Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Which says absolutely nothing about the ToE as stated.

What's really odd is this hasn't been demonstrated for the ToE AT ALL. It's rather strange how you all think it has been when it hasn't. Only by dating methods, all reasonable observational evidence says otherwise as I've many times shown. A really hollow statement of faith there. Really strange how you all think a multiplication of theoretical speculations can add up to empirical evidence. Straw man there. I don't argue from "religious beliefs." There is real-world physical evidence for the Flood which is absurdly denied by the Establishment, and against evolution beyond the Kind or Species.

What? That sentence is going to require some clarification. All life on earth today did indeed evolve from a microbe that existed billions of years ago.If your point is that 'earth sciences' is different than biology, then I have no idea why you're making it.If your point is that my and Dredge's understanding of the situation is facile, then explain why. That could be interesting and educational. But without that what's the purpose of your post?

To be clearer, I am not directly answering the OP, I'm answering the claim that the ToE is useful to the various sciences which isn't confined to the claim of a universal common ancestor. It would be if it were true but it isn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's knowledge that dovetails neatly with the ToE.

I completely agree.Just like how the whole transistor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of electronic devices. Well, within evolutionary theory, it would be a pretty cool thing to narrow down and figure out.
Like within electronics, it was pretty cool to find out that electricity could be created without requiring a lightning storm.The progress of science and the building of knowledge moves on... unconcerned with your strange personal attachment to ignorance.

You don't need a new allele for new variations to occur, all you need is new combinations of existing alleles to come to dominate in a new population, and all that is required for that to happen is the isolation of some number of individuals from the original population. These breeding together over some number of generations in reprotucive isolation will bring that new combination to expression and even eventually become characteristic of the new population, making a "new species." Natural Selection can bring this about just as artificial selection or breeding programs can ("purebreds" are animals that have fixed loci for their salient traits). Anything that isolates a population will do it, even genetic drift has that effect. In many cases the isolation is not complete, there may be resumed or continuing gene flow, hybrid zones, all kinds of things that slow down the process, but the ultimate trend is to the formation of new phenotypes by the decrease of genetic diversity. Mutations are one of the ways the process is slowed down. They may or may not contribute to a new phenotypic presentation of a whole population, but they are not necessary. Oh it must have occurred many times, in many places where a new isolated population that no longer breeds with the parent population has formed and gets called a new "species." Belief in the ToE would keep it from being recognized. The ToE assumes that this is a launching point for further changes but in fact it has to reflect a condition of reduced genetic diversity. It may still have enough genetic variability for some further change but before long it can only be running on fumes as it were because each new population that breaks off has less genetic diversity to bring about its new gene frequencies, and that is no platform for the claims of the ToE. And unfortunately the more phenotypic variation in more and more subpopulations the more likely they are headed toward extinction despite their wonderful variations. In breeding programs this condition brings out genetic diseases, which is why the drastic methods of the past have been abandoned and purebreds have given way to healthier but less pure breeds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Simply repeating the Creed doesn't amount to evidence.

quote:

---

You don't need a new allele for new variations to occur, all you need is new combinations of existing alleles to come to dominate in a new population, and all that is required for that to happen is the isolation of some number of individuals from the original population.

---

I see that you’re desperate to change the subject. It must be embarrassing to be caught trying to cover over the fact that you were proven wrong.Alrpthough I do wonder how exactly you manage to get new combinations of alleles in a population that is homozygous at every locus - which was the situation under discussion. Want to explain that one.

quote:

---

Oh it must have occurred many times, in many places where a new isolated population that no longer breeds with the parent population has formed and gets called a new "species."

---

Oh, please explain why it must have happened.The rest is your usual empty theorising. I guess mental conjuring is all you have,

NO change is possible at all once a population has reached the point of homozygosity at most loci.

quote:

---

NO change is possible at all once a population has reached the point of homozygosity at most loci

---

That’s been proven wrong even in the case where a species is homozygous at every allele. You unwittingly admitted it. That’s why you were changing the subject.

Your endless slimy insinuations remind me of the character so often described in the Book of Proverbs who sets traps for the righteous. (Yes, I'm righteous but not in myself, only because Christ has saved me and I try to serve Him. You're like the Pharisees who were always trying to trip Him up.). Sometimes he gets caught in them himself. You rarely ever explain what you mean which makes it possible to accuse me of all kinds of things, in this case of admitting something I have no idea of admitting. NO idea what you are saying, but that is of course what you intend. The less you explain the more you can accuse. Maybe you'll slip in your own slime and knock yourself out some day.In any case there is no way to get further change from a condition of homozygosity at even most gene loci let alone all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Tried to ignore your nonsense, as it's not supposed to be the topic of this thread, but I'm only human.Species of sexually reproducing organisms often have genetic barriers that prevent them from interbreeding - they either do not produce offspring or those they do are infertile. The genetic basis for this comes in two main categories. One is difference in ploidy - meaning the number of chromosomes. Having a different number of chromosomes doesn't necessarily prevent successful reproduction, but it often hampers it. I'm curious how your model of speciation through the loss of alleles accounts for closely related but not interfertile species with different chromosome counts.Variations in chromosome count are not required for a lack of interfertility, however. The more common (I think?) form is known as intrinsic inviability. In this case, two populations don't have a different chromosome count; but by their gradual divergence and the accumulation of novel alleles (which you have accepted happens while pretending it doesn't), one or the other has built up a collection of alleles which work fine in their own genetic background, but make a right mess when you try and combine them with the sister species DNA.Remember that, contrary to your claims, a gene is not 'for' a trait. A gene produces proteins, which, depending on where they're produced and in what quantity, can have all sorts of effects on the biochemistry of the organism. Alleles that evolves in species B in tandem with all the other alleles in that species genome will not necessarily have the same effect when surrounded by foreign DNA. They could cause a right ballsup.Usually these infertility messups involve several different genes with small effect; but scientists have found cases where it's all down to one gene. In some species of monkey flower, for example, it's been isolated to one allele. If you have the allele from the common monkey flower Erythrante guttata on one chromosome, and the allele from Erythranthe nasuta, a different species, on the other, the male offspring are almost certain to be sterile. Which is not an issue, except that your idea would have us accept one of two things:1. both these alleles were present in the ancestral population; which would mean a great difficulty in reproduction
2. one or both arose via mutation after the populations separated.If the latter, then you've accepted that mutation creates new alleles. I predict your response would be that it only creates 'bad' alleles because it's part of the fall. But these alleles are not 'bad'. They're the standard (not sure if fixed) in their relevant populations - they only cause problems in combination with one another. By populations being seperated, new species have been created with new versions of genes.

Mutations occasionally produce a viable allele. Occasionally. So what? They've produced a prodigious number of genetic diseases that far outstrips any beneficial results.And I have no idea what you are trying to say otherwise. There are many reasons populations are not able to breed with other populations. So?I'll wait a while for you to answer this but I have to leave soon. Then maybe someone wiill come along to rescue the thread ffrom the topic deviation, which by the way I didn't start.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your endless slimy insinuations remind me of the character so often described in the Book of Proverbs who sets traps for the righteous. Sometimes he gets caught in them himself.

---

Sure Faith. Nobody should dare tell the truth about YOU. You’re an evil lying slanderer! As you keep reminding us. Funny how it never works.

quote:

---

You rarely ever explain what you mean which makes it possible to accuse me of all kinds of things, in this case of admitting something I have no idea of admitting.

---

By which you mean that you are incapable of following the conversation. Or perhaps you pretend to be, because you keep getting refuted.

quote:

---

NO idea what you are saying, but that is of course what you intend

---

And yet if you follow the thread back a few messages you could easily see what I was referring to. It is your intent to avoid that knowledge, not mine.

quote:

---

Maybe you'll slip in your own slime and knock yourself out some day.

---

Sure, it’s the truth that’s slime, not lies and hypocrisy.

quote:

---

In any case there is no way to get further change from a condition of homozygosity at even most gene loci let alone all.

---

Since mutation can create heterozygosity you are obviously wrong.You implicitly admitted it in Message 39As I pointed out in Message 41Which you answered by trying to change the subject in Message 52
As I pointed out in Message 54But of course you can’t possibly remember what was posted yesterday (or even an hour ago) or look back to refresh your memory.(And, BTW what about haploid life forms? They seem able to evolve just fine even though they can’t be heterozygous)