I never linked that to anything other than the fact that research is limited on genetics.

Muppet, what spawned your statement is fairly irrelevant. If you are saying one point in your post is unrelated to the next that's fine it doesn't read like that and is contrary to the style of most posts on this board

But even with that said I am having difficultly accepting what you are trying to say then with what you are trying to say now without assuming you are making a complete about turn how do you quantify these two statements for example?

"I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics."

and

"If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?"

Yes.

That is exactly the point. They don't evolve identically.

I made clear at the start what I disagreed with. You missed that bit and now argue that this is somehow 'fairly irrelevant'. It is the premise for the post. The question was supposed to be rhetorical, i.e twins don't evolve identically do they? They have different 100m times, they marry different people, they play different sports, get different grades etc.

The second paragraph was an observation regarding the limited studies done in the field.

Here is some more reading on that: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

[omaghjoe]

So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?

I'm confused?

Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?

Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".

I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.

I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.

I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.

I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.

Look muppet this is what you posted

That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?

Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?

You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.

I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else

However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.

I knew you misread it it.

I was responding to this which was highlighted in bold in my original post:

From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay

In response to that the first thing I wrote was: "That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me."

I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics.

I went on to show that tour DNA is almost identical to all of mankind, the point being that we still have all the diversity we have, despite the very similar DNA.

As an aside I then pointed out that there could possibly be mutations, even in identical twins, but I never linked that to anything other than the fact that research is limited on genetics.

Muppet, what spawned your statement is fairly irrelevant. If you are saying one point in your post is unrelated to the next that's fine it doesn't read like that and is contrary to the style of most posts on this board

But even with that said I am having difficultly accepting what you are trying to say then with what you are trying to say now without assuming you are making a complete about turn how do you quantify these two statements for example?

"I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics."

and

"If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?"

Yes.

That is exactly the point. They don't evolve identically.

I made clear at the start what I disagreed with. You missed that bit and now argue that this is somehow 'fairly irrelevant'. It is the premise for the post. The question was supposed to be rhetorical, i.e twins don't evolve identically do they? They have different 100m times, they marry different people, they play different sports, get different grades etc.

The second paragraph was an observation regarding the limited studies done in the field.

Here is some more reading on that: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

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

I am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA, if you read my posts I already pointed that out to Iceman.

However the main differences in twins is environmental...

[muppet]

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.

[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?

[muppet]

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.

[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?

[muppet]

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 anyone 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?