Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Manipulation of DNA by cells?
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 11 of 36 (668682)
07-23-2012 6:20 PM


There are many facets to evolution. One is when new genes are created. Another is the timing of genes. The body turns genes on and off at different times. Though there are about 2% genetic differences between humans and Chimps, there are many unstated differences in timing. The changes in timing allow a much faster mechanism of evolution than gene changes. For example, most mammals leg bones are similar. The main difference is the time the genes are active. The Body has the ability to turn on and off the genes. True, most of this is controlled by non-gene parts of DNA, but it is the body that adds and removes the methyl and other groups that turn on and off the genes.
Another example of environmental influences changing the DNA is cancer. Whether bad sunburns or chemical causes, mutations arise in genes. In a sense, the body causes the changes in DNA. When enough accumulate (often about 5-10) the cancer takes off. Both these might be what the creationist was referring to, but neither makes his point.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 07-24-2012 12:27 PM greentwiga has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 14 of 36 (668868)
07-25-2012 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
07-24-2012 12:27 PM


Yes, I realize that non gene portions control the gene portions. I was just trying to figure out how someone misreading a scientific article might think that the cell changes the DNA. This was one method, where if you just focused on the part of the chain of events where the cell puts the deactivation groups on the DNA, one could come to the (wrong) conclusion. I have seen them cherry pick points out of scientific papers that support their point, though the sentence in the context of the paper might say the opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 07-24-2012 12:27 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024