Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Demanding a step by step explanation is hypocritical. You know none is available for our or your scenario.Science works with the evidence we have, not the evidence you think we should have

Nice try, sort of, but not really. If you're going to claim that microevolution just proceeds without a glitch to macroevolution you should be able to come up with some kind of idea of how that could happen genetically, some kind of pathway, some idea of what genetic changes would be necessary to get from the genome that always makes only its own particular species to at least one trait of some completely different species. If you can't you really need to stop saying it happens with all the certainty usually put behind that statement. If you can't show how mutations could get from that species-specific genome to something entirely different, even one trait of it, you need to stop claiming that it happens as you all do. If you can't even come up with a reasonable guess let alone actual evidence, it becomes a lie to keep stating it.

I asked you to explain your claim, not to mindlessly repeat it. Explain why is necessary to accept that all life shares a common ancestor in order to understand antibiotic resistance and the evolution of blind fish?As before, you won't supply such an explanation - because you can't.There exist professors of biology who are YECs - according to you, these professors can't understand how antibiotic resistance works or how blind fish evolve!

Don' t be silly. The best scientific explanation for the history of life is that aliens performed feats of genetic engineering. The Darwinist explanation is a nineteenth-century idea that is inadequate and outdated. Why would I need to answer these questions? The theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless. No kidding? Biology needs research to progress. What are you talking about? Why the hell would I want to you stop using "what has been proven to work"?
All I want you to do is explain why is it necessary to "root" a plant you are studying to some extinct "ancestor" that supposedly existed millions of years ago - because this sounds like a complete waste of time to me.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Fabulous, I love it. But I'd like to see your evidence, Mulder.And then could you tell us how this theory is applicable in practical biology? Yes, exactly.To you...Now you just have to find someone who cares about your opinion.

quote:

---

Nice try, sort of, but not really. If you're going to claim that microevolution just proceeds without a glitch to macroevolution you should be able to come up with some kind of idea of how that could happen genetically, some kind of pathway, some idea of what genetic changes would be necessary to get from the genome that always makes only its own particular species to at least one trait of some completely different species.

---

The pathways already invoked for microevolution seem to be adequate. Especially as they include gaining and losing genes.Added: and for an unusual but relevant case, see this thread and the article linked in the OP. Message 1If you have any concrete objections it is rather surprising that you haven’t seriously raised them.

quote:

---

If you can't show how mutations could get from that species-specific genome to something entirely different, even one trait of it, you need to stop claiming that it happens as you all do

---

There is nothing special about a “species-specific genome” that means that it can’t change. Indeed discussion around that point seems meaningless. The “species-specific genome” is based on the individual genomes of the members of that species and will change as the membership of that species changes. If a sub-population is isolated it will diverge from the rest of the species - drift alone guarantees that. The changes that occur must be counted when identifying the “species-specific genome” right up until that population is considered to be a different species when it isn’t.Or to put it simply there is absolutely nothing special about “species specific genomes” that suggest any problems in going from one to another. Changes occur, some of them will end up in new species while not being considered as belonging to the parent species (even if they were present for a time) but there is nothing special about those changes. They were just those that happened to occur as part of a speciation event rather than just adding to the diversity of the main population.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

We know almost all about the changes that were necessary. We don't know in what order they occurred.Still waiting for the step by step narrative of your scenario.

\\The necessary changes are what I was asking for but you haven't even tried to spell them out. This gives the impression that you really don't know what those changes would have to be. You don't need to bother about the order, but giving even a very sketchy idea of the necessary changes would go a long way to answering the question I keep asking. Your job at the moment is to answer my question. It's understandable that you want to distract from it since obviously you have no answer, but that is what is on the table at the moment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've already answered your objections a million times. A genome IS indeed "species-specific." That is, it can build the species it belongs to and no other. For even a single recognizable trait that belongs to another species to be the product of such a genome is impossible. Although that is the question and you can still try to answer it. You will never get even a human fingernail from the chimp genome. If you want to show how that could be possible over millions of years then please explain. You'd have to describe the sort of genetic changes that would have to occur over those millions of years. And I would guess that you need millions of small changes to accumulate so maybe you could spell out what has to happen to make that possible. You claim the genome can change so show us how it does so. So far all you are doing is reciting the Evo Creed over and over again.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I've already answered your objections a million times

---

Simple assertions aren’t really adequate answers.

quote:

---

A genome IS indeed "species-specific." That is, it can build the species it belongs to and no other.

---

In practical terms that is true, but that’s not because there is anything special about the genome - and it doesn’t mean that that genome is constant. Variations can and do come and go.No meaningful objection there.

quote:

---

For even a single recognizable trait that belongs to another species to be the product of such a genome is impossible.

---

Presumably you mean traits that don’t belong to the species - since shared traits are ubiquitous. But this is also meaningless as an objection. Any heritable trait found in the species “belongs” to the species, and the genome will be involved in it’s existence.

quote:

---

Although that is the question and you can still try to answer it

---

Then that is already answered. If new traits appear through mutation - as we know can happen - then they will “belong” to the species and be the product of the genome. Even though the genome lacked the capability to produce the trait before.

quote:

---

You will never get even a human fingernail from the chimp genome.

---

Perhaps you can explain the differences between a chimp fingernail and a human fingernail and explain the role of the genome in producing those differences.

quote:

---

If you want to show how that could be possible over millions of years then please explain. You'd have to describe the sort of genetic changes that would have to occur over those millions of years

---

But you claim to be able to show that it is impossible. Asking for details that I’m not in a position to know doesn’t show that. It’s just a rhetorical trick. An attempt to cover up the fact that you cannot show any real barrier.I can be sure that if I asked you to give a similarly detailed explanation of how a single species genome could produce the much bigger variations seen in trilobites - in the absence of massive artificial selection - you would complain loudly. But it is no less fair than your demand.

quote:

---

You claim the genome can change so show us how it does so.

---

You mean that you want us to repeat the examples of the pocket mice and the peppered moth and the Scottish fold cat all over again ?

This is the sort of stuff you could look for yourself, but we all know you actually don't want to know, you just want to dispute stuff that you're not capable of understanding.The chimp genome was only sequenced a short time ago, so it's asking rather a lot but the information is there if you really want it. Here's a starter from Nature. I wish you luck.

quote:

---

Abstract

​

Human-chimpanzee comparative genome research is essential for narrowing down genetic changes involved in the acquisition of unique human features, such as highly developed cognitive functions, bipedalism or the use of complex language. Here, we report the high-quality DNA sequence of 33.3 megabases of chimpanzee chromosome 22. By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. Furthermore, we demonstrate different expansion of particular subfamilies of retrotransposons between the lineages, suggesting different impacts of retrotranspositions on human and chimpanzee evolution. The genomic changes after speciation and their biological consequences seem more complex than originally hypothesized.

---

DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22 | NatureOh, and by the way, it's another practical use of the concept of the UCA.

I know you know that a chimp genome can't produce a human fingernail and I also know that you don't know how or why that is the case, and neither do I, but we all know that what I'm saying is true: a genome is specific to the species and produces ONLY the charcteristics of that species. You know it, I know it,, everybody here knows it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm still waiting for someone to show how the changes occur that need to occur to get a human being from whatever ancestral ape you choose. Detailing differences does not answer that question, it doesn't show how you get from the one to the other. You certainly can't assume that each change just happens to occur. There must be many, hundreds, thousands, of variations that are likely to pop up before you get even one change toward the outcome you have in mind. Spell it out.

No one has made such a claim. Do you have anything other than fallacious arguments?

Why don't you just read through the argument for a change? You say really stupid irrelevant things because you don't.