Eli & Debbie Dingle - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Eli & Debbie Dingle

thesaint Avatar
8y, 2m agoPosted 8 years, 2 months ago
What the deuce!?!
thesaint Avatar
8y, 2m agoPosted 8 years, 2 months ago
Options

All Comments

(29) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
he loves her...thinks marrying her will help her get her daughter back

mind you ive turned over for eastenders lol
#2
never took you for an emmerdale fan Saint :)
#3
jellybaby22
are they not related?????


ummm think eli is Debbies mums cousin


oh and her dads as her mum and dad are cousins :w00t:
#4
loupomm
he loves her...thinks marrying her will help her get her daughter back

mind you ive turned over for eastenders lol


That's admirable, i'd do that for any woman (As long as she's fit), but you forgot something.
[SIZE="5"]
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]TH[/COLOR][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]EY'[/COLOR][COLOR="Lime"]RE[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]RE[/COLOR][COLOR="Gray"]LA[/COLOR][COLOR="Magenta"]TED[/COLOR][/SIZE]

bitseylango
never took you for an emmerdale fan Saint :)


I'm a man that absorbs everything, only then can I give an informed opinion.
#5
thesaint
That's admirable, i'd do that for any woman (As long as she's fit), but you forgot something.
[SIZE="5"]
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]TH[/COLOR][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]EY'[/COLOR][COLOR="Lime"]RE[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]RE[/COLOR][COLOR="Gray"]LA[/COLOR][COLOR="Magenta"]TED[/COLOR][/SIZE]





[COLOR="Magenta"][SIZE="6"]so were debbies parents [/SIZE][/COLOR]
[mod]#6
I cannot remember the last time I was bored enough to watch Emmerdale. They should put it on later at night...at about 10:30 to help people sleep...
#7
jellybaby22
ewww.....why dont they breed outside there own gene pool.......isnt that against the law???


i think cousins are legal :w00t: :?

yuk
#8
thesaint

I'm a man that absorbs everything, only then can I give an informed opinion.

wow, deep.
#9
thesaint


I'm a man that absorbs everything, only then can I give an informed opinion.


wow! I dont know how you fit it all in :w00t:
#10
bitseylango
wow! I dont know how you fit it all in :w00t:


Lots of foreplay and a smidgin of Vaseline(Not with my cousin though :-().
#11
First cousins are legally allowed to marry in this country, even though they will have 1 in 16 alleles which will be identical by descent. This is dreadful genetically, leads to an increased risk of spontaneous abortion and congenital abnormalities.
#12
thesaint
Lots of foreplay and a smidgin of Vaseline(Not with my cousin though :-().


PMSL!! how did I not see that coming! :w00t:
#13
tessb
First cousins are legally allowed to marry in this country, even though they will have 1 in 16 alleles which will be identical by descent. This is dreadful genetically, leads to an increased risk of spontaneous abortion and congenital abnormalities.


I was just going to say that.
#14
Did I kill the thread?
#15
tessb
Did I kill the thread?


Yes.

You seem quite knowledgeable on the practice of incestuous relationships.

Research purpose?
#16
Sorry lol.

Research yes, but I'm a geneticist, not in an incestuous relationship. Or a researcher for Jeremy Kyle.
#17
bitseylango
never took you for an emmerdale fan Saint :)


thesaint
Lots of foreplay and a smidgin of Vaseline(Not with my cousin though :-().


:w00t: Im in shock, i thought better of you 'The Saint' always had you down for a 'News at Ten' man and 'Questiontime'

Personally, I miss Benny :roll:
#18
tessb
First cousins are legally allowed to marry in this country, even though they will have 1 in 16 alleles which will be identical by descent. This is dreadful genetically, leads to an increased risk of spontaneous abortion and congenital abnormalities.

I don't think that this is correct.
There is an increased chance that recessive alleles may be brought together and hence an increased possibility of recessive genetic disease but it doesn't make any sense to say
will have 1 in 16 alleles which will be identical by descent
. The description is unclear; do you mean genes or alleles? If the cousins are the progeny of a sister (and her partner) and a brother (and his partner) then it is possible that those cousins might share very few genes and only as a consequence of crossing over and chromosomal exchange during meiosis in gamete formation. Gene probabilities can only really be applied to populations.
#19
chesso
I don't think that this is correct.
There is an increased chance that recessive alleles may be brought together and hence an increased possibility of recessive genetic disease but it doesn't make any sense to say . The description is unclear; do you mean genes or alleles? If the cousins are the progeny of a sister (and her partner) and a brother (and his partner) then it is possible that those cousins might share very few genes and only as a consequence of crossing over and chromosomal exchange during meiosis in gamete formation. Gene probabilities can only really be applied to populations.


I was going to say that :)
#20
snowflake
I was going to say that :)

:giggle:
#21
chesso
I don't think that this is correct.
There is an increased chance that recessive alleles may be brought together and hence an increased possibility of recessive genetic disease but it doesn't make any sense to say . The description is unclear; do you mean genes or alleles? If the cousins are the progeny of a sister (and her partner) and a brother (and his partner) then it is possible that those cousins might share very few genes and only as a consequence of crossing over and chromosomal exchange during meiosis in gamete formation. Gene probabilities can only really be applied to populations.



I mean alleles, in humans a gene consists of a pair of alleles. We inherit one maternally and one paternally. The inbreeding coefficient for first cousins, ie the chance of an allele being identical by descent is 6.25% or 1 in 16. If the alleles are non-deleterious, there is no problem. However if the allele is recessive or deleterious, this is when problems arise.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/inbreeding-gen-02/

This explains is quite nicely, and in quite plain English too :)
#22
snowflake
:w00t: Im in shock, i thought better of you 'The Saint' always had you down for a 'News at Ten' man and 'Questiontime'

Personally, I miss Benny :roll:



I watch a variety of programmes, I don't like the news at 10, but do enjoy Question Time. :)

Benny was in Crossroads, not Emmerdale.

I was watching an episode of Crossroads in 2001. They interrupted it to report that the twin towers had a plane in the side of it. <<
chesso
I don't think that this is correct.
There is an increased chance that recessive alleles may be brought together and hence an increased possibility of recessive genetic disease but it doesn't make any sense to say . The description is unclear; do you mean genes or alleles? If the cousins are the progeny of a sister (and her partner) and a brother (and his partner) then it is possible that those cousins might share very few genes and only as a consequence of crossing over and chromosomal exchange during meiosis in gamete formation. Gene probabilities can only really be applied to populations.


tessb
I mean alleles, in humans a gene consists of a pair of alleles. We inherit one maternally and one paternally. The inbreeding coefficient for first cousins, ie the chance of an allele being identical by descent is 6.25% of 1 in 16. If the alleles are non-deleterious, there is no problem. However if the allele is recessive or deleterious, this is when problems arise.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/inbreeding-gen-02/

This explains is quite nicely, and in quite plain English too :)


:o
#23
tessb
I mean alleles, in humans a gene consists of a pair of alleles. We inherit one maternally and one paternally. The inbreeding coefficient for first cousins, ie the chance of an allele being identical by descent is 6.25% of 1 in 16. If the alleles are non-deleterious, there is no problem. However if the allele is recessive or deleterious, this is when problems arise.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/inbreeding-gen-02/

This explains is quite nicely, and in quite plain English too :)


From your bookrags link:
For instance, cousins share approximately one-eighth or 12.5 percent of their alleles. So, at any locus the chance that cousins share an allele inherited from a common parent is one-eighth.

How nice that it is in plain English. You said that they will have 1 in 16 alleles ( also you said 6.25% of 1 in 16) which will be identical by descent. However that is not the point that I am making. You stated will but forgot that you should be talking about chances. It is possible that if one cousin ( female) inherits for instance all maternally derived chromosomes and the other cousin (male) all paternally derived chromosomes (yes, I know that exchange at chiasmata will 'mix up' the alleles, but for the sake of argument I'll ignore that, unless we want to get into cov's in our calculations) from the common ancestors, then essentially the two genomes will be quite different. Chance is a fine thing.

Also, it is confusing to say ;
I mean alleles, in humans a gene consists of a pair of alleles

You most certainly know that genes may have multiple alleles. A gene exists as one form. As humans have two sets of chromosomes, there will be two alleles at any particular genetic locus, they may be the same or different.
#24
It's as likely that all the alleles will be maternally inherited as it is that the sun will not come up tomorrow, yet we say the sun will come up tomorrow - there is a chance that it won't, but the chance is so remotely minute that is almost a certainty that it will. The same thing applies to inheritance. I did not say 6.25% of 1 in 16, I said 6.25% which is equal to 1 in 16. I'm sorry that you seem to have taken exception to something that I have said, I understand that this can be a sore subject for many people and no offence was intended.

Yes, there are multiple alleles possible at any given locus. However, when first cousins reproduce, 1 out of every 16 alleles will be identical due to the recent common ancestor. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Many rare genetic diseases are studied almost exclusively through consanguineous families as otherwise the genes for the disease would not be expressed eg.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929707624501
#25
This is post 24,I have highlighted the relevant part:
tessb
I mean alleles, in humans a gene consists of a pair of alleles. We inherit one maternally and one paternally. The inbreeding coefficient for first cousins, ie the chance of an allele being identical by descent [COLOR="Red"]is 6.25% of 1 in 16[/COLOR]. If the alleles are non-deleterious, there is no problem. However if the allele is recessive or deleterious, this is when problems arise.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/inbreeding-gen-02/

This explains is quite nicely, and in quite plain English too :)


tessb
It's as likely that all the alleles will be maternally inherited as it is that the sun will not come up tomorrow, yet we say the sun will come up tomorrow - there is a chance that it won't, but the chance is so remotely minute that is almost a certainty that it will. The same thing applies to inheritance. [COLOR="red"]I did not say [/COLOR][COLOR="Red"]6.25% of 1 in 16,[/COLOR] I said 6.25% which is equal to 1 in 16. I'm sorry that you seem to have taken exception to something that I have said, I understand that this can be a sore subject for many people and no offence was intended.

Yes, there are multiple alleles possible at any given locus. However, when first cousins reproduce, 1 out of every 16 alleles will be identical due to the recent common ancestor. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Many rare genetic diseases are studied almost exclusively through consanguineous families as otherwise the genes for the disease would not be expressed eg.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929707624501

I had not taken exception to something that you said. I merely disagree with the bald statement that you initially made and it seems to me that we have to be very careful when we give scientific explanations that they reflect real situations. There is a far higher probablilty that all the allelles will be maternal in origin than that the 'sun will not rise', however once again you ignore my main point, the extreme of which I illustrated, that the situation is not simple and chance is very significant.
My interest is not in whether you or your link to bookrags is correct in your numbers. It isn't even in the probablitiies of the extreme examples I have postulated. It is in making sense of science.
#26
jellybaby22
my head hurts from reading all this......you all must be very clever..or Im very dim......:giggle:


oh thank god! come n sit in the corner with me hun ;-) http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd255/smay34/dunce.jpg
#27
jellybaby22
my head hurts from reading all this......you all must be very clever..or Im very dim......:giggle:


bitseylango
oh thank god! come n sit in the corner with me hun ;-) http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd255/smay34/dunce.jpg


:giggle:

We're not so bright cos' we can't agree on some science that we should both know backwards!! :oops:
#28
chesso
This is post 24,I have highlighted the relevant part:



I had not taken exception to something that you said. I merely disagree with the bald statement that you initially made and it seems to me that we have to be very careful when we give scientific explanations that they reflect real situations. There is a far higher probablilty that all the allelles will be maternal in origin than that the 'sun will not rise', however once again you ignore my main point, the extreme of which I illustrated, that the situation is not simple and chance is very significant.
My interest is not in whether you or your link to bookrags is correct in your numbers. It isn't even in the probablitiies of the extreme examples I have postulated. It is in making sense of science.


Sorry, that was a typo, I meant or rather than of :oops: I've changed it for clarity, very sorry, poor proof reading on my part!
#29
tessb
Sorry, that was a typo, I meant or rather than of :oops: I've changed it for clarity, very sorry, poor proof reading on my part!


:thumbsup:

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!