Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Too much technical detail has the effect of abscuring rather than illuminating. Again I'm not sure what your point is here. What I've been describing has to happen no matter what the source of genetic variability: the trend has to be to reduced genetic diversity with any kind of selection process that reduces the number of individuals in a reproductively isolated population. Reduced genetic diversity is the opposite of what the ToE needs to be true.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's what we keep telling you. Your denial is worthless.

It's not a microbe. It's from a population of microbes. Plural.

I changed it. I humbly ask foregiveness for my mistake.

I tried very hard to avoid making the post too technical. The only technical concepts included in what you're quoting are fixation and alleles; which I thought you understood. Most of it's just normal, everyday words. I'm not sure how you can think you have it all figured out if any attempt to discuss how things actually work is too technical.The only point of the post was to use practical examples of the real world that demonstrate your pet theory is wrong. New alleles arise by mutation. Therefore, selection does not mean that species somehow run out of variation. Because new variation appears. It's not that complicated.

Hey Dredge. Fellow Aussie here.
I know exactly what you are saying mate.
Funny thing is no one else does...
Hehehe...

Is this another hit-and-run OP? Or are you going to play out this as before? I'm sure you have. I'm shocked. It would.You are not going to gain any more traction here than in the other forums you post.First of all, you are under the mistaken notion that all science must be directly applicable to whatever subset of applied science you care to abuse.Then you assume that you can make demands of us that we satisfy YOUR personal criteria for usefulness. You are going to ignore anything we post, right?Then you require us to play in your sandbox only, and ignore the fact that YEC/ID has no such application in applied sciences.No one really cares what your opinion is. You are trolling.

So, Faith, tell us about the what species represented giraffe kind in Cambrian times, or even in the Jurassic? After all, modern giraffes must have adapted from a precursor giraffe, yes?

There is no Cambrian or Jurassic time. You know, just the layered sedimentary rocks with fossils in them, nothing to do with time. You said somewhere that you were starting to think like a YEC. Naaa, not yet.I suppose there was some other form of the giraffe, that evolved into the giraffe we have today but that happened over the last 4500 years or so.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So I guess you are merely arguing the usual, that because mutation produces the occasional viable allele that therefore we have an increase in genetic diversity which falsifies what I'm saying. But it doesn't because any increase gets eaten up as it were by the selection processes that reduce genetic diversity in order to bring about a new species or subspecies, ---a new population with new phenotypic characteristics. Genetic decrease is NECESSARY to the formation of new species or subspecies.Even if all alleles were mutations this would be the case. A population full of mutated traits isn't evolution anyway since that's just a motley collection of differences, while evolution requires the formation of new populations based on new gene frequencies with new phenotypic characteristics. You have to lose alleles in order to get that new population, their source is really irrelevant.As a matter of fact, however, beneficial mutations simply do not show up in any frequency that would interfere with the processes of reduction (and if they did you'd never get new phenotypic groups anyway). The cheetah has been waiting a long time for mutations to save it from extinction. It's been fortunate in that at least any mutations that have arisen haven't completely done it in yet, although the creature is certainly struggling. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So I guess you are merely arguing the usual, that because mutation produces the occasional viable allele that therefore we have an increase in genetic diversity which falsifies what I'm saying

---

On the evidence it seems to be true, so it’s a pretty good answer. Which is why you haven’t been able to refute it yet - and why you avoid the evidence so much.

quote:

---

But it doesn't because any increase gets eaten up as it were by the selection processes that reduce genetic diversity in order to bring about a new species or subspecies, ---a new population with new phenotypic characteristics

---

In your opinion. But you have yet to make a case that this produces a real ongoing decrease rather than a fluctuation in diversity.

quote:

---

As a matter of fact, however, beneficial mutations simply do not show up in any frequency that would interfere with the processes of reduction (and if they did you'd never get new phenotypic groups anyway).

---

More of your unsupported opinions. You can’t support either claim.

quote:

---

The cheetah has been waiting a long time for mutations to save it from extinction.

---

They are a lot further from extinction than they were at the time of the original bottleneck. They have survived a more recent bottleneck due to humans hunting them. You have zero data on what mutations have done to improve their situation.It’s really telling that you have absolutely no examples from species that have not undergone severe bottlenecks. This inevitable result doesn’t seem to occur from ordinary levels of selection at all.

I know ToE has practical uses, but that's not what the thread is about. And a story about what was responsible for the fossil record isn't a practical use. Which use of applied science depends on accepting that life on earth evolved from a microbe or even accepting that humans evolved from some kind of ape? I can't think of any.

These comments are irrelevant to the OPEdited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This doesn't sound like a practical use for UCA.

In other words, you can't give me an example of a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from UCA.