He has a p.h.d In zuluology.
Your DNA and identity are not as entwined as once thought
- Thread starter Julius Skrrvin
- Start date
But I thought he was peer reviewed... 
But I thought science was 'facts'
But I thought cacology was 'the word'
But I thought cacs have no reason to lie
But I thought they were the 'smart ones'
But I thought I was smart
But I thought Egypt was cacs and asians
But I thought Vit D and reflecting sunlight from the snow make Eskimos dark
But I thought OG Hebrews were cacs because cacs said so
But I thought I was suppose to trust cacs
But I thought cacs are my friend...
But I thought they would tell me the truth
But I thought science was 'facts'
But I thought cacology was 'the word'
But I thought cacs have no reason to lie
But I thought they were the 'smart ones'
But I thought I was smart
But I thought Egypt was cacs and asians
But I thought Vit D and reflecting sunlight from the snow make Eskimos dark
But I thought OG Hebrews were cacs because cacs said so
But I thought I was suppose to trust cacs
But I thought cacs are my friend...
But I thought they would tell me the truth
Last edited:
Busted_Toes
Veteran
These c00ns always mention DNA. It's the only thing they know, since it's dripping from their face constantly. But but but... peer review 
Mr Uncle Leroy
All Star
scientists, lost, quite literally.
the human dna genome is too complex for them
clearly there is a commonality and common ancenstors with humans, because they look, like, think, act, function the same way
the human dna genome is too complex for them
clearly there is a commonality and common ancenstors with humans, because they look, like, think, act, function the same way
I don't know how it is a loss for science (and above all a win for a god).
Chimerism or (mosaicism) have existed for long : hermaphrodites, people suffering from heterochromia or Klinefelter syndrome are people who are mostly chimeras. We just never really cared about it that much because and it's obvious one can't find things if one don't look for them.
We have based our lives around the fact that having one DNA was the norm (which it is realistically) and that DNA was our biological identity therefore our real identity. But we just put all of our eggs in the same basket. That's a mistake that we should learn from and no real humanists should see this new discovery as a loss but as a new improvement in our scientific knowledge of the human race.
In fact, articles like this are a great progress for science because it grants us new ways, new views.
If for example, you look at the Lydia Fairchild (no lie about the name !) case, there's some great things to learn and for us to improve in our knowledge :
- This is a relatively rare case and there are (at this time of knowledge) less than 50 cases worldwide
- She had two DNAs and the second one which was the main was her unborn twin's
- Her DNA in her blood, in her hair, in her skin and in her mouth didn't not match her children's
- But the DNA in her cervical smear did and there may be other places that could match. Or not.
- The grandparents' DNA matched (relatively as one of a grandparent should) the children's
So what can we conclude about that ? It's interesting really :
- DNA can be different DEPENDING on the region where the sample is taken from. DNA can also be different DEPENDING on the moment when the sample is taken from (not from the Fairchild case but from the baby giving DNA to the mother and vice versa). That means that our biological identity can evolve as time goes by.
- That means, we should study more about chimerism and define a strict (if possible) array of regions in our body to be tested in order to have 100% sure biological identity (if that means anything).
- That also means that if possible the grandparents' DNA should also be tested to solidify one's biological identity.
- That further means that we are not only the children of our parents, but also of our grandparents, biologically speaking. And at this time of knowledge, we should come to the conclusion that the 4 DNAs of our grandparents + the 2 DNA of our parents (+ the DNA of an eventual unborn twin, dead at conception, dead before first pregnancy tests/exams or dead at birth etc.) = our DNA = our biological identity.
People will see this as a loss because we don't have an easy and simple answer anymore.
But.
Why should this be the way ? In which world do we live to see things 0 or 1, black or white, yes or no ? Those who truly lost are those who based their whole identity around DNA. I don't. My identity isn't just biological, it's a gathering of my culture, my ancestry, my emotions, my experiences, my DNA, my handprints, my education etc. that are ALL parts of me. And some of those factors evolve with time.
Because even our bodies evolve : we are born, we grow, we get old, we die. If our body was the same during all our life, how could we grow or die naturally ? The foolish thing is to think that everything in our lives are carved in stone. We are part of the biosphere and we interact with our environnement endlessly even after our death. It shouldn't be a surprise that our biological identity CAN (doesn't mean it automatically does) evolve because our cells do (thanks to virus, bacterias). Our body is a kind of biosphere within the biosphere.
The funny thing in the Lydia Fairchild case is that during the case she had a third baby (the case began with the first two kids when she applied for aid). There were a witness appointed by the judge when she GAVE BIRTH to the third. Said witness witnessed the blood samples takes and the DNA still did not match. They had proof but because our society only relied on the DNA to prove one's identity (when it's just the biological identity) and despite the ACTUAL proof of the birth, the judge didn't believe she was the mother...
We were happy about DNA being our biological identity. It's the easy way, the miracle way because it was the tool that could solve cases, prove biological ancestry, doping etc.
But it still is.
The Fairchild case just proves that multiple DNAs could co-exist in one body. It doesn't prove anything else and above all, that our DNA is not our biological identity. In a murder case, if you the culprit has chimerism, and he has two DNAs, if one matches then the culprit is still guilty. Where's the problem ?
Having one DNA is the norm. Being heterosexual is the norm. Being fit is the norm. Being litterate is the norm. But that doesn't mean people can't differ from them. And that the future won't change them.
Believing that earth was flat WAS the norm. Fortunately people differed from it (see what I did there ?)
Yes, science is not sure at 100% (but what is ?) but more at 99% and that remaining 1% are what makes us great as a specie. Our hunger for more knowledge.
I rest my case.
Chimerism or (mosaicism) have existed for long : hermaphrodites, people suffering from heterochromia or Klinefelter syndrome are people who are mostly chimeras. We just never really cared about it that much because and it's obvious one can't find things if one don't look for them.
We have based our lives around the fact that having one DNA was the norm (which it is realistically) and that DNA was our biological identity therefore our real identity. But we just put all of our eggs in the same basket. That's a mistake that we should learn from and no real humanists should see this new discovery as a loss but as a new improvement in our scientific knowledge of the human race.
In fact, articles like this are a great progress for science because it grants us new ways, new views.
If for example, you look at the Lydia Fairchild (no lie about the name !) case, there's some great things to learn and for us to improve in our knowledge :
- This is a relatively rare case and there are (at this time of knowledge) less than 50 cases worldwide
- She had two DNAs and the second one which was the main was her unborn twin's
- Her DNA in her blood, in her hair, in her skin and in her mouth didn't not match her children's
- But the DNA in her cervical smear did and there may be other places that could match. Or not.
- The grandparents' DNA matched (relatively as one of a grandparent should) the children's
So what can we conclude about that ? It's interesting really :
- DNA can be different DEPENDING on the region where the sample is taken from. DNA can also be different DEPENDING on the moment when the sample is taken from (not from the Fairchild case but from the baby giving DNA to the mother and vice versa). That means that our biological identity can evolve as time goes by.
- That means, we should study more about chimerism and define a strict (if possible) array of regions in our body to be tested in order to have 100% sure biological identity (if that means anything).
- That also means that if possible the grandparents' DNA should also be tested to solidify one's biological identity.
- That further means that we are not only the children of our parents, but also of our grandparents, biologically speaking. And at this time of knowledge, we should come to the conclusion that the 4 DNAs of our grandparents + the 2 DNA of our parents (+ the DNA of an eventual unborn twin, dead at conception, dead before first pregnancy tests/exams or dead at birth etc.) = our DNA = our biological identity.
People will see this as a loss because we don't have an easy and simple answer anymore.
But.
Why should this be the way ? In which world do we live to see things 0 or 1, black or white, yes or no ? Those who truly lost are those who based their whole identity around DNA. I don't. My identity isn't just biological, it's a gathering of my culture, my ancestry, my emotions, my experiences, my DNA, my handprints, my education etc. that are ALL parts of me. And some of those factors evolve with time.
Because even our bodies evolve : we are born, we grow, we get old, we die. If our body was the same during all our life, how could we grow or die naturally ? The foolish thing is to think that everything in our lives are carved in stone. We are part of the biosphere and we interact with our environnement endlessly even after our death. It shouldn't be a surprise that our biological identity CAN (doesn't mean it automatically does) evolve because our cells do (thanks to virus, bacterias). Our body is a kind of biosphere within the biosphere.
The funny thing in the Lydia Fairchild case is that during the case she had a third baby (the case began with the first two kids when she applied for aid). There were a witness appointed by the judge when she GAVE BIRTH to the third. Said witness witnessed the blood samples takes and the DNA still did not match. They had proof but because our society only relied on the DNA to prove one's identity (when it's just the biological identity) and despite the ACTUAL proof of the birth, the judge didn't believe she was the mother...
We were happy about DNA being our biological identity. It's the easy way, the miracle way because it was the tool that could solve cases, prove biological ancestry, doping etc.
But it still is.
The Fairchild case just proves that multiple DNAs could co-exist in one body. It doesn't prove anything else and above all, that our DNA is not our biological identity. In a murder case, if you the culprit has chimerism, and he has two DNAs, if one matches then the culprit is still guilty. Where's the problem ?
Having one DNA is the norm. Being heterosexual is the norm. Being fit is the norm. Being litterate is the norm. But that doesn't mean people can't differ from them. And that the future won't change them.
Believing that earth was flat WAS the norm. Fortunately people differed from it (see what I did there ?)
Yes, science is not sure at 100% (but what is ?) but more at 99% and that remaining 1% are what makes us great as a specie. Our hunger for more knowledge.
I rest my case.
Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
Isn't it the only possible way ?
Through a transplant or through the placenta ?
Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.35957/abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
I'd post more but i gotta head to a barbecue, peace
I don't understand your point.
Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
no point, just trying to give you an overview of mosaicism (how it happens) from what we know now. this might help. I posted the wrong article, this one is the review.I don't understand your point.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6144/358.full
