Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

What I would expect you to have trouble with is an idea that completely contradicts yours.

So let me see if I can be clearer:What I would expect you to have trouble with is an idea that proves the ToE is false and completely contradicts the notion of time periods in Geology.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's false.

I've defined it functionally many times as exemplified by how breeds of, say, dogs, run out of variability the closer they get to being purebred. But you also can't find alleles/genes in the genome of a species for features outside the species: Is there an allele for a flat black chimp nose in the human genome?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I were you Phat I'd stop buttering up the evos and defend the creo from the vicious attacks on him. Mete out a suspension or two for their nasty language. They say horrible things about him and you ignore it. He doesn't say horrible things about them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Excuse me if every now and then I have to interject the Floodist point of view into a discussion like this. I can't understand why dredge agrees with any of the time definitions of the rocks, which aligns him with the evos instead of the creos, but my YEC floodist position simply says the fossils in all the rocks were creatures killed in the Flood and buried in successive layers of sediment all in the same event in the same basic time period. So there's no such thing as an "Ediacaran" time period or Devonian or Silurian or Permian or Jurassic etc etc etc. --- unless of course you understand them as having been laid down perhaps days or weeks or months apart instead of millions of years. So burial of the flatworms under discussion may have preceded burial of the dinosaurs by a few months at most.But please, carry on with the ridiculous evo stuff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do I get it wrong? I haven't much discussed that have I? Or at all? In any case it is irrelevant to the Floodist position although I agree that it would be nice to get the order correct.

Yes an explanation of the fossil order would be nice but the evidence for the Flood is compelling without it. Also, I don't think the fossil order itself is all that compelling anyway, it's more of an illusion than a reality. There is not really anything objective that defines why one living form should precede the others over millions of years, it's all imaginative. AND the idea of millions of years belies the fact that variation in one species is quite extensive over merely a few hundred years in reality. AND that nobody has offered a pathway for getting genetic changes from one species genome to that of another species although I've asked and asked. These questions are far more important than the supposedly fossil order.

A "non-starter" at EvC is of no particular concern, simply to be expected. But I already gave an explanation which you aren't bothering to answer. That's to be expected too of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have as a matter of fact demonstrated a barrier in how breeds develop by "using up" genetic variation, which is most apparent in "purebreds." That is a natural outcome of selection processes whether domestic or "natural," which shows that any given species does have a natural end to how it can vary in any given direction. For the ToE to be true you need more genetic variation but instead the more varieties you produce the less genetic variability you have. This is easily understood by anyone willing to think a little.But another way to put it is that a species is governed by its own genome which plays out in many variants of that species and only that species. It's built into the genome itself. To get from a species to another species would require genetic changes beyond those built into the genome, and that can't happen, or if it could it would require so much trial and error it could only produce millions of monsters before it could produce one viable new trait not possessed by the original genome. This too is easily understood with a little thinking.

Too tedious to argue about all this here right now. Go ahead and declare yourself the winner.

Amazing how well you understand what a worldwide Flood would do, just staggering considering that we have no witness information from that time. I'll believe Noah though that he and his family and all the animals of earth were saved on a big boat that took him a hundred years to build. Time suspended? Huh? And all the rest of it. Sorry, God authored the report of the Flood and He has a bit more credibility than you.But the main evidence of the Flood is the sedimentary strata found all over the planet and their fossil contents. The idea that such layers of completely different sediments usually demarcated by sharp straight lines between them, would just happen to occur hundreds of millions of years apart so regularly up the geological column is laughably absurd. And bazillions of fossilized dead things in them perfectly reflects the purpose of the Flood, to kill all the land creatures not saved on the ark. This evidene is really quite apparent if you just open your eyes.Oh, and the Flood would have provided the conditions for fossilization that just couldn't occur on the usual scenario spanning those hundreds of millions of years. Really you all need to wake up.*How* the Flood could have happened is another subject, and since nobody here has been able to answer my repeated question about how one species could genetically descend from another either, I think we can leave such questions for later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mutation will only change the genes governed by the genome for a particular species, it's not going to change the function of those genes in order to produce something different from what the genome does. And natural selection happens all the time to favor new variations that are also built into the species genome. You'll never get anything but a variation on the species genome. Just blurting out "mutations plus natural selection" is the usual silly noninformation evos pass off as science though there is no way it could bring about something outside the species genome and they don't even try to figure out how it could happen, you just believe it must because, well, it must.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thinking should be sufficient, if you are capable of it.

You mean they may die out altogether I would assume. In my understanding that means they join the other gene corpses as Junk DNA. Otherwise how does a gene "enter or leave" the population. It has a space on the DNA chain, right? Does something just snip it off completely? Not that I've ever understood.Alleles or particular forms of a gene may pair up to make a homozygous product, which if mutations attack it too heavily over time, may actually kill it altogether and effectively kill the whole gene. That's just chance working in mutations, nothing to do with "usage or fecundity," which I assume to be a fantasy explanation either you or something you read made up. Genes only change by which alleles make it up, or by mutations which in most cases do not change what the gene does at all, although in very rare cases could possibly bring about a new version of the gene's expression, but in some cases produces a disease process and in yet other cases simply kills the allele altogether. The basic function of the gene would remain in all cases to be the way a particular trait in the creature is formed. The trait may be unaffected by a mutation, or become a disease, or may just die because the mutated sequence formed can't function at all. Each gene originally has two forms or alleles. Mutations, which are mistakes and not natural phenomena, alter them, usually/always not for the better. Alleles may be lost to a particular population just because they are few in comparison to other genes which then dominate in that population. That's the only way I can see that there is a 'constant flow of alleles into and out of the population." There are many populations with different sets of alleles. These are new "gene frequencies" or "allele frequencies." The new frequencies are the cause of new traits developing in isolated populations of a given species. Drift is the only way this happens within a given population. the more common way is due to geographic isolation of a portion of the population. The onjly thing that could alter existing alleles and produce new alleles is mutation and that as I've said above is a very iffy process as far as any desirable result goes. I'm always thinking from the creationist view of the original genome and that is an unbroken chain of DNA that is functional at all points, many genes for just one trait in most cases, each having two alleles that in combination all together create a huge variety of variations on that trait. As I think of it, over time mutations have killed off something like 95 percent of the functioning genes, which have become the Junk DNA cemetery as it were in every genome. The amount of variability has thus been severely decreased in that time. Meanwhile all the "new" alleles formed by mutations either do not change the protein product or the trait it produces, or they produce a disease, or they kill the allele and therefore in most cases the whole gene which becomes Junk DNA. You really don't get NEW alleles that do new things at all. You get new sequences that don't change the product or deform it or kill it.And your whole scenario is pure fantasy or speculation, you have NO evidence for it. Like the ToE in general it's just wishful thinking. No, the form of the traits that develop can't exceed whatever the limits are that are already built into the genome. You can get some pretty dramatic changes from geographic isolation but only within what the gene does in combination with all the other genes that affect the new phenotypes. And this has nothing whatever to do with the "environment" as you claim -- that is classic ToE but it's false -- the changes are all due to reproductive isolation. Darwin got dramatic changes in his pigeons by reproductively isolating each generation, meaning by selecting for mating the birds with the trait he wanted to develop, but he never got anything but a drastic variation in a particular trait. If he bred for large chests he got larger and larger chests and the same with whatever other trait he chose to select for. He never got anything but a variation on the chest of the bird or whatever other trait he chose to breed. This principle is amply demonstrating in any breeding program for any animal. No environmental factor has any part in forming the dramatic changes you can get just by selecting a particular set of traits or a single trait to breed. If you get a mutation somewhere in the lineage you may choose to incorporate it, emphasize it or breed it out. But otherwise the process is just a matter of reproductive isolation of the chosen trait. This is also how the large heads and jaws of the new population of lizards developed in reproductive isolation on the island of Pod Mrcaru over a mere thirty years. Evos may fool themselves that they formed due to something in the environment but all that had to happen is having more alleles for that trait in the overall population, that is, a gene frequency different in that respect from that of the parent population they came from, that over those thirty years of breeding among themselves in isolation brought out those large heads and jaws. Nice presentation of the evo belief system but that is not what happens and in fact it couldn't happen. All that ever happens is new combinations of existing alleles and that alone, depending on the amount of genetic variability left {ha ha ha, the mad baby political censor can't differentiate between different uses of a word} REMAINING in the population, can continue to produce some dramatic new phenotypes. It won't take long, however, in the usual scenario, for the variability to reduce to the point that you can't get any new variations at all. You've reached the point of "purebred" where most of the genes are homozygous for the salient traits. If the reduction in variability has not produced too great a disease element in the population, which usually happens with purebreds as you know, then that population may continue to produce offspring. The cheetah is an example although it does have a disease process that compromises its ability to reproduce: it can't produce anything but a cheetah with its severely limited genetic variability however. And the elephant seal seems to have enough vigor despite its drastically reduced genetic variability to go on producing new generations that are near clones of each other. That's what happens in any series of geographic selections too: the fewer individuals that are the founders of a population, or the condition of the genetic variability among whatever number of founders there may be, the less and less genetic variability you are going to get. You cannot possibly get from this condition to some hypothetical population millions of years from now. All you are getting is reduced genetic variability and that's all you can ever get. If there is vigor in the species nevertheless it may go on reproducing and increasing in numbers anyway for many generations, but not over millions of years. Can't happen, AZ, it's genetically impossible as I've outlined above and many many times on many other threads as well. It's sheer Evo Fantasy. All you can ever get is new combinations of the existing alleles, with the occasional mutation thrown in which does more harm than good in most cases. Alleles for the traits of a Triassic rodent can't become alleles for dogs, moose, bear and whales, and the rodent would be extinct long before it produced anything but a rodent anyway, and since it's going to start producing genetically depleted rodents over time it may become extinct long before it gets to ten thousands of years let alone hundreds of millions.ABE: You think you answered my question but you didn't. As usual you merely asserted the theory of how it would happen but you did not explain how it could happen genetically which was my question. You have to explain how you get from that rodent genome to, oh pick one, a dog genome. Show how you get genetically from any given rodent trait to a dog trait of your choice. What specific genetic changes have to happen in the genome? And these would have to be produced by mutations, wouldn't they? How do you get a mutation to change the function of a gene instead of not changing it at all or creating a disease or killing it? You've got to spell out the sequence of changes required and explain how they could happen genetically /abe Pure fantasy, AZ. You've given the ToE belief system and I've explained why it can't happen, and it has nothing whatever to do with my religion but just with thinking through how variations develop within the genome of any species and can't form anything outside that genome. I have to assume you will continue to impose your fantasy scenario on me anyway, way it goes, but you are wrong and I've said here how you are wrong.You're smart. May I suggest that you use your smarts to try really hard to follow my thinking here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.