About DNA - (and evolution)

YoursTrue said:

There are in evolution at least, what's called mutations. You're not going to tell me that God causes malformation to occur deliberately. I mean you can tell me, but I won't believe it.

Click to expand...

First, there is a difference between genetics (DNA) and development (how an individual organism grows over time). The development is partly determined by genetics, but is also partly determined by environment.

Malformations like having two heads is NOT a genetic mutation. That tends to happen developmentally when something go wrong, for example when two developing embryos merge. One way to tell the difference is that two-headed cats won't give birth to two-headed cats, but regular one-headed cats. The *genetics* doesn't lead to the two heads.

Evolution does NOT happen by 'hopeful monsters' like two-headed animals. It relies on the *genetics*, not the development. Only those changes that can be passed to the next generation are relevant for evolution.

Also, the genetic changes relevant to evolution tend to be small from one generation to the next. If the change (mutation) is beneficial, it tends to get passed on more to the next generations, leading it to be more common in the population. This is why populations evolve, not individuals. Developmental events that are not linked to genetics don't have an evolutionary effect.

Now, all living things have DNA. Plants, mushrooms, animals, bacteria, etc. ALL of them have DNA. This is what determines their *genetics* and what can be passed on to the next generation.

Part of that genetics determines what species you are. All members of the same species will share the DNA that determines those properties of a species. So all humans will share the DNA associated with being human. On top of that, individuals will share *more* of their DNA the closer they are to each other in the line of descent. So, you will share more DNA with your parents than with your grandparents.

But, different species *also* share a great deal of DNA. Simply having two mammals, say cats and dogs, will mean that they share a LOT of DNA. Every genetic aspect that makes them mammals will be shared. Primates (say chimps) will also share the DNA associated with being mammals.

But, dogs and cats will also share the DNA associated with being carnivores (a subtype of mammals) and primates will NOT share the DNA associated with being carnivores. But different primates *will* share the DNA associated with being primates (so chimps and gorillas will share that DNA).

This is how we can determine which species are related to each other: we look at the DNA that they share and compare it.

The remarkable thing is that when this is all cataloged with many different species, we get a branching tree-like structure of relationships. This would not be expected if there was no *inherited* links between the species.

We might think that all ocean species would be similar or all flying things would be similar. But that is NOT the case. Instead, birds that fly share DNA with other birds, not with bats. And dolphins share DNA with other mammals, not the DNA associated with fish.

So, the same comparisons of DNA that show you are related to your parents can show that dolphins are related to land mammals and that, yes, humans are related to primates.

Does that help clarify things?

YoursTrue said:

However, back to chromosomes, DNA, and that. My main question is really how much do we share with snakes and chimpanzees, etc. And what happened to the in-betweens.

Click to expand...

Well, all vertebrates will share the DNA associated with vertebrates. So humans, chimps, and snakes (all species) are vertebrates and will share that much DNA. Humans and chimps will share quite a bit *more* than either will share with snakes since both humans and chimps are mammals and primates. Ultimately, humans and chimps are more closely related than either are to snakes.

As others have pointed out, there is a wide variety of different snakes, just like there is a wide variety of different primates or of different bears.

As others have pointed out, the notion of there being 'in betweens' for snakes and humans (or chimps) is problematic since neither evolved from the other. Probably the closest you would get to a common ancestor would be a precursor to the 'mammal-like reptiles' that existed before dinosaurs, although a lot is not known about snake evolution because their skeletons are not as strongly held together as many other animals.

Mock Turtle said:

I recommend reading the book mentioned in the first paragraph (A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived), and the second link tries to explain some of the technical stuff:

Why Race Is Not a Thing, According to Genetics (nationalgeographic.com)
How DNA Works

Click to expand...

Your statement about ‘no race’, reminds me of Lucy and Maria Aylmer
https://nypost.com/2015/03/02/meet-the-bi-racial-twins-no-one-believes-are-sisters/

Hockeycowboy said:

Your statement about ‘no race’, reminds me of Lucy and Maria Aylmer
https://nypost.com/2015/03/02/meet-the-bi-racial-twins-no-one-believes-are-sisters/

Click to expand...

Yes, this illustrates the relative unknowns as to genetic effects, and why the furore over comments as to Meghan Marckle's child was perhaps more about not knowing rather than simply being racist.

YoursTrue said:

I have questions. I'm not in school anymore, I wish I knew a geneticist that could take the time to explain what I would like to know. OK, so here's a start:
It is said that humans share DNA. Naturally it couldn't be exact because it takes a man and woman to make a child. But here's the question: someone asked if Scotsmen and Irishmen "share DNA."

Click to expand...

I am not a biologist, so I am no expert in DNA, so I am not going too much talk about DNA...if at all.

I do however know a fair bit about history.

I am sorry if this sounds like a history lecture, but I think it would benefit to have some knowledge of history and geography to understand the what happen in ancient time in these regions, to understand the relation between Irish and Scot people.

Now I don’t know much about the Picts, because there are no written history by them of their origin, and whether they are Celts or not (possibly aborigines or possibly pre-Celts migrants). Historians and archaeologists are still debating over their origins, so really we still don’t know.

What we do know, is that there were pre-literate people living in both Ireland and Britain before the arrival of the Celts.

Since the Celts own origin are murky due to having no writings of their own, so what we do know, mainly come from archaeological evidence of what artefacts they left behind, since the Celts have distinctive styles like in artworks and craftsmanship, and from secondary sources, when they encountered literate civilizations like the Greeks and Romans.

Anyway, their distinctive Celtic styles in artefacts from the Hallstatt culture (8th to 6th century BCE) points to their origin being in Central Europe, but they were migrating societies, so by the 6th century BCE they have reach part of the Iberian peninsula (Spain & Portugal) in the west (I said “part”, because the other parts were occupied by Greek and Carthaginian colonies, mainly in south and eastern parts of Spain), and Galatea or Galatia in the east.

The Hallstatt culture is a period where it consist of both Bronze Age and Iron Age. This culture most likely evolved from the earlier Bronze Age Urnfield culture that predated the Celtic Hallstatt.

From the La Tène culture, these Celts were more warlike, with style that are definitely more recognizablly Celtic, is when they began migrating into the Britain and Ireland, but it wasn’t a single migration. As late as the 1st century BCE, some Celts from Gaul (France, Belgium and Netherlands), particularly the Belgae tribe migrated into southern England, because of Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul.

In the following century (1st century CE), the Roman have also invaded Britain, and have Roman colonies throughout wales, England and part of Scotland, up to the Hadrian and (short-lived) Antonine walls built in the 2nd century CE, the defensive lines to keep the Picts from invading the Roman province Britannia.

The Celts living in Britannia, their culture and language changed - due to Romanization. Those that remained after the Romans left Britannia in 409 BCE, withdrawing their armies, were Britons.

The Celtic heritage among the Britons didn’t completely die out with the Romanization, and the parts of Celtic languages that did survive, became Old Cornish and Old Welsh. Old Welsh was spoken as far as the Hadrian wall.

After the Romans left Britannia, Brits divided this former Roman province into number of kingdoms in the 5th century CE.

I have not forgotten Ireland.

Since the Romans didn’t invade Ireland, the Celts living there were living remotely, isolated from the Romanization, so their culture remained Celtic. This is why you can see similarities between La Tene artefacts in Continental Europe and those artefacts in Ireland, because the Celtic-Irish culture weren’t influenced by the Romans.

The Angles and Saxons began invading southern Britain as early as late 5th century, gaining more ground in the 6th century CE.

But while the Anglo-Saxon began settling in what we now called England, only the Britons managed to stop them in Cornwall and Wales. While in the north, the Welsh-speaking Briton kingdoms were invaded by the Scoti from Ireland, during the 6th century CE.

That’s the connection between the Irishmen and the Scots in Scotland. Their languages, Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic, are very similar because the Scots did originate from Ireland.

When you use a human logic you quote my human parents owning human Dna are human.

Their human living self owned body human DNA is only as old in creation as they are. Created held owned form.

I can theory.

I say if only your two parents never conceived you theist. My human life would be safe.

As a human adult just human is human only. Separate life's walking around separately owned as a human.

Now if your parents had no seX and died. Maybe human theists would get removed out of human consciousness.

So I theory. Say a human theory first scientist. Imagine no humans having sex. We would live as a human. Die as a human. No more humans.

From base human SELF conditions sperm ovary living conditions alive naturally.

Sperm owns no age in history nor does an ovary.

No humans present. No human sperm either and no human ovary.

Pretty basic I can think as a human advice. Especially when someone compares a human being to a banana.

Seeing you pretend you are the creator changing a banana into a human by a claim if I add such and such human owned DNA I would own a human.

Get the message yet?

YoursTrue said:

Since it is passed on in particular senses, I understand that part of it. I still have no reason to believe that God had no part in enabling the roots (the dna) as well as the process. Otoh, I don't believe He creates malformations, such as two heads on one body. Let's say on a cat or something like that. Although He enabled the process.

Click to expand...

The reason to believe that 'God has no part' or God is the Creator of all life including humans in the nature and diversity of humanity and life on earth is not a question for the science of DNA. It is a theological/philosophical question.

The factual scientific nature of DNA in humanity and all life on earth demonstrates the factual basis for evolution and not whether God is involved or not.

shunyadragon said:

The reason to believe that 'God has no part' or God is the Creator of all life including humans in the nature and diversity of humanity and life on earth is not a question for the science of DNA. It is a theological/philosophical question.

The factual scientific nature of DNA in humanity and all life on earth demonstrates the factual basis for evolution and not whether God is involved or not.

Click to expand...

The physical universe is not the same as the spiritual aspect of things. Therefore right now I would have to say that analyzing in reality (such as the composition of mud) is not the same as a theory of evolution. Not even how the mud got there on a hill if it happened especially long ago, how it stratified, but rather the analysis of the composition of the layers.

shunyadragon said:

The reason to believe that 'God has no part' or God is the Creator of all life including humans in the nature and diversity of humanity and life on earth is not a question for the science of DNA. It is a theological/philosophical question.

The factual scientific nature of DNA in humanity and all life on earth demonstrates the factual basis for evolution and not whether God is involved or not.

Click to expand...

It is an important point to consider for many. Furthermore, the theory, while seeming logical to some, has as far as some are concerned, serious logical unanswered gaps.

YoursTrue said:

It is an important point to consider for many. Furthermore, the theory, while seeming logical to some, has as far as some are concerned, serious logical unanswered gaps.

Click to expand...

Arguing from ignorance'is fallacy. What unanswered questions and gaps are you referring to? Scientific references please.

The science of evolution is based on Methodological Naturalism and objective verifiable evidence. What is the logic you are referring to?

The above adds nothing constructive

YoursTrue said:

The physical universe is not the same as the spiritual aspect of things.

Click to expand...

True, science is based on objective verifiable evidence, and 'the spiritual nature of things' from the fallible human perspective represents many conflicting diverse subjective human beliefs and choices, with no objective basis for determining which is the only true belief.

Therefore right now I would have to say that analyzing in reality (such as the composition of mud) is not the same as a theory of evolution. Not even how the mud got there on a hill if it happened especially long ago, how it stratified, but rather the analysis of the composition of the layers.

Click to expand...

Your response here is as clear as mud.

Man's human science teaching said as a warning don't self idolise by being man life sacrificed. As warning conscious defect affected.

Natural group family human life group survival natural.

As the mind brain ego evolution causes groups to false preach the human groups indoctrination.

For humans as humans by self idolisation of humans thinking storytelling.

You are totally a human. You then compare what you own to life forms that owned what you now own. Not the dead animal.

If it was living with you today the appraisal of the body would be differently human inferred.

Is actually what you are doing using persuasive human reasons why I should know what you studied just as a human.

If I agree you commend me by reward about and with my human Intelligence critiqued in details of how much remembered advice I can feedback relate as an understanding of what you preached.

Is the bible human warning about human behaviours.

Knowing human behaviour became human life's destroyer.teaching about consciousness and how Jesus affected the Christ supported consciousness.

YoursTrue said:

The physical universe is not the same as the spiritual aspect of things.

Click to expand...

Several problems, and the first one is obvious that the “spiritual aspect” don’t exist beyond personal belief/opinion and a person’s imagination, hallucination or delusion.

While the universe is physical and vast, and real, the technology available to observe the universe is still very limited.

Three, the average people, like you and I, don’t have these technology available to us. Instead we await for images and data to be released to the public.

The only things we can really view is our own experiences, that are very local...here on Earth. So we don’t get to see the whole universe...I don’t even own a telescope.

Which bring me to unrelated subject...if anyone wish to donate a telescope, please give me a call...

Human family with God O.
Earth a planet with its heavens. All food supplied. Housing is a choice type of.

No invention first. Hence no theist. No scientist.

You see daylight. You see stars at night.

Natural observation equals natural human life form.

If you look out you chose to. What you look out at is where it is.

Human logic says I hope it stays where it is sitting. In its position in space.

I don't want collisions is the first advice.

YoursTrue said:

I have questions. I'm not in school anymore, I wish I knew a geneticist that could take the time to explain what I would like to know. OK, so here's a start:
It is said that humans share DNA. Naturally it couldn't be exact because it takes a man and woman to make a child. But here's the question: someone asked if Scotsmen and Irishmen "share DNA." Can't figure what that means since it seems apparent to me that all humans "share DNA," whether they're Indian or Russian, etc. coming from different sources. So the thing is: do humans share DNA? I mean if a human body is dissected or the DNA is examined (if that's possible), don't some humans far apart from each other have similar DNA? Don't ALL humans share DNA among the entire human population? Not just two humans, but the entire human population, don't we "share" DNA?

Click to expand...

That's a really excellent question. If every human (apart from identical twins I guess) has unique dna, what sense does it make to talk about 'human dna' as if all human beings shared the same genetic code?

I guess that one can say that all human beings possess dna, so they all share dna in that sense. And they all possess (with some complications) the same set of genes. That's where the differences between human dna and other dna comes from. Different organisms have different sets of genes.

So if we all have human dna... where does the genetic difference between individuals come from?

I believe that there are several distinct ways individuals can be different. One of the primary ones is what are called 'single nucleotide polymorphisms'. These are more or less random places in the genome where a single nucleotide in genes are different in some individuals. So a particular gene might have a guanine molecule in a particular place in most people, but a subset of individuals might have an adenine molecule in that spot. These are called alleles.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism - Wikipedia

The impact of these differences varies a lot. Some of the differences make no discernable difference. Others change particular amino acids in proteins which may or may not affect protein function. Others prevent the protein from being synthesized at all. So they are responsible not only for genetic differences between people but also for many genetic diseases.

Medical researchers are very interested in single nucleotide polymorphisms. Besides causing genetic diseases, they are implicated in how different individuals respond to particular diseases, how they respond to different treatments and in differences in how well drugs work in different people. So the hot new buzzword in medical research is 'personalized medicine', with medical treatments tailored to particular individuals and not just for humans in general.

Personalized medicine - Wikipedia

Yazata said:

That's a really excellent question. If every human (apart from identical twins I guess) has unique dna, what sense does it make to talk about 'human dna' as if all human beings shared the same genetic code?

I guess that one can say that all human beings possess dna, so they all share dna in that sense. And they all possess (with some complications) the same set of genes. That's where the differences between human dna and other dna comes from, Different organisms have different sets of genes.

So if we all have human dna... where does the genetic difference between individuals come from?

I believe that there are several distinct ways individuals can be different. One of the primary ones is what are called 'single nucleotide polymorphisms'. These are more or less random places in the genome where a single nucleotide in genes are different in some individuals. So a particular gene might have a guanine molecule in a particular place in most people, but a subset of individuals might have an adenine molecule in that spot. These are called alleles.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism - Wikipedia

The impact of these differences varies a lot. Some of the differences make no discernable difference. Others change particular amino acids in proteins which may or may not affect protein function. Others prevent the protein from being synthesized at all. So they are responsible not only for genetic differences between people but also for many genetic diseases.

Medical researchers are very interested in single nucleotide polymorphisms. Besides causing genetic diseases, they are implicated in how different individuals respond to particular diseases, how they respond to different treatments and in differences in how well drugs work in different people. So the hot new buzzword in medical research is 'personalized medicine', with medical treatments tailored to particular individuals and not just for humans in general.

Personalized medicine - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

In human reality science uses medical advice contrary to its assistance. As allow me to study inference.

Genetic change is sexually conceived. No sex no babies to study. No genetic defect in reality exists. Sex created it is the human advice.

Is first human advice.

Science tries to impose a wisdom relating to a chosen sex act.

Medical advice says. Irradiation occurs to all bodies. Hence the medicines of nature are already limited to the once supported DNA health. Of humans not harmed. Atmosphere constant natural should own no harm.

Human advised balances should own all health. Hence human introduced fallout known advised.

Why humans know already medical will never own the cure of anyone. A human actually only survived life.

You own all inferred scientific want. Want to know change by God as why DNA was changed by balance no longer existing.....to want which is natural health to be one hundred percent replaced.

But then take that advice to a machine reaction status of I want constant replacement. After removal of body is enacted. The study model.

As we live we are conscious expressed idealism. The totality of being informed says the reason humans cannot be cured of life changes with God is due to the constant replaced machine reaction.

Human not healed just surviving
Reaction not healed destroying.

The constant replacement is physically enacted by humans for machine. Says why human body type was not healed.

As only living humans express all beliefs.

As the healer medical human history ideal. In a natural environment we could hurt ourselves. So medical was needed human advice.

That advice was not for science it was to assist human healing.

We already prove we are not healing.

Hence why is science lying?

YoursTrue said:

The physical universe is not the same as the spiritual aspect of things. Therefore right now I would have to say that analyzing in reality (such as the composition of mud) is not the same as a theory of evolution. Not even how the mud got there on a hill if it happened especially long ago, how it stratified, but rather the analysis of the composition of the layers.

Click to expand...

Yes, the analysis of mud would be chemical: mostly an analysis of the organic and inorganic remains in it. That is NOT evolution since evolution has to do with how species change over time and not the composition of mud.

HOWEVER, knowing about how mud gets compacted into rocks and how to figure out the age of those rocks *can* have a bearing on evolution because it can help us figure out the age of fossils we discover in those rocks.

Putting those ages together for many different fossils can tell us how species change over time. And that *is* evolution.

YoursTrue said:

It is an important point to consider for many. Furthermore, the theory, while seeming logical to some, has as far as some are concerned, serious logical unanswered gaps.

Click to expand...

Such as? And I assume religion has no such logical gaps?

Polymath257 said:

Yes, the analysis of mud would be chemical: mostly an analysis of the organic and inorganic remains in it. That is NOT evolution since evolution has to do with how species change over time and not the composition of mud.

HOWEVER, knowing about how mud gets compacted into rocks and how to figure out the age of those rocks *can* have a bearing on evolution because it can help us figure out the age of fossils we discover in those rocks.

Putting those ages together for many different fossils can tell us how species change over time. And that *is* evolution.

Click to expand...

What you study existed living.

Time your science claim is light in a gas burning.

Life is owning bio alive status only. Is not even a gas burning status.

The heavenly body changed its status to support the living changes to biology.

Dead objects don't give answers about a lived life in the same atmospheric conditions that a dead body exists within.

Hence my spiritual brother said don't theory about dead things as you were lying in theory.

Polymath257 said:

Yes, the analysis of mud would be chemical: mostly an analysis of the organic and inorganic remains in it. That is NOT evolution since evolution has to do with how species change over time and not the composition of mud.

HOWEVER, knowing about how mud gets compacted into rocks and how to figure out the age of those rocks *can* have a bearing on evolution because it can help us figure out the age of fossils we discover in those rocks.

Putting those ages together for many different fossils can tell us how species change over time. And that *is* evolution.

Click to expand...

There are theories based on the residues of those rocks and the items encapsulated in them. Then, of course, there's the question of erosion, mud slides, tsunamis, etc. I was reading about a mountain in Norway that is said to collapse in the future (erode, causing great damage to the environs). And so, if that mountain moves over the nearby earth it will greatly change the examined time element of the topography, of course. Now if such an event happened beyond the age of written history where no documents are available. it is meaningless to try to figure out what happened by dates as if that would be substantial evidence of the fossils encapsulated in the mud. That is IF no one is can accurately record such an event, since things happened way before written history and there are many events during the past several thousand years that have not been recorded. Thus ... (you have the pleasure of figuring it out)