Posted on 12/10/2009 8:12:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
How do you know the DNA in each of the twins is exactly identical?
I am saying saying nothing of the kind. Reproduction even in setient creatures need not be a conscious act. The primary objective of living organisms is to reproduce.
Again you and your partners do hit-and-run attacks and fail to address the issue. Your scientific method is showing. I have not brought up 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 years, or 6 billion years. You have.
“How do you know the DNA in each of the twins is exactly identical?”
If you think it could be different you would have to explain how since identical twins come from the same zygote. Every DNA test to date indicates identical DNA for identical twins.
Where exactly would different DNA come from in identical twins?
Hank
Conciousness of action is the definition of sentience. My question regards the title of this article about which we discuss the matter. 'Purpose' implies intent toward an end. How does a non-sentient entity 'purpose' an end. Scientific materialism does not allow for sentience, and by implication, a teleological plan sought. ONly sentient beings do that.
I know when you and I were in undergraduate school we were taught that an organism is 'successful' if it completes a life-cycle and generates another of its kind. As a trained botanist, you know that is an artificial assignment of classification. It is, in fact, a tautology and therefore meaningless. It is like the moniker, "survival of the fittest". Of course the fittest survive, by definition. It is a tautology. As a trial lawyer you would not go before the court and say "this man is innocent because he is innocent." The judge would look at you out of the corner of his/her eye. I am simply trying to understand the arguement a darwinist materialist would profer to support this assertion.
Of course, that is based on comparisons of a small amount of the DNA. The so-called JUNK DNA has not been compared, as it was considered junk, and of no importance.
Where exactly would different DNA come from in identical twins?
Since they aren't perfectly identical, then it is obvious some of their DNA is different.
If NONE of their DNA was different, how could they not be exactly identical?
“Since they aren’t perfectly identical, then it is obvious some of their DNA is different.
If NONE of their DNA was different, how could they not be exactly identical?”
That is called “begging the question,” a fallacious argument that assumes the conclusion in the premise. You have assumed that DNA is the total determiner of an organisms characteristics. But that is the question. Your question, “If NONE of their DNA was different, how could they not be exactly identical?” assumes without a DNA difference there could be no morphological difference. But that has never been established and the very thing I doubt.
As for junk DNA (which I agree is more important than is currently assumed), there is still no explanation of why or how it could be different in identical twins.
Hank
Random mutations from the environment. Cosmic rays. These can occur after the zygote has split into the twins. If it happened in a gene relating to features, they could look slightly different.
“Random mutations from the environment. Cosmic rays. These can occur after the zygote has split into the twins. If it happened in a gene relating to features, they could look slightly different.”
Since no identical twins are ever identical, are you saying this always happens? ...and your evidence for that would be what? Or is this more evolutionary conjecture and story-telling?
Hank
Don’t know. They just showed that Uracil could be produced in conditions present in space. Maybe they are working at it.
Finding the answer to one small step can take a long time.
I had to change about 10 DNA bases of a gene to get it to be expressed in the organism I wanted it to be expressed in -the organism had a quirk in it’s genetic code. A certain amino acid was coded by a different codon than normal. It took two of us about three weeks to do it and verify the sequence we wanted was correct. Add that to deciding what promoter (switch) to use to turn it on and what DNA vector was needed to introduce it into the organism. Took about 3-4 months.
No two organisms are identical, even identical twins. They may appear identical, but there can be differences in their DNA. DNA mutations are not always deleterious. They can be neutral or beneficial.
The DNA Polymerases that copy the DNA have a known error rate. Cosmic rays pass through your body all the time.
If they happen to hit your DNA (rare since you and everything else are mostly empty space)they can mutate a base pair.
Slight differences in appearances may be due to the in-utero environment. One twin might might be taking more nutrients than the other when a feature started developing, changing the expression of the genes a little, enough for a subtle change. Things like moles and birthmarks may be due to mutations that change expression when that specific area was developing.
A boss I had had fraternal twins (a boy and a girl). She said the girl was larger when born and bossed her brother around even as infants.
Lots of guesses and conjecture. If it satifies you, fine.
I would hardly call that science though, would you?
Still, it’s very much like, “evolutionary science.” I think you can see why I do not find it convincing. It’s much like the global warming religion, those who believe in it will grab at any conjectural straws to defend their “position.” If they are right, they do not need to. Those who know they are right are never desperate to convince others.
Hank
Hey dumbo,it’s not like CSI or one of those TV shows. They don’t have machines where they take a swab of your cheek, put it in a machine, and after the commercial, your whole DNA sequence comes up on the screen.
Humans have > 1 Billion base pairs in their gemome.
All people have differences in their DNA or we’d all be clones. There are many differrent mechanisms for introducing mutations into your DNA.
Learn something.
Twice now you didn’t answer the question.
And the existence, and continued discovery of extremophiles making it all the way to the stage called “life” pretty much proves they were right, and then some.
All that deliberate work by more than one researcher.
And we're supposed to believe that lightning bolts in the *right* kind of atmosphere under uncontrolled conditions with impure solutions of reactants was supposed to lead to the formation of life of the complexity of that exhibited by even single celled organisms?
LOL!
LOL! I usually don't bother even being on these threads, as some folks seem to be more interested in derision than discussion.
If being demeaned by an arrogant a-hole was really my 'thang', I'd have stayed married to my first husband.
[grin]
I know what I am discussing, do you?
Get some education on the subject. Go to the library and read some textbooks. I suggest Biochemistry by Stryer as a start.
Doncha just love the ‘instant revisionism’ ??
I’m thinking her ‘first husband’ was the winner in that deal...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.