Mules have a defect too. They can't be a parent. Usually they're sterile. The only way they can be a parent is through cloning.

There's aneuploid and euploid. Aneuploid refers to an imbalance in the number of chromosomes. Euploid refers to the number of sets of chromosomes an organism has. Like diploid tells you that the organism in question has two sets of chromosomes, often written as 2n with n being the haploid number of chromosomes in the set. I'm not quite sure, but as I can remember, I think when an organism is euploid, it's total number of chromosomes is an exact multiple of it's haploid number. So, I think mules would be diploid. I can't remember exactly how it works in humans, but I'm thinking in mules, during meiosis, chromosomes often come together in groups of 3, 5 or 6. As a result, mule gametes don't get a full compliment of chromosomes, which causes the defect.

:confused:

uhmmm...okaaay?

;)

None of this is appropriate for a ZOO TOUR. So, yeah, you were being a pain in the ass.

Regardless of our career specializations and our interests, you have to know when to turn it off. I know which settings I can have certain discussions, ask probing questions, and challenge people when they say something that I know is incorrect based on research or something concrete. People say incorrect things all the time and, even when I pretend like I'm joking, challenging people everytime I can (which is all the time, usually) is being a pain in the ass.

If you had said "we're not really cousins, though," that would've been better than going on and on about something that you know she didn't really know about. Turn it off the next time you partake in a zoo tour. ;)

My God, DSTCHAOS you do it all the time. As you mentioned you do it everytime you can. Well, in this case I did too. People had questions and so did I. At the end she asked does anyone have any questions, people had questions and so did I. The next time I partake in a zoo tour, if the tour guide opens it up for questions, no I'm not turning anything off. If I have questions, I'm going to ask, and if I feel he/she is wrong I'm going to challenge him/her. If that's being an ass, then...oh well.

No.

I don't post everything that comes to mind on GC and I don't say everything that comes to mind in "real life."

(Perhaps you misunderstood what I typed.)

Well, this is a brand new admission. :) Just understand that there are consequences to being an ass and not knowing when to turn it off. I'm sure the zoo guide was asking for basic questions that didn't require an in depth discussion of genetics that would show her up. When you are clearly showing someone up on their job, know when to back off a little. :)

I don't either on every subject. I do if the subject is of interest to me though, and this one is.

Uh huh...so like I said....

Well, DSTCHAOS I respect many of your post (pretty much all of them) but you challenge a lot of people on here, and like you said, in real life too which I admire in you but "what you said" to me was pretty hypocritical. I've read many of your post where you'll ask another poster a lot of questions and then eventually you'll start challenging them. I don't think I did anything different.

I missed this part.

o.k. but I wasn't trying to embarrass her. I just had questions. That's all. Actually, I thought my questions were pretty basic.

Since you don't know how my brain operates and how much I censor myself on here and in person, you should just take my advice to "turn it off sometimes" for what it is. Put it in your pocket and pull it out when you need it.

You were at a zoo tour, for goodness sake. It's important to remember that the things that interest you don't necessarily make everyone else swoon. GC threads are different than in person interactions where people can't log you off if they want you to shut up. You will be an extremely annoying person if you insist on engaging in these types of discussions (especially in an "I know, but you don't" kind of way) without thought to where you are and who you are talking to. :)

;)

You said you knew she was inaccurate and didn't know. You had basic questions that you knew were probably challenging her limited knowledge-base. When people do that they have to understand that there's a thin line between challenging discourse and being an asshole show-off.

What better way to put a dunce cap on her and put yourself at the forefront as the leading authority during a ZOO TOUR. :)

But she asked if we had questions. So I asked.

But I'll take your advice. You make sense.

Thank you.:)

BTW: I try to pick your brain whenever I can.:p

It's not that the mother's body rejects it, it's that the having either extra information (an extra chromosome hanging out) or missing information (having only one chromosome when you should have two) results in a non-viable fetus. This would be due to having too much or too little of needed protein or some other form of imbalance that affects the growth and development.

I base this off the fact that, in humans, there are no known viable complete autosomal monosomies (Cri du Chat syndrome is a partial monosomy of chromosome 5) and only the three previously mentioned trisomies. Just because we never see individuals with monosomies or trisomies other than the ones mentioned absolutely does not mean they don't occur, but rather, that they are completely non-compatible with even advanced intra-uterine age, let alone extra-uterine viability.

Further, in humans, more than 80% of all conceptions never make it to term, and roughly 50% of all conceptions have some sort of chromosomal anomaly that makes the pregnancy non-viable. It doesn't even necessarily have to be gross chromosomal abnormalities, as significant micro-deletions of chromosomes in the right places can create a non-viable pregnancy. Most often the pregnancy is spontaneously aborted within the first 4-6 weeks and so the woman doesn't even realize she's pregnant. (Not to open a can of worms, but these facts are one of my biggest arguments against the "life begins at conception" crowd).

As for the other argument going on...I agree with the others that it is in poor taste to continually ask questions that clearly exceed the other person's knowledge base. There's also a major difference in challenging someone on what they believe (and why they believe it) compared to challenging what someone knows about a particular subject when it's clear they won't be able to answer your question. Was it really necessary for you to ask the presenter the same question a second and third time?

It's called being tactful.

When I've been on zoo tours, people's questions at the end usually ranged from "where is the nearest bathroom" to "when can I watch the lions being fed small furry animals" to "where can I find little Timmy here a Steve the Giraffe backpack...........not, "please explain gene sequencing in primates as it relates to in vitro fertilization in humans." That's like asking Steven Hawking his thoughts on the designated hitter and its affect on the strategic nuances of baseball over the past 30 years. He'd probably slap you with his feeding tube.