freethinker01:
Would like to ask, what are the current observable variation in humans to verify evolutionary claims?

This is a good question. There is none, studies have shown that the the human dna haven't experienced the slightest of change in the last 10,000 years. According to the theory, it normally takes millions of years for an organism to evolve so we can't conclude that the theory is false based on this particular evidence.

freethinker01:
Would like to ask, what are the current observable variation in humans to verify evolutionary claims?

for the fact that humans have different races and these races vary in their physical characteristics is a verification for evolution.
Hair, skin colour, eye colour, height even variation in secretion of certain enzymes and proteins are proofs.

For example, every race synthesize different forms and quantity of cytochrome p450 enzymes, this has nothing to do with where you were born, it depends on your race

spartan117:

This is a good question. There is none, studies have shown that the the human dna haven't experienced the slightest of change in the last 10,000 years. According to the theory, it normally takes millions of years for an organism to evolve so we can't conclude that the theory is false based on this particular evidence.

sir, it's impossible for human DNA not to experience change at any time of replication, not just humans, its impossible for any gene replication of any organism to be perfect, there must be a change. Proofreading during replication is not 100%

Can you kindly show me the studies sir

nwabekeyi:
lol, no Sir...

First if all, humans don't have the basic apparatus to survive in water for more than an average of 1mins and evolution doesn't occur in 1mins.

The link between animals that inhabit water and land can be found around the emergence of amphibians on the evolutionary tree. These animals were the first to start breathing air, even as at now, we have amphibian who can breath air and water.

Now, the idea is that, evolution doesn't occur just in few years, it takes several thousands of years for a noticeable evolution and the idea is that: if a specie cannot adapt to a change in environment, it will die and go into extinct. If the earth suddenly becomes flooded humans wont survice but if the flooding occurs gradually over thousands of years, this might give human beings a chance to adapt and start breathing water thereby evolving

No specie of organism can adapt to a sudden change in environmental condition, the slower the change occur, the higher the chances of evolving and adapting to it

Now this brings me to my next question.

Have you ever wondered why the present intelligent life found around us today is that of human alone and no other form of life both plant and animal comes even closer to humans?
Not to mention our existence as a thinking, rational human being—simply doesn’t add up to evolution.

If it were to be so that evolution happened, at least we should have a little gap difference between other life forms and humans when it comes to intellectual and mental development.

Maamin:


Now this brings me to my next question.

Have you ever wondered why the present intelligent life found around us today is that of human alone and no other form of life both plant and animal comes even closer to humans?
Not to mention our existence as a thinking, rational human being—simply doesn’t add up to evolution.

If it were to be so that evolution happened, at least we should have a little gap difference between other life forms and humans when it comes to intellectual and mental development.

first, you are seeing it this way because you are Human and have the sense to rationalize.

Every organism have a particular organ you can't beat them to, we were very fortunate that ours is our brain, for example the mantis shrimp has the most developed eyes of the animals kingdom, it's sees even UV lights, we don't have such eyes.
We maybe closely related to gorillas, but we don't have the muscle mass and strength of gorillas, we don't need them based on how we are adapting hence we have to exchange muscle pack for Brain development overtime.
Another example that the polar bears liver is superior to that of humans, it stores many folds of vitamins more than that of humans and works better, they adapted to what they eat.
A cow has more developed GIT than humans, they need it, we don't because of our form of adaptation.

So if humans have more developed Brains, it doesn't mean we have better liver, intestine, kidney, it all depends on adaptive requirements.

Looking at the evolutionary pattern of the brain, it's evident that we gave up most of our muscle mass for brain mass overtime.

vaxx:
OP.... I am open to the both school of thought, in other word, i am open to rationalization and evidence base fact.

My questions is this?

What if evolution and creationist are both right? do you get me..none of the variation of evolution explain the origin of matter. It explain the complexity but not the material involve. it also explain how the complexity arises from inorganic matte but it fails to explain how inorganic matter got there in the fist place.

you could see the origin is separated from the complexity, which means evolution did not state how matter came into being .

so what if creationism idea of including Intelligent design attribute to a varying degree of the complexity of life to evolution, why the rest to the creator. the creationist role deals with origination of the matter ( which also include causing the big bang, set universal constants etc.) then it
does not need to overlap with the observation of evolution. So what does that mean if that is the case?

nwabekeyi

vaxx:
OP.... I am open to the both school of thought, in other word, i am open to rationalization and evidence base fact.

My questions is this?

What if evolution and creationist are both right? do you get me..none of the variation of evolution explain the origin of matter. It explain the complexity but not the material involve. it also explain how the complexity arises from inorganic matte but it fails to explain how inorganic matter got there in the fist place.

you could see the origin is separated from the complexity, which means evolution did not state how matter came into being .

so what if creationism idea of including Intelligent design attribute to a varying degree of the complexity of life to evolution, why the rest to the creator. the creationist role deals with origination of the matter ( which also include causing the big bang, set universal constants etc.) then it
does not need to overlap with the observation of evolution. So what does that mean if that is the case?

I'm also of the school of thought that creation and evolution are the same thing but the slight difference is that evolution explains creation in proper details in regards to timeframe and accounting for every form of organism and element. Though evolution may not have the answer to all the questions because it's still a mission in progress, newer technologies will answer more questions.

Now I also believe that, the process of creation is what we call evolution and this process is still in progress. Hope this is not confusing? If it is, I can explain myself better

nwabekeyi:
sir, it's impossible for human DNA not to experience change at any time of replication, not just humans, its impossible for any gene replication of any organism to be perfect, there must be a change. Proofreading during replication is not 100%

Can you kindly show me the studies sir

I see, it looks like recent scientific research has disproved the belief that human evolution stopped about 50,000 years ago which was widely held by the early proponents of the theory.

However this may be due to social influence, for instance if women in a country A prefer to copulate with men who have the gene for tallness T, then in the next 2,000 years it's very much possible that the entire population will be tall (survival of the fittest).

However it is unlikely that man may someday evolve to grow wings if he decides to start living in the air given that he doesn't posess the gene responsible for that and Is unlikely to ever produce that gene through natural mutation.

Afterall the crocodiles have remained almost unchanged during their 200 million years of existence. They never evolved to grow gills even if they live mostly in the water for one reason: that gene was never in them.

nwabekeyi:
I'm also of the school of thought that creation and evolution are the same thing but the slight difference is that evolution explains creation in proper details in regards to timeframe and accounting for every form of organism and element. Though evolution may not have the answer to all the questions because it's still a mission in progress, newer technologies will answer more questions.

Now I also believe that, the process of creation is what we call evolution and this process is still in progress. Hope this is not confusing? If it is, I can explain myself better

there seems to be some overlapping here. i will like you to beak it down.

Now, let me tell you what make creationist idea seems intelligent. it is a fact that there are no incidences in recorded genetics history of a genetic mutation resulting in adding information to a genome. the only exist in theory, the have been observed. let me explain myself Creationists believe that we were created with a genome. Yes, that genome has changed over time due to mutation, but those changes come from deletions or allele changes in the genome, not additions. Information is lost, not gained. You grab? Evolution itself relies on mutations that cause additions to a genome. Information must be added to the genetic makeup of an individual to produce traits that did not exist in that individual's species before them. For example, the first ocean dweller to have eyes (well, the earliest version of what would later become eyes) would have had that new trait because of additional information in their genome. Over time, these additions add up to get us to the 23 chromosomes we have now. if you can explain this i will love to hear. why it yet to be observed.

spartan117:

I see, it looks like recent scientific research has disproved the belief that human evolution stopped about 50,000 years ago which was widely held by the early proponents of the theory.

However this may be due to social influence, for instance if women in a country A prefer to copulate with men who have the gene for tallness T, then in the next 2,000 years it's very much possible that the entire population will be tall (survival of the fittest).

However it is unlikely that man may someday evolve to grow wings if he decides to start living in the air given that he doesn't posess the gene responsible for that and Is unlikely to ever produce that gene through natural mutation.

Afterall the crocodiles have remained almost unchanged during their 200 million years of existence. They never evolved to grow gills even if they live mostly in the water for one reason: that gene was never in them.

it will do us a great service to kindly give us link to these studies sir, we really want to learn something new, but I know at every time of DNA replication, DNA don't remain 100% the same

Your last paragraph talked about crocodile remaining the same for 200million year; I have two questions as regards that:

1. Do you understand the relation between environmental change, mutation and change in physical/chemical characteristics in organisms? If yes, kindly share your knowledge

2. Have you heard of tardigrade? They have survived 5 massive extinctions and are millions of years older than crocodiles, why do you think they survived?

vaxx:
there seems to be some overlapping here. i will like you to beak it down.

Now, let me tell you what make creationist idea seems intelligent. it is a fact that there are no incidences in recorded genetics history of a genetic mutation resulting in adding information to a genome. the only exist in theory, the have been observed. let me explain myself Creationists believe that we were created with a genome. Yes, that genome has changed over time due to mutation, but those changes come from deletions or allele changes in the genome, not additions. Information is lost, not gained. You grab? Evolution itself relies on mutations that cause additions to a genome. Information must be added to the genetic makeup of an individual to produce traits that did not exist in that individual's species before them. For example, the first ocean dweller to have eyes (well, the earliest version of what would later become eyes) would have had that new trait because of additional information in their genome. Over time, these additions add up to get us to the 23 chromosomes we have now. if you can explain this i will love to hear. why it yet to be observed.

ln mutation, information is not lost but changed, please get this part correctly. A change in any of the nuclear bases leads to change and not lost of information, so I won't agree to the loss of information part of your post.

And again, it has been in well documented that genes can be added to genome of bacteria via plasmids, this is the basis of vaccination sir. So I won't also agree to that part of your post as it's inaccurate.

See evolution as a change in genetic code and not loss of information, I think this will help you understand the topic better.

Try to study gene replication and translation into proteins, you will have a better undestanding of what I'm saying.


Like I said, evolution is a detailed creationist idea and as long as evolution is still in progress, creation has not been completed

nwabekeyi:
lol, in mutation, information is not lost but changed, please get this part correctly. A change in any of the nuclear bases leads to change and not lost of information, so I won't agree to the loss of information part of your post.

And again, it has been in ell documented that genes can be added to genome of bacteria via plasmids, this is the basis of vaccination sir. So I won't also agree to that part of your post as it's inaccurate.

See evolution as a change in genetic code and not loss of information, I think this will help you understand the topic better.

Try to study gene replication and translation into proteins, you will have a better undestanding of what I'm saying.


Like I said, evolution is a detailed creationist idea and as long as evolution is still in progress, creation has not been completed

Now u help me redefined the question better. in meaningful evolution, has not loss of genetic information ever been observed? i am waiting

And in addition we have seen mutations that cause the deletion, duplication or change of alleles, but never an addition. (For example, if the gene reads AATC, we have seen it change to ATC or AATCAATC or ATTC, but never AATCC.) Evolutionary theory depends on addition mutations and while they may exist in theory, they have never been observed.

vaxx:
now u help me redefined the question better. in meaningful evolution, has not loss of genetic information ever been observed?

I think we should differentiate mutation from evolution here.

Mutation is a key player in evolution but not all form if mutation are significant in evolution. For example, you delete genetic information from a somatic cell, it will not affect evolution, the mutation significant to evolution is that which occur during replication of DNA found in sex cells, those that can be transmitted to offspring for multicellular organisms like humans.

I really do not know about the loss of genetic information you are talking about but I have never heard of evolution as a result of addition of a deletion of certain gene, it's usually a slight modification genes of the DNA that can influence chemical and physical characteristics.

nwabekeyi:
I think we should differentiate mutation from evolution here.

Mutation is a key player in evolution but not all form if mutation are significant in evolution. For example, you delete genetic information from a somatic cell, it will not affect evolution, the mutation significant to evolution is that which occur during replication of DNA found in sex cells, those that can be transmitted to offspring for multicellular organisms like humans.

I really do not know about the loss of genetic information you are talking about but I have never heard of evolution as a result of addition of a deletion of certain gene, it's usually a slight modification genes of the DNA that can influence chemical and physical characteristics.

you need then to further study your biology textbook? as i said. there are evidence of mutations that cause the deletion, duplication or change of alleles, but never an addition. (For example, if the gene reads AATC, we have seen it change to ATC or AATCAATC or ATTC, but never AATCC.) Evolutionary theory depends on addition mutations and while they may exist in theory, they have never been observed.

you can not talk about evolution without mutation, it is like talking about a car without its particular brand.

vaxx:
you need then to further study your biology textbook? as i said. there are evidence of mutations that cause the deletion, duplication or change of alleles, but never an addition. (For example, if the gene reads AATC, we have seen it change to ATC or AATCAATC or ATTC, but never AATCC.) Evolutionary theory depends on addition mutations and while they may exist in theory, they have never been observed.

you can not talk about evolution without mutation, it is like talking about a car without its particular brand.

if your somatic cells mutate, will it affect your offspring?

Vaxx, also tell me how a typical plasmodium falciparium will start an evolutionary path that will lead to drug resistant, like say chloroquine?

Does it need to add to its genome?

Where will it get the gene for resistance from?

nwabekeyi:
if your somatic cells mutate, will it affect your offspring?

well, it depends. If your modified genes are just somewhere in your body (e.g. bone marrow or muscle) and not your gametes, then no, at least not via normal reproduction, as your modified genes aren’t there to be passed on.

seun this erro 5502 is getting too much

vaxx:
well, it depends. it depends. If your modified genes are just somewhere in your body (e.g. bone marrow or muscle) and not your gametes, then no, at least not via normal reproduction, as your modified genes aren’t there to be passed on.

seun this erro 5502 is getting to much

so how will a gene or codon be added the DNA of a sex cell? Where will they get the additional gene from, how will they transduce it into their nucleus?

Meanwhile, somatic cells are evey other cells that are not sex cells, so I meant cells on your body

nwabekeyi:
Vaxx, also tell me how a typical plasmodium falciparium will start an evolutionary path that will lead to drug resistant, like say chloroquine?

Does it need to add to its genome?

Where will it get the gene for resistance from?

lol, what an examinable question. According to WHO, antimalarial drug resistance has been defined as the “ability of a parasite strain to survive and/or multiply despite the administration and absorption of a drug given in doses equal to or higher than those usually recommended but within tolerance of the subject”.

Resistance, in general, appears to occur through spontaneous mutations that results into reduced sensitivity to a given drug or class of drugs. For some drugs, only a single point mutation is required to confer resistance, while for other drugs, multiple mutations appear to be required. Provided the mutations are not deleterious to the survival or reproduction of the parasite, drug pressure will remove susceptible parasites while resistant parasites survive.

Chloroquine resistance

As the malaria parasite digests haemoglobin, large amounts of a toxic by-product are formed. The parasite polymerizes this by-product in its food vacuole, producing non-toxic haemozoin (malaria pigment). It is believed that resistance of P. falciparum to chloroquine is related to an increased capacity for the parasite to expel chloroquine at a rate that does not allow chloroquine to reach levels required for inhibition of haem polymerization. This chloroquine efflux occurs at a rate of 40 to 50 times faster among resistant parasites than sensitive ones. Further evidence supporting this mechanism is provided by the fact that chloroquine resistance can be reversed by drugs which interfere with this efflux system. It is unclear whether parasite resistance to other quinoline antimalarials (amodiaquine, mefloquine, halofantrine, and quinine) occurs via similar mechanisms.


http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/drug_resistance/overview/en/

nwabekeyi:
so how will a gene or codon be added the DNA of a sex cell? Where will they get the additional gene from, how will the tranduce it into their nucleus?

Meanwhile, somatic cells are evey other cells that are not sex cells, so I meant cells on your body

see what an evolutionist is asking. agentofallah i missed that dude, an atheist yet intelligent. Genes are passed from cell to cell when cells divide in growth, and also passed from generation to generation when organisms reproduce - whether this is by sexual or asexual reproduction.

Genes are made of a chemical called DNA which is found in the nucleus of almost every cell. In higher organisms it is found in roughly cylindrical structures called chromosomes. are you sure you are an evolutionist?

vaxx:
lol, what an examinable question. According to WHO, antimalarial drug resistance has been defined as the “ability of a parasite strain to survive and/or multiply despite the administration and absorption of a drug given in doses equal to or higher than those usually recommended but within tolerance of the subject”.

Resistance, in general, appears to occur through spontaneous mutations that results into reduced sensitivity to a given drug or class of drugs. For some drugs, only a single point mutation is required to confer resistance, while for other drugs, multiple mutations appear to be required. Provided the mutations are not deleterious to the survival or reproduction of the parasite, drug pressure will remove susceptible parasites while resistant parasites survive.

Chloroquine resistance

As the malaria parasite digests haemoglobin, large amounts of a toxic by-product are formed. The parasite polymerizes this by-product in its food vacuole, producing non-toxic haemozoin (malaria pigment). It is believed that resistance of P. falciparum to chloroquine is related to an increased capacity for the parasite to expel chloroquine at a rate that does not allow chloroquine to reach levels required for inhibition of haem polymerization. This chloroquine efflux occurs at a rate of 40 to 50 times faster among resistant parasites than sensitive ones. Further evidence supporting this mechanism is provided by the fact that chloroquine resistance can be reversed by drugs which interfere with this efflux system. It is unclear whether parasite resistance to other quinoline antimalarials (amodiaquine, mefloquine, halofantrine, and quinine) occurs via similar mechanisms.


http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/drug_resistance/overview/en/

you have not answered my question?

Since you said mutation and evolution is usually addition to the genome, where did plasmodium falciparum get the gene for chloroquine resistance, that gene that codes for the protein responsible for the efflux of chloroquine?

Ofcourse you will agree with me that the process of drug resistant in microorganisms is evolution because they will transfer these genes to their offsprings

vaxx:
see what an evolutionist is asking. agentofallah i missed that dude, an atheist yet intelligent. Genes are passed from cell to cell when cells divide in growth, and also passed from generation to generation when organisms reproduce - whether this is by sexual or asexual reproduction.

Genes are made of a chemical called DNA which is found in the nucleus of almost every cell. In higher organisms it is found in roughly cylindrical structures called chromosomes. are you sure you are an evolutionist?

lol, relax, I know why I'm asking these questions, you don't seem to understand yourself.

For example, I'm the first plasmodium falciparum to start resisting chloroquine, so where did I get the gene for resistant from? Since you said it has to be added from somewhere miraculous.

Vaxx, the question is how did the first plasmodium falciparum that resisted chloroquine get the gene for resistant, where was it added from?

nwabekeyi:
lol, relax, I know why I'm asking these questions, you don't seem to understand yourself.

For example, I'm the first plasmodium falciparum to start resisting chloroquine, so where did I get the gene for resistant from? Since you said it has to be added from somewhere miraculous.

go back read my quote but this time do not rush to provide an answer or response.

vaxx:
go back read my quote but this time do not rush to provide an answer or response.

vaxx, evolution is not the addition to genome, it can occur without any addition. I really wish to break this down to you but you are responding like you don't want me or I don't really know what I'm saying.

I get all your points but you don't really understand the intricacies of gene mutation in relationship to evolution.

For example, the first malaria parasite doesn't need to add anything to its genome to be able to resist malaria drugs, all it needs to do is either to slowly modify the genes responsible for the synthesis of some proteins by rearranging some of the nuclear bases then transfer those mutated genes to it's offspring afterwards. Those parasites who were unable to modify these genes will not survive, they will die.

The purpose of this illustration is to tell you that evolution is not dependent on genetic addition, it comes as a result of slight arrangement of a certain gene that could be as a result adapting to an environment or error during genetic replication or repair. To a malaria parasite, it has to adapt to the change in the chemical component of its environment as a result of the addition of a drug hence modifies some certain genes because it senses it as a danger.

Of course addition occurs, but that's mostly in prokaryotes in form of plasmids.

nwabekeyi:
vaxx, evolution is not the addition to genome,it can occur without any addition. I really wish to break this down to you but you are responding like you don't want me or I don't really know what I'm saying.

I get all your points but you don't really understand the intricacies of gene mutation in relationship to evolution.

For example, the first malaria parasite doesn't need to add anything to its genome to be able to resist malaria drugs, all it needs to do is either to slowly modify the genes responsible for the synthesis of some proteins by rearranging some of the nuclear bases then transfer those mutated genes to it's offspring afterwards. Those parasites who were unable to modify these genes will not survive, they will die.

The purpose of this illustration is to tell you that evolution is not dependent on genetic addition, it comes as a result of slight arrangement of a certain gene that could be as a result adapting to an environment or error during genetic replication or repair. To a malaria parasite, it has to adapt to the change in the chemical component of its environment as a result of the addition of a drug hence modifies some certain genes because it senses it as a danger.

Of course addition occurs, but that's mostly in prokaryotes in form of plasmids.

Evolutionary theory is basically the survival of the fittest, right? Advantageous changes that add up over time. I dont need to explain all this to u. if u must know, evolution itself depends on mutations in the genetic makeup of individuals to produce these changes. We both agree that genetic mutations exist right. And if u must know Creationists also believe in the idea of “microevolution” - genetic mutations lead to changes over time. So what is the disconnect between them?

i illustrated that evolution relies on mutations that cause additions to a genome. Information must be added to the genetic makeup of an individual to produce traits that did not exist in that individual's species before them. i further sight example, that the first ocean dweller to have eyes (the earliest version of what would later become eyes) would have had that new trait because of additional information in their genome. Over time, it is these additions that add up to get us to the 23 chromosomes we have now. how much can i explain myself?.

pls do well to read my post this time. in sincerity. i am leaning from you.

vaxx:
Evolutionary theory is basically the survival of the fittest, right? Advantageous changes that add up over time. I dont need to explain this to u. if u must know, evolution itself depends on mutations in the genetic makeup of individuals to produce these changes. We both agree that genetic mutations exist. and if u must know Creationists also believe in the idea of “microevolution” - genetic mutations lead to changes over time. So what the disconnect between them?

i illustrated that evolution relies on mutations that cause additions to a genome. Information must be added to the genetic makeup of an individual to produce traits that did not exist in that individual's species before them. i further sight example, that the first ocean dweller to have eyes (the earliest version of what would later become eyes) would have had that new trait because of additional information in their genome. Over time, it is these additions that add up to get us to the 23 chromosomes we have now. how much can i explain myself.

I strongly disagree, information must not be added for an individual to produce traits that where not there before, simply rearrangement of the existing genetic code can give different traits, there mustn't be any addition.

For example, AUG codon will give Methionine amino acid, if you rearrange it to GUA, it will translate valine amino acid and this little change can go a long way to influence a new trait

You don't necessarily need any addition

nwabekeyi:
I strongly disagree, information must not be added for an individual to produce traits that where not there before, simply rearrangement of the existing genetic code can give different traits, there mustn't be any addition.

For example, AUG codon will give Methionine amino acid, if you rearrange it to GUA, it will translate valine amino acid.

You don't necessarily need any addition

Then u are not an evolutionist

vaxx:
Then u are not an evolutionist

because I didn't agree that a new set of codons or genes must be added for mutation to occur?

that's not true sir, you have a CUG codon in a gene, if mutation rearranges it to GUC, you will get another protein with different characteristics.

Go read deeply sir

spartan117:

This is a good question. There is none, studies have shown that the the human dna haven't experienced the slightest of change in the last 10,000 years. According to the theory, it normally takes millions of years for an organism to evolve so we can't conclude that the theory is false based on this particular evidence.

any fact to back up your claim?

I'm only concerned about the evolution of man and how that fits into the narrative that we are being fed about evolution.

So my question is this: Why did it take homo sapiens so little time to evolve from homo erectus and how did this short period of evolution lead to drastic changes like a complete facial morphological configuration, the development of consciousness, the change in bone size and bone mass, the development of modulation, the shedding of hair along with the evolution of the mechanism of sweating etc. How did all this happen within a short period of time, remarkably so even while Homo-erectus still existed?

cc Nwabekeyi

nwabekeyi:
because I didn't agree that a new set of codons or genes must be added for mutation to occur?

that's not true sir, you have a CUG codon in a gene, if mutation rearranges it to GUC, you will get another protein with different characteristics.

Go read deeply sir

Go thru this, it give an insight ''Acquired (or somatic) mutations occur at some time during a person’s life and are present only in certain cells, not in every cell in the body. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun, or can occur if an error is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed to the next generation.

Genetic changes that are described as de novo (new) mutations can be either hereditary or somatic. In some cases, the mutation occurs in a person’s egg or sperm cell but is not present in any of the person’s other cells. In other cases, the mutation occurs in the fertilized egg shortly after the egg and sperm cells unite. (It is often impossible to tell exactly when a de novo mutation happened.) As the fertilized egg divides, each resulting cell in the growing embryo will have the mutation. De novo mutations may explain genetic disorders in which an affected child has a mutation in every cell in the body but the parents do not, and there is no family history of the disorder''. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

Have you seen that u need ur biology textbook more than me. Accept to take correction pls.