Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
Over at UD, Granny Tard has a new post up that has me more confused than usual. Among a laundry list of various unrelated items that are poorly treated at various outposts of her blogfarm, she notes a 2005 study indicating that the DNA of identical twins is not 100% identical. She blathers about how this is contrary to what you read in textbooks, and how this is more evidence that genetics is not the only player in determining biological outcomes, and that evil atheist materialist darwinists are just plain wrong again.
But textbooks rarely have up-to-the-minute information in them. Science makes new discoveries regularly. We all know that genes are not the only player. None of this is surprising. Yet Denso would presumably have us believe that this is a huge issue, and lays it at the feet of "Darwinist thugs" who are "wrong in thinking that genes rule or that all you need to know about a person is in his or her early genome. The design of life is far more complex than that."
Eh? How is any of this relevant to ID? Did ID predict any of this? Or is it just another attempt to smear real scientists, based on ignorance of the science, in a vain attempt to distract rubes from noticing that ID has done no scientific exploration at all? They haven't done enough biology to even be wrong about it!
The comments are pretty loopy too. The usual IDiots rail against textbook authors, even though it is highly likely that none of them have read a modern biology textbook ever. larrynormanfan points out that it is a tad unrealistic to expect a finding announced in 2005 to be in most textbooks today. And bfast tards it up with this gem. | Quote | larrynormanfan, I tend to agree with you that there is no valid argument on the “textbook” issue re identical twins’ DNA. However, there is a much bigger fish to fry with this issue. The real question is, how many functional* mutations are possible per generation within the darwinian model. Some have suggested that there is a limit of two or three. I strongly suggest that the limit is one. If my mother passed to me a fortunate mutation, but I also have a fresh unfortunate mutation, how is natural selection going to select for my mother’s fortunate mutation, but not for my unfortunate one. After all, I only die once. I know, sexual selection, but even in sexual selection, I am still passing on unfortunate and untested mutations faster than I am passing on the fortunate mutations.
The twin-study evidence shows that we are the product of many mutations, as at least 5% of our DNA is functional, we are clearly the product of bunches of functional mutations. We, therefore, must be devolving.
*A functional mutation is a mutation that actually affects the phenotype of myself, or of my offspring. For instance, a mutation that is truly in “junk” DNA would not be functional. A mutated nucleotide in a coding gene that results in the identical produced protein is likely to not be a functional mutation. A mutation that changes the amino pattern of a protein but does not change the protein’s characteristics would not nessessarily be functional. However, there are many opportunities for functional mutations, of the functional ones, the vast majority are deleterious. |
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
