Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

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.

prove it pot. kettle.

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

quote:

---

But the main evidence of the Flood is the sedimentary strata found all over the planet and their fossil contents.

---

Funny how the “best” evidence for the Flood is evidence against it.

quote:

---

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 as we know there are plenty that are not flat and not straight. And it isn’t that odd that flat surfaces existed in the past. On the other hand massive halite deposits, sequences indicating gradual transgression and regression of the sea, volcanic eruptions occurring above water and so on rather kill the idea that the strata are due to the Flood.

quote:

---

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.

---

A rather odd claim to make when most of the fossils found are sea life. And more odd when we find fossils of creatures that died in arid conditions.

quote:

---

*How* it could have happened is another subject,

---

Obviously it couldn’t.

quote:

---

...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.

---

There are two important differences. The first is that we have very serious objections to the idea that a Flood could account for the geological and fossil record, while you have no similarly strong objections to the idea of distinct species having a common ancestor.The second difference is that you are trying to use the problematic features as the main evidence for your view. If you can’t actually explain them, then they aren’t good evidence at all.

quote:

---

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

---

Changing the genome will rather obviously change what it does.

quote:

---

And natural selection happens all the time to favor new variations that are also built into the species genome.

---

And sometimes to favour completely new variations.

Of course we have witness information from that time. Dozens of cultures existed around the world at that time and not one single one of them shows any signs of being wiped out by a global flood.And despite your lack of knowledge we know exactly what the evidence that floods leave behind looks like and it isn't anything like we see where the strata are exposed. You can pretend no one could possibly know what a global flood is like but that is just your made up bullshit. You can believe whatever you want, but Noah is just as fictional as Santa Claus. The geological formations everywhere on this planet are evidence of deposition and erosion over billions of years, not a year long flood. Your fantasy flood can only be true if time is suspended, and gravity is suspended, and hydrology is suspended, and sedimentology is suspended, and thermodynamics is suspended, and chemistry is suspended, and biology is suspended, and geology is suspended, and all of physics is suspended.Fiction. No it is not. A flood does not leave distinct layers of unrelated material like we see everywhere that strata is exposed. You have no explanation for the order in the fossil record that is consistent with the principles of physics, chemistry, geology, biology and all other relevant science.You never actually have an evidence based reason that it is absurd, except for your total lack of any knowledge about geology. The evidence is ALL against you. As mentioned earlier, the order of the fossils supports the fact that your fantasy flood is fiction.The vast majority of animal fossils are from aquatic creatures, not land animals. This conclusion could only be reached by someone who has never studied geology in the field. This is bullshit and you know it. It is right there in Message 658

quote:

---

Faith writes:

​

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.

​

What the heck are you talking about? Genomes are passed on from ancestors to descendants through reproduction with new mutations slightly modifying the genome every generation. Sometimes lines of descent go extinct and sometimes they are the beginning of dense lines of descent.

---

ABE: since you edited you post after I finished mine: This is pure bullshit that you just made up and do not support with even a shred of evidence or rational thought. You are the one living in a dream world.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Then you haven't been paying attention since you have been provided this answer in multiple messages over the years.Mutations mapped to natural selection over millions of years. Micro-evolution times thousands of generations.

I think the problem is you don't really understand what the genome does. Your view is way too over-simplistic for you to make sense of what happens when genes change. I asked this question a while ago and you never responded, so I'll ask again.If the way that new varieties or subspecies (or whatever you want to call them) occur is through the recombination of existing alleles, what would you expect genetic diversity to be like in clonal organisms? I would think that since they don't undergo recombination and they don't shuffle around existing alleles, they should have very little diversity between subspecies. Is that what you predict as well?I came across a paper as part of a project I recently worked on and I will start a new thread on it once you give me an answer about what you expect genetic diversity to be like in clonal organisms according to your understanding of genetics.HBD

Error 1: Genes are not governed by the genome. Genes change and enter/leave the population's genome based on usage and fecundity.Error 2: The genome does what the genes that make it up produce. When a large proportion of the genes change the genome is different. The genome is not a static set of alleles but a constant flow of alleles into and out of the population. Error 3: New alleles are not built into the genome. Novel combinations of nucleobases alter existing alleles and produce new alleles thus producing new novel proteins. There is no limiting factor that could keep a species genome from the chemical alterations/production of novel alleles. From there the only limiting factor to the use/demise of novel alleles is what those novel alleles do to the fecundity of the resultant phenotype.You already acknowledge micro-evolutionary change. Slightly longer/shorter sharper/duller teeth, slightly longer/shorter stronger/weaker arms/legs. The same variation exists for every trait you care to mention.When populations split along geographic lines or into new habitats these variations are exacerbated by the environment leading over many thousands of generations to an organism so drastically different from its ancestors as to be called a different species.Further, as that new population differentiates, splits, and differentiates still more over millions of years, the resultant phenotypes are so different from the original population that we classify these as a new genus. And the process continues without the limits you impose (and cannot show to exist).From a Triassic rodent differentiating, splitting and differentiating more we get dogs, cats, moose, bear and whales after 200 million years. And that's just mammals. The same for all the other life systems from insect to reptilians ... and this on steroids for bacterium.You have been told how it all works. You no longer have recourse to say your question has not been answered.You disagree with the answer, of course, but that is based on your religious motivation not any demonstrable facts.There are no limits over time to changes in alleles, genes, genomes. Micro-evolution operating in disparate environments times millions of generations produces everything.

We know a lot about what a world-wide flood would do. Water was water, rock was rock, gravity was gravity.One thing no flood does is consistently sort fragile objects into an order that has nothing to do with their physical properties.If you insist we can't assess the flood based on our wide-ranging knowledge of water and rock and gravity, you've explicitly rejected scientific inquiry. Take it to a faith forum.

Thinking is never enough. Evidence is required.

quote:

---

The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

​

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

​

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

​

(reportedly from an essay by Carl Sagan)

---

Testing of your ideas is required, if you are capable of it.

So, you're telling me that a change in bait won't help?

Beats me. We will never know when the fossil record is complete. I’m glad you mentioned this, as I have recently adopted a scientific explanation for the fossil record (which I will preface by saying, science cannot explain the fossil record and I don’t believe in aliens): The history of life on earth is the result of genetic engineering performed by aliens. This explanation seems to me to be at least as scientifically valid as Darwinian evolution, but one that makes a lot more sense. (Science cannot rule out the existence of intelligent aliens who could perform such feats of creative daring-do.) I can’t document fossils that don’t exist.

Just google “Ediacaran life-forms” . any mug can do it. Btw, there will be a question on this subject in the final exam - you have been warned.