The genetic puppeteer (ever wonder why genetic twins look progressively different over time?)

Creation Magazine ^ | David White

[GodGunsGuts]

The genetic puppeteer

by David White

Back in 2005 a group of researchers published a landmark study on a question that has long puzzled geneticists: why aren’t identical twins … identical? Considering that they have the same DNA sequence in each of their cells, it seems a bit strange that they often possess a number of physical differences, such as different fingerprints, and different susceptibilities to disease. This raises the question: if two people can have identical DNA sequences and yet be so different, is there more to our genetic blueprint than just DNA?...

[GodGunsGuts]

Oh, I get it. You start using “snoogums” as a defense mechanism when a creaionist points out you don’t know what you’re talking about. LOL

[Darwin Fish]

Simply explained with creationism.

[GodGunsGuts]

Spare me your belated understanding. You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about. Goodnight Mr. “Scientist.”

[Wacka]

Most of the function of the non transcribed regions is due to the macro structure of the DNA. Mutations in the DNA will likely not affect the structural functions until enough are accumulated. If enough do, then the they may cause the cell to not replicate and die off or they may actually allow a new and possibly beneficial function to occur. If this new function is beneficial, then the organism will survive and be able to pass on it’s genes to it’s organism, having evolved a little.

[21twelve]

Bump for later reading as a father of identical twins.

They are almost to the age where they are done losing their baby teeth. They lose (and grow) in a mirror image of each other - every single tooth! (Upper right for one, upper left on the other, etc.)

But yes - different in so many ways. The oldest was a natural birth. The second was an emergency “c-section” with the cord wrapped around her neck. Born 10 weeks premature. Neither had any real complications though. Interesting that the second one (with no air/heart beat) is now about 1/2 inch taller and a couple of pounds heavier. Although at birth I think she was a half - ounce bigger than her sister (IIRC: 3 lbs 4 oz and 3 lbs 4.5 oz).

[Wacka]

It was known for a long time that the majority of the DNA had some function. What is new is what exactly that is.

I’m believing that it’s pointless to argue with ignorant people who have no intention of believing facts.

It got under your skin last night. Do you have latent homosexual feelings???

Again, ignorance is bliss soongams.

[Wacka]

Identical twins = nature’s clones.

[GodGunsGuts]

Your ignorance becomes more and more apparent with each new reply. Have you still not read the paper? Don’t you realize that they now know that each segment of DNA can have multiple functions, and thus a single mutation can have a profound effect on each and every one of them? Read the article. You are WAY behind the times...and believe me, it shows.

[Myrddin]

Grab a copy of the "Genotype Diet" by Peter D'Adamo. His prior books aim dietary "avoids" and "recommended" foods based on blood type. Blood type mirror the antigenic type of all cells in the body. It turns out that his approach was good, but has been greatly improved. The missing link is "epigenetics". The blood type is fixed by genetics, but many other characteristics are sensitive to the developing environment between fertilization and birth. Hormone and nutritional impacts from the mother's body are reflected in the development of the baby. The reason fingerprints are unique is that they are a running "log" of impacts caused by hormones and nutritional input. The ratio of upper leg to lower leg, leg to torso, relative finger lengths (ring finger vs index finger), left/right symmetry, jaw shape and tooth characteristics. D'Adamo roughly categorizes 6 general "genotypes". Hunter, Explorer, Teacher, Gatherer, Warrior and Nomad. You can quickly shuffle into part of the description by blood type. From that point, you have to resort to measuring body characteristics to whittle down to the "correct" genotype. Once determined, there are food and exercise recommendations consistent with the identified genotype.

The upshot is that epigenetics plays a big part in shaping the individual beyond the initial genetic constitution.

[GodGunsGuts]

Wrong again. The Darwiniacs labeled 97% of the genome as leftover “junk” from our evolutionary past. Creationists and IDers have long argued that the designer would not create a genome that is mostly junk, and predicted that function would be found for the same. As per usual, the creationists got it right, and the Evos were dead-wrong.

[Wacka]

A mutation can have a significant impact on one function or many or none at all. It depends if the function is based on the base pair level, as with translated regions, intron/exon borders and exon splice sites, promoter sequences or structural such as histone binding, histone acetylation, chromosome coiling, nuclear matrix structure, telomeric structure etc.
Again, what is new is not that these regions have a function, but learning what the specific region’s function is.

[Wacka]

I thought you were going to bed, nighty-night snoogams.

[Myrddin]

Molecular biology was in its infancy when I was at UCSD from 1974 to 1976. Rick Firtel and Bill Loomis were a couple of my favorite profs in the field. Chris Wills covered the "population biology" courses. Dan Lindsley was my genetics prof. Brown and Helinski were my microbiology profs. I served as a TA for Stanley Miller. It was neat to actually get two work with one of the "famous" names in biology. Revelle was a great (and competitive) environment.

[GodGunsGuts]

If the genome is 93%+ functional (and will likely go up to near 100% with further research), and any given segment of DNA has multiple functions, that means almost all mutations will affect multiple functions. This renders neo-Darwinian evolution impossible. Furthermore, you might want to consult the other two links I posted, as they render neo-Darwinian evolution impossible on completely different grounds. Face it, neo-Darwinism is dead. That is why the Evos are clamoring to abandon the HMS Beagle in search of a new God-denying evolutionary ship.

[GodGunsGuts]

I thought I’d stay up for a while to show you that no matter which way you turn, Darwin’s fanciful creation myth is dead.

[waiyu]

I have no idea what you 2 are saying, but it is very entertaining to read... or I’m very bored.

[GodGunsGuts]

If you wish to know why so many Evos are abandining the HMS Beagle, read the following in order. Trust me, it will be worth your time, and they will completely blow you away (as they did me). All the best—GGG

Life’s Irreducible Structure pt. 1

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6172/

Life’s Irreducible Structure pt. 2

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_77-83.pdf

Astonishing DNA Complexity Demolished neo-Darwinism

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf

[waiyu]

I appreciate the links. I am always in need of education.

[syriacus]

Thanks very much for the ping, Valkyrie927.

[metmom]

Yea.