It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wake up Christians. And understand who the real Creator is, and stop being duped.
I don't think eve was a clone, so no the DNA wouldn't be identical.
If she were a clone of Adam she never could have carried Cain in her WOMB.
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NOTurTypical
I don't think eve was a clone, so no the DNA wouldn't be identical.
From Adam's rib came Eve. Please explain how this isn't cloning?
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NOTurTypical
I don't think eve was a clone, so no the DNA wouldn't be identical.
From Adam's rib came Eve. Please explain how this isn't cloning?
Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
I saw your post where identical twins can have the same DNA, but male and female twins aren't identical twins. They're fraternal twins. Men and women have different chromosomes. Did I miss another post of yours where fraternal twins can have the same DNA? If so, could you please relink it?
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
I saw your post where identical twins can have the same DNA, but male and female twins aren't identical twins. They're fraternal twins. Men and women have different chromosomes. Did I miss another post of yours where fraternal twins can have the same DNA? If so, could you please relink it?
And her article that she linked is over a decade old. I linked to a recent article that says the previous understanding is incorrect and identical twins don't even carry identical DNA. See page 1.
Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
I saw your post where identical twins can have the same DNA, but male and female twins aren't identical twins. They're fraternal twins. Men and women have different chromosomes. Did I miss another post of yours where fraternal twins can have the same DNA? If so, could you please relink it?
Aneuploidy
For example, take the situation of an egg fertilized by a Y-bearing sperm. It has been found (Opitz, 1993) that monozygotic twinning is associated with higher than normal amounts of aneuploidy; so it is possible that if twinning were to occur through the failure of the first two blastomeres to adhere to one another, aneuploidy might also occur. In that case, the twins would have different chromosome complements. If the aneuploidy were for the X chromosome, one twin might by male (XY or XYY) while the other would be female (XO).
Such male/female "identical twins" have been found (Edwards et al., 1966; Machin, 1996). These twins would be assumed dizygotic, when they actually had originated monozygotically.
9e.devbio.com...
Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
I already covered monozygotic twins and while called "identical" they do not share the same DNA. Most "identical" twins actually don't share the same DNA. Only a small subset.
Edit: This is only referring to the case where one identical twin is a different sex than the other. The reason they don't match is because having identical twins of a different sex is caused by a genetic mutation, add, loss of a chromosome to one of the babies. This is why they don't have the same DNA. Because one of them has a mutation in it's DNA causing it to be a different sex. mutation=change=not the same DNA.edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
Although monozygotic twins are genetically very similar, a study of 92 pairs of monozygotic twins, carried out in November of 2012, has found that monozygotic twins acquire hundreds of genetic differences early in fetal development, due to mutations (or copy errors) taking place in the DNA of each twin after the splitting of the embryo. It is estimated that, on average, a set of monozygotic twins will have about 360 genetic differences that occurred early in fetal development.
Originally posted by windword
Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
I already covered monozygotic twins and while called "identical" they do not share the same DNA. Most "identical" twins actually don't share the same DNA. Only a small subset.
Edit: This is only referring to the case where one identical twin is a different sex than the other. The reason they don't match is because having identical twins of a different sex is caused by a genetic mutation, add, loss of a chromosome to one of the babies. This is why they don't have the same DNA. Because one of them has a mutation in it's DNA causing it to be a different sex. mutation=change=not the same DNA.edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
Of course they share the same DNA!
Although monozygotic twins are genetically very similar, a study of 92 pairs of monozygotic twins, carried out in November of 2012, has found that monozygotic twins acquire hundreds of genetic differences early in fetal development, due to mutations (or copy errors) taking place in the DNA of each twin after the splitting of the embryo. It is estimated that, on average, a set of monozygotic twins will have about 360 genetic differences that occurred early in fetal development.
Mutations and copy errors cause a change during development.
The fact that Eve was supposedly cloned from Adam's rib, and not created in the womb from the same egg as Adam, has little effect on the scientific reality of the story.
The creation story of Adam and Eve is just bad science. Their DNA would have been too similar to create the diversity needed to support human life as we know it. The human race would have died out if the story was true.
And you're the one using science to prove your point? If scientists have to misrepresent and lie about their own science to prove Genesis wrong, then we have a problem. Perhaps we should take Genesis more seriously then.
His team, working with top geneticists across the United States, Europe, Israel and Africa, did a genetic analysis of DNA samples from the Y chromosomes of more than 1,000 men from 22 geographic areas and determined that their most recent common ancestor was a man who lived in Africa around 59,000 years ago.
Only men have Y chromosomes and researchers can look at gradual genetic mutations in them to “count” generations.
Other studies have used mitochondrial DNA, which women seem to pass down virtually unchanged from mother to daughter, to show that the genetic “Eve” lived 143,000 years ago.
abcnews.go.com...
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
How can new DNA be introduced when only one egg, one sperm, one combination of DNA exists for two bodies. Chromosomes are expressed differently. The DNA remains the same.