Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

quote:

---

I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain.

---

DNA certainly can be “snipped out of the DNA chain”. It’s called a deletion.

quote:

---

What really happens is that it's not expressed in the new population because other genes dominate.

---

That really doesn’t make sense. Even if we aren’t talking about actually sequencing the DNA. I think you’re failing to understand the terminology.And what do you mean when you deny that mutations are a natural phenomenon ? Are you suggesting that they are human-created, or a supernatural phenomenon ?

so explain how a whole gene gets snipped out of the DNA chain please, how often it happens and so on.

Deletion - Wikipedia(genetics)

Apparently it’s quite common in bacteria. And this article explains how it can happen, although it’s rather technical Now how about answering my question? Why do you say that mutations are not a natural phenomenon ?

Are you totally incapable of doing even basic research? That's right you will claim it is leftist plot if you cannot find any evidence to support you.

Are you saying it is just a fantasy that the chimp and human genomes are different from one another? Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps if it isn't due to beneficial differences between their genomes? If changing a genome makes the genome worse, how can there be different genomes in different original kinds? According to your view of genetics, there should only be one species in existence with the one and only possible genome. If you change that genome at all the species ceases to exist. Then there should only be one created kind, but there isn't. Obviously, those limits don't exist. If genomes can't be changed to produce a new kind, then even a creator could not do it. If changing a genome can produce a new kind, then you need to explain why the observed processes of mutation could not produce those changes.

. .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't get the question but the answer is that they are different because they are different creatures with different built in genomes that contain the genetic stuff for that species and no other. You have the ToE perspective that sees one evolving from the other but since I don't look at it that way I see two different creatures each with its own genome hardwired to its own characteristics since Creation. I'm arguing on the basis of how I understand mutations to affect a genome and that they can't affect it outside of its own created purpose in building the body of the species it is created for. I can't follow this reasoning AT ALL, I have no idea what you have in mind. The sense in which mutations make a genome worse is that they interrupt functioning alleles which in most cases has a neutral affect and doesn't change the product, but in some cases may kill a gene or produce a disease. This can happen in any species, in the genome for that one species, or in any other species independently of one another. This makes absolutely no sense. Each species has its own genome that produces the characteristics of that species and only that species. The ability to vary many of its characteristics is built into the genome for that species and only that species: that's the limitation on each sepcies' genome. You can get variations on any particular trait of that species, but you can't get a characteristic that doesn't belong to that species. You can get a variety of sizes and colors etc and to some extent some minor structural differences but you aren't going to get even the beginning of a mammal foot from a rodent foot. And so far nobody has even suggested a pathway for such a thing to occur. I say it simply can't occur, the changes are not possible because the genome is confined to producing the characteristics of its own species. I have a terrible time following your reasoning but I HAVE tried to explain that mutations can only alter the characteristics of the species the genome belongs to, at best can vary it but it will always be recognizable as a trait of that particular species and no other. It will be a rodent foot, not the foot of any other creature, no matter how it may vary in superficial ways. There is no mechanism for mutations to alter the genome to produce anything else than those characteristics.I hope you can follow my creationist reasoning although I'm having so much trouble making sense of your evo reasoning.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I gather it is a rare occurrence except in bacteria, and in any case it doesn't affect this discussion that I can see.

Clearly an undesirable event, but one that doesn't seem to affect this discussion in any case.

Faith if it wasn't for the fact that we're "communicating" through the written word I'd suspect that you're illiterate. My post was in response to your comment: I gave you a link (admittedly slightly broken but how hard would it have been for you to scroll to the correct entry) explaining just how such a thing could occur.

quote:

---

I gather it is a rare occurrence except in bacteria...

---

You should try reading the links provided. There are plenty of citations to papers about multi-cellular life there, too.

quote:

---

...and in any case it doesn't affect this discussion that I can see.

---

It is certainly relevant as to how species can evolve.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Chocolate or cream filled or plain? So the evidence of Pelycodus shows "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied. Except that the evidence shows an absence of outside tampering, while common ancestry in living species is observed and thus is a known process. Positing an invisible undetectable process is not needed to explain the evidence that matches the observed common ancestry process that is nown to occur.Enjoy

Casual dismissal is easier.

What mutations do isn't important enough to my argument to spend time on it. If there is something you want to get across you need to write it out yourself. From the little you did report I can see that a deletion would certainly change the gene frequency in a population where it occurred, but a change in gene frequency is still just a change within the genome of a species, it doesn't add anything to the genome that could even begin to point toward the formation of a new species.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.