About DNA - (and evolution)

[rational experiences]

The teaching science of man's consciousness. Maths determined by the man's bio state human presence aware conscious entity as body is involved consciously first....equalled design only to build as a scientist.

He built said machine. By man's conscious thought design. Designer was first human. Anti design alien.

Machine ends up exploded destroyed in reactive effects as it returns by cosmic law to the planet form. Man never owned cosmic laws.

Hence the effect is small as compared to.o gods earth natural mass. Rationally.

Even though you might measure the earth's circumference you are imposing the measure.

What man's ego ignores.

The ark by measure was caused.

The anti effect demon out of strata anti designer of man plus ark no mass equals answer. The machine. A cause.

No machine. No man. As man did not design earth. The anti cause.

So all he caused was an alien type being inside of metallic radiation mass that cooled itself.

Anti man and anti machine and rationally he knew.

He however taught it as anti Christ. As CH gases belonged to the immaculate heavens. Not gods stone.

It owned a reason for the teaching status.

What gods body released was science of mans activated cause....his teaching.

Which is an accumulative cause.

So the ark lands interacts takes off cools burns returns lands all around the large body of O God earth as the large reaction attack conversion.

Was sciences teaching. Man on ground cause.

Your design is not relative advice.

Hence gases that should not be in mud would be methane. How are you going to work out what shouldn't be present in mud as compared to what you caused to be put into earths dirt mud clay by change?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

So human dna is, I conclude from your post, distinctly different in a sense from bonobo dna, right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So human dna is, I conclude from your post, distinctly different in a sense from bonobo dna, right?

It is known to be different. That is not a surprise. It is how similar it is to human DNA that is telling. You can dance around all you like, but you cannot wish the facts into the cornfield and hope they are forgotten.

 

[ratiocinator]

So human dna is, I conclude from your post, distinctly different in a sense from bonobo dna, right?

No, it's very, very similar. What's more it's similar both in the functioning genes but also those genes that are mutated and non-functional.

What's more, we can look at the differences between individual humans (every human has some mutations, mostly entirely insignificant) and we can see a pattern; some sorts of mutations are more likely to happen than others. We can then take our closest relative, the chimpanzee, and look at the differences their DNA and ours, and see the same statistical pattern. Obviously there are far more differences between chimps and humans, than between individual humans, but if we adjust the scale the same pattern is obvious (source):-

 

[Polymath257]

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.

No, not of course.

This can be detected and dealt with.

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)

It would be much more reliable to simply look at the layers and determine their characteristics and see if such erosion occurred. This isn't a difficult thing to do.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

So it's not a mutation, you say. Or rather not a "genetic mutation." (It's not?) Something mutated, I would say. Even if two embryos merge.

 

[gnostic]

So it's not a mutation, you say. Or rather not a "genetic mutation." (It's not?) Something mutated, I would say. Even if two embryos merge.

Are you talking about cojoined twins?

If so, then the answer is no, it is not mutation.

You know about identical twins developed from the same egg, and under normal condition, the egg cell split, and then develop into 2 embryos separately, known as fission of cell; the split will cause the development of twins. (Fraternal twins developed from 2 separate eggs.)

In the case, of cojoined twins, it is less about embryos emerging, and more about fission only occurring partially.

You are forgetting "genetic mutation". There are no genetic (from the parents) being involved in passing the genes from parents to children to become "cojoined".

 

[Polymath257]

So it's not a mutation, you say. Or rather not a "genetic mutation." (It's not?) Something mutated, I would say. Even if two embryos merge.

No, a mutation is a change in the DNA.

malformations, like having two heads, are NOT the result of mutations. They are usually the result of development going bad. In the case of two-headed snakes, the issue is *two* embryos that merge together.

That is NOT a change in the genetics, so it is NOT a mutation. Nothing mutated.

Again, the way to tell the difference is that a two-headed snake will have one-headed babies. The two-headedness does not get passed on to the next generation.

Sorry, but if you want to communicate, you have to learn the language. Mutations are changes in genetics, not errors of development.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not of course.

Sorry, but I don't u

This can be detected and dealt with.



It would be much more reliable to simply look at the layers and determine their characteristics and see if such erosion occurred. This isn't a difficult thing to do.[/QUOTE]When dating of an object is done, isn't the age or presumed age of the soil around it taken into account?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, a mutation is a change in the DNA.

malformations, like having two heads, are NOT the result of mutations. They are usually the result of development going bad. In the case of two-headed snakes, the issue is *two* embryos that merge together.

That is NOT a change in the genetics, so it is NOT a mutation. Nothing mutated.

Again, the way to tell the difference is that a two-headed snake will have one-headed babies. The two-headedness does not get passed on to the next generation.

Sorry, but if you want to communicate, you have to learn the language. Mutations are changes in genetics, not errors of development.

What proofs are there of changing of characteristics by mutation, such as fish to landrovers?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What proofs are there of changing of characteristics by mutation, such as fish to landrovers?

There are no proofs, but there is evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, but I don't u

This can be detected and dealt with.



It would be much more reliable to simply look at the layers and determine their characteristics and see if such erosion occurred. This isn't a difficult thing to do.

When dating of an object is done, isn't the age or presumed age of the soil around it taken into account?[/QUOTE]

That is *one* factor. But the geology of the region also is taken into account. And it is the geology that would reveal the issues you bring up.

 

[Polymath257]

What proofs are there of changing of characteristics by mutation, such as fish to landrovers?

The changed are inherited. That means they are genetic. And genetic changes are, by definition, mutations.

 

[gnostic]

When dating of an object is done, isn't the age or presumed age of the soil around it taken into account?

Yes, soil can be dated.

If the soil - old soil - that were were around the remains of the bodies, the luminescence dating method can be used to date minerals (eg feldspar, mica, quartz) found in soils.

This technique would date these minerals, by determining when the last time the samples were exposed to direct sunlight, thus ultraviolet rays.

So, these minerals in the soils that were buried with the remains, should be able to be used along with radiometric dating method (eg methods like carbon, potassium or lead isotopes) that can be used to date fossils or rocks.

Using 2 different methods (radiometric and luminescence) should be able to provide precise ranges that would collaborate each other test results. That would provide verification of the accuracy of each methods.

I know you heard of radiometric dating method, like when they used radiocarbon technique, but have you heard of luminescence dating method before?

There are numbers of different luminescence techniques, the two most popular methods are -

1. Thermoluminescence
2. OSL (Optical Stimulated Luminescence)

Luminescence methods not only can date minerals in soils, but also minerals that existed in rocks and ceramic or pottery.

Pottery as you should know, are made from clay, and clay soils, such as kaolin clay are the most common type of clay, and these have minerals too.

So luminescence methods are excellent techniques used in archaeology, to date pottery or ceramic wares. They date the minerals in these artefacts, to determine how long objects have been buried and the last time they were exposed to direct sunlight, particularly ultraviolet radiation.

Edit

If you want to learn how dating objects work using luminescence, then I would suggest you look them up, eg luminescence, thermoluminescence or OSL.