Can you inherit genetic material from both mom and dad and ONLY one set of DNA be present in one organ and the other set be present ONLY in other organs?\nExample:  My blood's DNA only shows mom's genectic material and a tissue sample of say, my liver, only shows my dad's genetic material?  Is this truly possible?\nIf you have heard of Cymarism and are an authority on it, I am all ears.  Rob
135701
Did you mean Chimerism?\n\nIn zoology, chimeras are animals which have two or more different populations of cells, which are genetically distinct and which originated in different zygotes (fertilized eggs)—also called mosaicism. It either is acquired through the infusion of allogeneic hematopoietic cells during transplantation or transfusion or it is inherited. In fraternal twins, chimerism occurs by means of blood-vessel anastomoses. Chimeras are named after the mythological creature Chimera.\n\nSo it is posible to have two populations of cells with different chromosomes in different organs, this is due to the fact that Chimeras typically have immunologic tolerance to both cell lines. That is their white cells respect both sets of cells. that condition is know as Tetragametic chimerism, and this has occurred in humans, though it is considered extremely rare.
239860
Well, there is genetic analysis, both of the cell DNA and of the mitochondrial DNA.  That's been pretty darn conclusive in favor of evolution.\n\n(But I don't know why I bother answering you; you clearly have your mind made up already and are not interested in inconvenient facts.)
659406
even if neither of your parents have red hair both of them need to have the red hair gene for u to b born with it. i have red hair, the only one in my family too! now my hubby has red hair and my little twins have a mop of ginger its great innit??!!
3224
ofcourse nice question ... and this leads us to another question ...\n\nWhat was Adam's and Eve's DNA!!?\n\nJesus is like Adam ... No earthly or non-earthly father ... he is a messenger that God created from nothing just like he created Adam and Eve!
266128
Family and biology are two separate things.  Your family are the people around you that you love and who love you in return and who treat you like family regardless of biology.  If your concerned about biological relations then the only way is through a DNA test.  Most cities have places that do DNA tests for a cost and you would just need to provide them with your DNA and your dads.
498139
Though you will ignore the answer, I'll try anyway.  \n\nYour question, with explanation was a classic straw man, so I'll answer your question.\n\nI do not support ID as per se, but, all they are saying is the following:\n\nStep 1:  dna exists.\nStep 2:  later, new dna exists which could not have been eluciadated from existing dna, because there is unquestionably new and unique information in this new dna, which did not exist before.\nStep 3:  how did it happen?  \nStep 4:  it either happened by some still unknown natural or biological mechanism, or it was caused, created.\nStep 5: the natural or biological mechanism seems unlikely as the cause for strictly reasonable and logical reasons.  However, if it could be discovered, it would be one of the most important discoveries ever, and would be communicated as such.  This is still one of the mysteries in biology.  \nStep 6:  new information is not created by natural and random processes.  This just does not occur in nature.  Based on experience and logic.  \nStep 7:  based on the above, it seems that design is involved.\n\nThis is not hard logic.  The point is that you have closed your mind to the issues the ID people are trying to consider, and ID people are fully engaged in science.  What happens if you are wrong?\n\nBasically, ID does not say design is perfect, however, it could very well be optimal, and that takes intelligence, and then it is not a flaw.  ID people have answered your question many times.  Many you need to do some reading.  I cannot say the retina is shoddely wired.  Your remark was a rhetorical and opinionated remark.\n\nNot trying to give you a hard time.  Just the facts.\n\nEdit:  Anything that is proven by science, I agree with.  Duplication is well known.  I hope I was clear.  The issue is:  Here is dna without a certain new function, like a lung, or kidney, or brain, or eye, or skin, of bone, or hair, of tear duct, or immune response, etc.  Later, a 100 lines, or millions of lines of new dna exist with this code.  Duplication is not the mechanism, for the function did not exist, and requires some pretty profound new engineering to create.  The unanswered question is:  how did it happen?  Randomness cannot be part of the solution, since the improbabilities are far too great.  \n\nCan this question be answered, or is it still open?  The answer I usually get is, well just because we do not know, does not mean we should accept the possibility of a creator.  I say, you should consider both, until we have an answer.  You may lean one way or the other, but both are still possibilities.  \n\nThe most knowledgeable scientists agree for example, in cosmology, the closer we get to the beginning of the universe, the more the questions become philosophical and theological.  You are discounting a vital side of the story.
305022
Ahhh...nature versus nurture!  Even the experts cannot say with certainty whether nature and your genetic makeup or your nurturing is what makes up the person. There have been studies done with twins who were raised apart, and found that the twins had MANY things that they did just alike, from little things such as which hand they used to open a letter to bigger things such as they body-type and coloring of the people they fell in love with!  There have also been many studies done as to how poverty, violence, drug/alcohol abuse, sexual/physical abuse and parental abandonment affects children, especially in the birth to age 4 range, and how this shows up in their later life as violence in men and self-abuse in women. So having said all this, I personally feel that it is a combination of both, and sometimes it is neither. There are always the stories of the family who did everything right and still wound up with a drug addicted child or a murderer or rapist on their hands. But if you take a 'normal' family and have them raise a child (by normal I mean average, honest, working, functioning people)you will by and large see differences in that child as compared to a child raised by a disfunctional, abusive, out of control, self-serving family.   Did this answer your question at all?
521562
During prophase 1 of meiosis, the chromosomes have duplicated and have joined with their homologous pair to form a 4 stranded tetrad.\n\nBecause you get one chromosome in each homologous pair from your mother and one from your father, although they code for the same concepts, they may code slightly differently (ie blue eyes vs brown eyes).\n\nTo exchange genetic material, during prophase one the two chromatids closest together in the tetrad (one from each mom and dad- the outer two are too far away to do this, so they remain untouched) "cross over".  Literally, the ends of the chromatids cross each other and bits of the chromosomes break off of one and reattach on the other, giving genetic variability.\n\nOk, so for example: the chromosome your mother gave you coded for blue eyes, blonde hair, curly hair, and long fingers.\nThe chromosome from your father codes for the same principles, just differently- say brown eyes, red hair, straight hair and short fingers.\n\nSo crossing over between these two occur in prophase 1, and some codes are swapped.\n\nNow we have a tetrad (4 chromatids) that code for the following.\n(We'll say the chromosome from mother is on the left and from father is on the right)\nStarting with the leftmost and going to the rightmost:\nChromatid 1 codes for: \n-blue eyes, blonde hair, curly hair, and long fingers\nChromatid 2 codes for:\n-blue eyes, brown hair, curly hair, and short fingers.\nChromatid 3 codes for:\n-brown eyes, blonde hair, straight hair, and long fingers\nChromatid 4 codes for:\n-brown eyes, brown hair, straight hair and short fingers.\n\nSo now we have the genetic variability, and 4 completely unique chromatids, that are still homologous pairs, just giving us four different codings for the same traits.\n\nHope this helps.
316237
Simply put, we say that chromosomes are the basis of inheritance because they contain all the DNA coding which tells our cells how to replicate, and tells our body as a whole which tissues and organs to produce, where to put them, etc.  Also, we refer to chromosomes as the basis of inheritance because all our genes and DNA are contained within chromosomes, and so we don't inherit any of those separately from inheriting the chromosomes they are found upon.\n\nThere are a few reasons we know the DNA in our cells is primarily responsible for our inherited traits (in other words, the traits which not only make us human, but which make us human beings with traits unique to our parents, such as having "our mother's eyes", or "our father's nose"), is because when DNA is removed from cellular structure, the affected cell cannot replicate or divide successfully, and when DNA is altered, the alterations we see in the DNA are expressed in the body of the creature whose DNA was altered.\n\nAs a result of consistently seeing that cells deprived of their DNA cannot replicate themselves or manufacture new structures, while cells deprived of other parts can still do so, and can construct new parts to replace what they lose as they are damaged, we are sure DNA is the material responsible for the process of replication of cells.\n\nWe are also sure it is responsible for inheritance and growth because we can watch the DNA of growing organisms consistently express different parts of itself to influence how the organism in question grows, thereby giving us answers to not only whether or not DNA is the responsible structure for such things, but also just which parts of DNA (known as genes) are responsible for which areas of development.\n\nFinally, we say it is the source of inheritance because it is directly passed from parents to offspring no matter how reproduction is accomplished, and is responsible for determining how the offspring develops.  For creatures which reproduce asexually, it means their DNA is transferred directly and virtually unchanged, producing offspring almost identical to the parent.\n\nFor creatures which reproduce sexually, the body of those ready to reproduce manufactures a special type of cell (known as a gamete), using a different process of DNA replication which results not in two cells with DNA identical to the first cell, but four cells with "half versions" of the DNA specifically made to compliment the incomplete version of the DNA of our chosen mate.  When these two DNA codes combine, they determine the blueprint upon which our offspring will develop, meaning the physical characteristics our children end up with is what we have directly passed on to them... or in other words what they have inherited from us as parents.\n\nThe evidence of this is found not only in the physical similarity of children to their parents, but in physical defects which are expressed through their genes (such as fanconi anemia or cystic fibrosis), where the expressed genetic flaw can be traced back to "carrier genes" in the parents-- or in other words single flawed genes being suppressed in the parent's DNA by a healthy copy of the gene which was not inherited by the offspring, thus resulting in its illness, and we can also trace the unique genetic patterns of offspring back to their parents, usually with such certainty because genes are so complex and unique to each organism, there is no possibility of the genetic structure of the offspring in question having come from any other source than its parents... thus assuring us that not only does the offspring's DNA determine the parameters of its physical development, but also that the DNA in question was inherited exclusively from the parents.\n\nIf you are wondering why we translate such things into notions such as legal inheritance, it is because we're one of many organisms which has evolved to naturally favor its own offspring a
132349
All three of these answers above me are correct.  Your biological mother would have to be BO and your biological father would be AO and the O allele in each would be recessive, or not showing its trait because of the dominant a/b allele.  A Punnett Square would look something like this:  \nMOM    \n       ||||||||||  B |||  O  |\n       ------------\nD||     A| AB |  AO |\nA||     -------------\nD||     O| BO |  OO | <- That's you with type O blood.  If you had three siblings it would be likely that one would have AB blood, one type A blood, and one type B blood. \n       ------------
39503
Okay i never heard of the law of DNA but to answer the question.  If the condition of hair, straght or curly, is defined by a single gene, than there are two types.  The is a straight gene and a curly gene.  So everyone has two copies of the gene.  One from mom and one from dad.  So if mom gives a curly gene, and dad gives straight, which one will it be?  Well that is described by the law of domninance.  One gene will be stronger than the other.  One allele will out shine the other.  So you need to find out, which gene is dominant and which is recessive.  thats your answer
455055
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
448189
Your question requires more knowledge of science and genetics than I have.  However, since you haven't received much help with it I thought I would give you a couple of sites.  Try these - they may be of some help to you.  Sorry I couldn't help more.
137800
First, DNA is not the person, its the template for making protein which can build a person, but its no more the person than blueprint are a building.. Second, if you are talking biologically, the only characterstics that are passed on to the progeny are those in the DNA-But keep in mind, philosophy, ideas, culture can all evolve, and of course you will teach these to your children, and thus pass them on.  I think, though , that your question was what biological traits are passed on, and those are only carried in the DNA.  Protein, by the way, does not evolve independently-If the DNA mutates, it will produce a slightly different protein (or more or less of a protein, if the mutation was in a promoter and not coding region of DNA).  Proteins do not pass directly from parent to child.
255119
Not a stupid question at all. Mutation (as mentioned above) does occur, though of course it will only affect individual cells and their descendents, not all cells in the individual. There is also a process that is being increasingly studied called genomic imprinting or epigenetic inheritance. These are not DNA sequence changes, like you asked about, but seem to be related to your question. The wikipedia article is a decent introduction but there are other summaries available.
503376
Because they have DNA from BOTH parents.  That is the point of sexual reproduction: mix so that each individual is a bit different, an experiement in optimisation, and has a little bit of both "successful' (since they were able to reproduce) parents.
335192
My dad has brown eyes and he has classical Jewish features (black hair, hooked nose, etc.), but he is dark skinned. He must have had a Negroid ancestor. His twin sister, on the other hand, is blonde haired, blue eyed, and white as chalk. (Do you think grandma [white] slept with a Caucasian & negroid person at the same time? grandpa was mixed, though he was Jewish) It is our only explanation why one twin should be "white" and the other "black". Does this help?