Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.Nested hierrarchy and transitional fossils are simply interpreted to support the ToE but there is no ACTUAL evidence of such a relationship, it's merely assumed. It's all nothing but theory. And you get distant genetic relationships also by assuming the ToE, otherwise you'd have to explain it more realistically.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet we all remember that you have never shown anything of the kind. You made up a fantasy with no supporting evidence.Your failure is absolute.

quote:

---

I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.

---

No. You have never shown it. You have repeatedly asserted it, but the fact is that mutation does increase genetic variability, so it never runs out short of extinction.

quote:

---

Nested hierrarchy and transitional fossils are simply interpreted to support the ToE but there is no ACTUAL evidence of such a relationship, it's merely assumed.

---

Of course they are evidence of evolutionary relationships. Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do. If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear.Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one.

quote:

---

And you get distant genetic relationships also by assuming the ToE, otherwise you'd have to explain it more realistically.

---

That’s just silly. Gene sequences aren’t assumed nor do assumptions make the matches between them appear.

Well that's just silly. Of course the ToE is useful, it explains how life on earth developed. What could be more useful? Well it very obviously is useful but why would anyone care if it wasn't? All of that is knowledge, even if you're right. What do you think knowledge is? I think it's factual information that can be demonstrated to be true. You don't ever see a qualifyer that it also has to be useful. My neighbour's PhD showed that nothing he was researching was correct. That's also knowledge. That's just your religeous bias and has nothing to do with knowledge.

Not answering a question doesn't make you right.Is there a practical use to knowledge? Yes, it helps us understand things so we don't have to rely on mythology and made up fantasies.If YOU don't find that practical, then tough bananas, because I do.Now are you going to post another 50 posts on this nonsense? In which case you prove AZPaul's point in spades covered in molasses.Enjoyps -- happy turkey day

Think protein folding, via proteomics, via genomics, via evolution. Yes, it would be. I don't give a shit.

Sure way to win an argument is by talking technical gobbledygook.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lots of myths explain how life on earth developed. The only way an explanation is real knowledge is if it's true and the ToE is not, it's just another myth. Of course it's knowledge, it just isn't knowledge due to the ToE. It COULD be knowledge that verifies creationism, and I believe it does. Me too. (With the exception of the kind of knowedge I was just writing to Straggler about on another thread, knowledge derived through faith in the Biblical revelation. But that's not relevant here beyond being an exception to the general statement.) Yes but I'm not the one claiming the ToE is useful. The OP says it is not and I agree, but others here have disagreed and I'm answering them.

I've explained how any genetic increase -- which would include beneficial mutations if they actually existed in the necessary numbers, which they don't -- would meet the same fate as any allele in such a situation, ending up as fixed loci from which further variation is impossible.Once you have fixed loci for a great number of traits you have this situation that further evolution is effectively impossible. Even if you get a single mutation that is passed on it is a trivial change that is hardly cause for optimism for any change on the scale required by the ToE. Fixed loci are essentially the end of the evolutionary road. And this is where an evolving line has to end up. In the same condition as the cheetah and the elephant seals, and the fact that they got there a lot faster doesn't change the fact that it's the same situation, and if mutation could provide the basis for further variation that might save either from extinction it would have by now. Evolution defeats evolution: it "spends" genetic diversity in order to produce new phenotypes, and if this trend continues to its logical extreme that's the end of evolutiion for that line of variation. And that has to be the definition of the boundary of the Kind: where evolution stops for lack of genetic diversity. But if they aren't they aren't, or they are except that onfirmation bias has prevented this from being seen. Transitional fossils do not occur in anywhere near the numbers Darwin himself said would be necessary to prove his theory. You have a very scanty collection, and there is no reason to think of them as anything but variations on a Kind, or another Kind unto itself. According to the ToE though, which is self-confirming.In any case the FACT, and it is a fact, that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity in the formation of new phenotypes, means none of these other considerations carry any weight at all. Evolution beyond variation within the Kind can't happen. Period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I certainly hope not.

quote:

---

I've explained how any genetic increase -- which would include beneficial mutations if they actually existed in the necessary numbers, which they don't -- would meet the same fate as any allele in such a situation, ending up as fixed loci from which further variation is impossible

---

First, the necessary number is very, very low. Second, neutral mutations will do. Third, there are cases where selection will preserve variation. Finally - and most importantly - your argument proves you wrong.If evolutionary change cannot happen the population cannot genetically change. But a new allele has appeared and taken over the population. Evolution HAS occurred. And it can happen again.It happened therefore it couldn’t is a ridiculous argument. But here you are making it. The only thing it proves is your irrationality.

quote:

---

Once you have fixed loci for a great number of traits you have this situation that further evolution is effectively impossible. Even if you get a single mutation that is passed on it is a trivial change that is hardly cause for optimism for any change on the scale required by the ToE. Fixed loci are essentially the end of the evolutionary road

---

It’s a slowdown, not a stop. And the evidence indicates that it hasn’t got near that stage yet.

quote:

---

And this is where an evolving line has to end up. In the same condition as the cheetah and the elephant seals, and the fact that they got there a lot faster doesn't change the fact that it's the same situation, and if mutation could provide the basis for further variation that might save either from extinction it would have by now.

---

The fact that other species haven’t gotten there is evidence that it won’t happen to everything - or, at worst, that it will take a long, long time to happen. Your claims about timescales are just your assumptions.

quote:

---

Evolution defeats evolution: it "spends" genetic diversity in order to produce new phenotypes, and if this trend continues to its logical extreme that's the end of evolutiion for that line of variation. And that has to be the definition of the boundary of the Kind: where evolution stops for lack of genetic diversity.

---

So the boundary is a theoretical limit that hasn’t occurred yet - and there is still no evidence of separate kinds on Earth.

quote:

---

But if they aren't they aren't, or they are except that onfirmation bias has prevented this from being seen. Transitional fossils do not occur in anywhere near the numbers Darwin himself said would be necessary to prove his theory. You have a very scanty collection, and there is no reason to think of them as anything but variations on a Kind, or another Kind unto itself.

---

They don’t exist in the numbers we would expect if the fossil record was complete - but we know it isn’t. Worse for you the missing fossils are mostly those you would call within kind evolution - fossils showing the transition from one species to another. But we do have plenty of fossils linking larger taxonomic groups -for instance dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, fish to amphibians. To blithely assume that these are just variations in a kind and not evidence of an actual relationship is to blind yourself to the evidence.

quote:

---

According to the ToE though, which is self-confirming.

---

Wrong on both counts. Evolution should form nested hierarchies but there is no reason for independent creations to form a nested hierarchy. We don’t need the ToE to tell us the latter.

quote:

---

In any case the FACT, and it is a fact, that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity in the formation of new phenotypes, means none of these other considerations carry any weight at all. Evolution beyond variation within the Kind can't happen. Period.

---

It is not a FACT that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity. The evidence says that it hasn’t, that there are no separate kinds and your theoretical speculations can’t defeat evidence. Build your castles in the air if you like, but the real science will just ignore them, as it should.

They sure do. And, as you say, they're myths. The difference betwen myth and fact is that fact can be demonstrated objectively to be true. For example your belief that the world is 6,000 years old is a myth proven wrong by objective evidence. The ToE is the most empirically supported theory in science. Your religious beliefs can have no baring on objective facts - ie knowledge. So publish and show us all wrong. Collect you $1m pize and go down in history forever. You're making a right mess of it too. The OP is asking about the usefulness of finding the common ancestor, not the usefulness of the ToE. The finding of a common ancestor would be knowledge and knowledge is useful for its own sake.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Luckily for humanity no form of the earth sciences even claims that. Maybe it's because you don't have a clue what science is? That's why. That's what happens when you are ignorant enough to believe that Periods are layers despite having been corrected multiple times.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

When I had an internet connection at home, I was connected to the World Community Grid, which uses the idle time of members' computers to do tedious scientific calculations. They had mine doing protein folding.Proteins are large, complex molecules that can fold into various shapes (think Tinker-Toys). The parts that "stick out" determine how the protein interacts with its environment, so the different shapes that it can have are very important, particularly to medicine.We understand your difficulties with vision, so maybe you can't learn these things for yourself, but it's downright stupid of you to proclaim something "useless" when you haven't even bothered to understand it.

You have misattributed those quotes to me, but it is dredge who said them. Please correct.