Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 751 of 1385 (852030)
05-06-2019 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 747 by Faith
05-06-2019 10:18 AM


Re: Restating the question
quote:
I know you know that a chimp genome can't produce a human fingernail and I also know that you don't know how that is, and neither do I,
But I don’t know that there is any significant difference between a chimp fingernail and a human fingernail at all - let alone one that is out of the reach of mutation. And neither do you.
And that makes it pointless as an example.
quote:
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.
And - unless we get into quibbles - we also know that it is a meaningless tautology that doesn’t help your argument at all.
So let’s stop wasting time with rhetorical games. If you have a real case, then make it. If you don’t then cut out the aggression and honestly admit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 10:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 752 of 1385 (852032)
05-06-2019 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 750 by Faith
05-06-2019 10:26 AM


Re: Restating the question
I have read the exchange. You have brought the arguments to the absurd. Instead of producing actual arguments you bring the discussion to a level of absurd. Why don't you actually try to understand the science before you make a ridiculous argument? You have no idea what you do not know anything about, but continue to post absurdities.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 10:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 10:46 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 753 of 1385 (852034)
05-06-2019 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 752 by Theodoric
05-06-2019 10:33 AM


Re: Restating the question
The science on this subject amounts to a bald assertion that the ToE is true and nothing more than that, an assertion that you can indeed get from one species to another. It's nothing but a statement of the Evo Creed, there is no actual science involved. I'm ASKING for science and nobody is producing it because it does not exist, there is nothing BUT the Evo Creed.
Not only are you a vile ******* slanderer you are a blind adherent of the ToE who can't see that there is no science holding it up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Theodoric, posted 05-06-2019 10:33 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 754 of 1385 (852036)
05-06-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 748 by Faith
05-06-2019 10:22 AM


Re: Restating the question
Faith writes:
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.
Right, you think we can look back five or six million years and show you each genetic change that occurred? Do you think that a reasonable request? Would you accept it even if it was possible? (Rhetorical, we already know that you can't.)
There must be many, hundreds, thousands, of variations that are ****** to pop up before you get even one change toward the outcome you have in mind. Spell it out.
Well it was there in the abstract...
quote:
we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions.
Are you hoping that someone is going to take you through each of them?
As another little btw, before the genomes were sequenced the ToE allowed us to predict that the genome of Pan troglodytes would be very, very similar to Human sapiens. And it was. It didn't have to be that way, had a creator been involved it could easily have turned out to be made of entirely different base pairs - or liquorice and chocolate. Funny how the evidence mounts up isn't it?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 10:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 11:23 AM Tangle has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 417 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 755 of 1385 (852037)
05-06-2019 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 743 by Faith
05-06-2019 9:35 AM


Re: Restating the question
If you insist. See SupplementaryTable S19 from Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. You will need Excel or the free Google Sheets or equivalent, and you have a lot of studying ahead of you before you understand it. But that is the format the data is in.
Harping on similar data for your scenario is a way of pointing out your stunn hypocrisy in requiring something from us but not from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 9:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 756 of 1385 (852038)
05-06-2019 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 754 by Tangle
05-06-2019 10:53 AM


Re: Restating the question
Don't be silly. I know you can't show anything I've asked you to show because it's impossible. You think it's possible so the burden is on you to show it, show SOMETHING, ANYTHING genetic that would show that you can get a completely new species from an existing species.
Since there is order in the created world of course you could predict a human genome from a human creature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by Tangle, posted 05-06-2019 10:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2019 11:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 758 by Tangle, posted 05-06-2019 12:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 759 by ringo, posted 05-06-2019 12:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 771 by Taq, posted 05-06-2019 5:16 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 757 of 1385 (852041)
05-06-2019 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 756 by Faith
05-06-2019 11:23 AM


Re: Restating the question
quote:
Don't be silly. I know you can't show anything I've asked you to show because it's impossible. You think it's possible so the burden is on you to show it, show SOMETHING, ANYTHING genetic that would show that you can get a completely new species from an existing species.
You claim that there are real obstacles and therefore it is on you to show that there are. But you don’t.
What is wrong with the examples you have been given? In the absence of real objections they do meet your demand here. Indeed, in the absence of any real obstacles you lose there, too.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 11:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 758 of 1385 (852043)
05-06-2019 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 756 by Faith
05-06-2019 11:23 AM


Re: Restating the question
Faith writes:
I know you can't show anything I've asked you to show because it's impossible.
Correct. It's impossible because we don't have the genomes of 5 million year old human/chimp ancestors and never will. What we have are the fossils plus the modern day genomes showing the differences.
You think it's possible so the burden is on you to show it,
I think it's impossible - see above
show SOMETHING, ANYTHING genetic that would show that you can get a completely new species from an existing species.
You've been shown that. You just deny it.
Since there is order in the created world
Yes, the order is the nested hierarchy depicted in both modern organisms and the fossil record. It all looks exactly like it would had stuff evolved and exactly like it shouldn't if it had been created.
of course you could predict a human genome from a human creature.
Nope, we predicted the genetic closeness of Pan to Homo. Something your 'orthodoxy' would have denied under pain of death a few hundred years ago. We are all apes.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 11:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 759 of 1385 (852044)
05-06-2019 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 756 by Faith
05-06-2019 11:23 AM


Re: Restating the question
Faith writes:
You think it's possible so the burden is on you to show it....
There is no "burden" on anybody to show anything to a blind person.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 11:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 293 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 760 of 1385 (852046)
05-06-2019 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 738 by Dredge
05-05-2019 7:44 PM


Dredge writes:
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.
I thought you were asking about UCA in applied biology?
What part of applied biology involves evolving blind fish?
So - of course I won't answer this question, this question has nothing to do with what we're talking about (UCA and applied biology.)
Unless you're about to share the blind-fish-creation studies in applied biology?
However, if you want to get back to the point... about UCA in applied biology... you can review my answers again at any time:
quote:
Message 298
Except, of course, that if the understanding of antibiotic resistance was not the way it is - then the concept of UCA would be incorrect - there would be no evidence supporting it. Which, to rational people, implies that such ideas, theories and practical applications are inherently linked and should not be separated in attempts to make a silly fool of yourself. But sure, buddy - you do you.
Message 357
It's more linked in the other direction:
If anyone could show there is no such thing as evolving from a common ancestor... all our ideas on how to apply biology would be turned on it's head.
Message 447
Without the concept of UCA - their would be no point in creating medicine the way we do it.
Since we do have the concept of UCA - it helps guide the creation of new medicines in helpful directions.
That is, if UCA was not applicable - those creating medicine would be using some other idea as a guide, or we would not have 'new medicine' at all.
Dredge writes:
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!
Again, what part of evolving blind fish is in applied biology? Is there an example of applied biology you'd like to inform us about?
According to me, the applied biology for using UCA is medicine.
Therefore - according to me, any YECs (or any non-YECs, even) developing medicine without the idea of UCA behind them - wouldn't be any good at it - they would be known for being "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines.
Proof: You are unable to identify a single YEC who doesn't have the idea of UCA incorporated in their research who is not "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines.
But keep trying, you're still funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 738 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2019 7:44 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 910 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2019 7:07 PM Stile has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1274 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 761 of 1385 (852047)
05-06-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by Faith
05-04-2019 11:00 PM


Re: Restating the question
Also it seems to me that comparison of hands doesn't have the proportions right. Aren't chimp hands much larger?
No, I don't think so. It would depend on the individual. The picture I posted shows all hands scaled to the same size in order to show the different proportions more clearly.
Yes this explains how a human genome makes these differences in the human body, or a chimp genome in a chimp body, but it says nothing about how you could ever get a human trait from a chimp genome.
It's the same process. Just as the same genes can be regulated to produce different structures at different parts of the body, so they can be regulated to produce different structures on different bodies.
I used chimp because caffeine used chimp, not because I don't know the ToE drill.
It was you who raised the impossibility of turning a chimp hand into a human hand. I wouldn't have thought of such an example in relation to the request for how to form a completely different kind of structure, since you're the only person who thinks human and chimpanzee hands are different kinds of structure.
There are plenty of genes that are actually defined by the trait they build, and researchers are always identifying genes by the particular traits they produce, for various reasons including studying how to deal with genetic diseases.
There are no (or, at least, few) genes for a particular trait. What's going on here is two things - firstly, bad reporting. When a newspaper says 'Scientists discover the gene for x!' it's not true. This is just newspaper editors struggling to understand a complicated concept (or not trying to understand it, and going for cheap, sensationalist headlines).
Second, genetics is really complicated. If geneticists report discovering an effect of a gene, it doesn't mean they've identified the trait this gene is for. It means just what I wrote - they've identified an effect. I explained this to you before - OCA2 is often discussed as a gene for eye colour; but all this means is that geneticists found out the gene has an effect on eye colour. As I pointed out previously, this gene is expressed, amongst other places, in ovaries and intestines - it's not doing anything to do with colour there.
Funnily enough - I was just reading in the news someone discussing this idea in the context of 'designer babies', pointing out that we're not actually capable of making them.
quote:
If anybody thinks we can understand how to change genomes to improve things, they don't have an appreciation for the lack of knowledge that we have
You may think this is just a copout; but if, instead of a step-by-step account, you want just an idea of the general types of changes needed, that we can do. In fact, that's what I thought I'd already done, but clearly failed.
Consider again what we're trying to achieve. This is the hand of a human embryo at about 7 weeks:
At the equivalent stage of development, the chimpanzee embryo would look exactly the same. Chimps and humans will develop the same tissues, and the same type and number of bones in the same places, so we don't need to consider any big changes there.
All that we need for the above to take on a human or a chimpanzee shape, is for the different parts to grow at different speeds.
And this is of the things regulatory genes do. I mentioned them before turning different genes on or off at different parts of the body; but it's not really that binary. They 'upregulate' or 'downregulate' genes, which means they'll make them more or less active at different points. That's already what they do within different parts of the same organism - different regulation depending on the location of the hand is what makes the thumb grow to a different size, shape and orientation than the other fingers. If you take the regulatory genes which are causing the thumb to grow differently, and change them - causing them to activate genes earlier or later; upregulate some more, or downregulate others more, then that growth pattern will change.
I can't tell you exactly which genes, since we don't know (and by 'we' here I don't mean EvC - I mean humanity - I did a bit of reading and the genetics involved in patterning the hand are not well understood). But the basic process of making different parts grow at different rates in no different than that which produces different breeds of dog. There's nothing in the human hand that's not in the chimp hand; it's just a matter of changing the relative size and position of the bits.
Now, I don't really know if this answers your question, since I'm having difficulty fathoming your position. Clearly you're not satisfied with simply changing shapes, since you assert.
You will never get even a human fingernail from the chimp genome
Chimpanzee and human fingernails are almost identical. The precise amino acid sequence of human and chimp keratin is a little different, but only a little, and here we probably could give you the exact mutations necessary. All you need to do is download the protein sequences for human and chimpanzee keratin; look at the compositional differences, and then list some hypothetical point mutations that could cause the different sequence. If we really wanted to, we might not need to stick at hypothetical, since the human and chimp genomes have been published. It's theoretically possible for us to track down the specific genetic changes responsible. I'm not going to do that, since I don't see what value it would have. Similarly, you ask
How do you turn chimp skin and fur and nails into human skin and nails?
And, again, that we could do, since they're made of the same proteins with slight differences in sequence. Scientists figured out the genetic code long ago; we know the requisite mutations to account for specific changes in protein sequence. Is this really what you want to see? Below is the first 60 amino acids in human and chimp KRT5 ( a type of keratin). As you can see, the only difference is at position 52 (bolded), where chimps have glycine and humans have alanine.
MSRQSSVSFR SGGSRSFSTA SAITPSVSRT SFTSVSRSGG GGGGGFGRVS LGGACGVGGY
MSRQSSVSFR SGGSRSFSTA SAITPSVSRT SFTSVSRSGG GGGGGFGRVS LAGACGVGGY
Would it help your understanding for me to look up the genetic code and list point mutations that could change glycine to alanine, or vice versa? Because I doubt this is getting to the heart of your misunderstanding. What do you think are supposed differences between chimp and human hair, or nails, that can't be accounted for by this kind of tedious exercise?
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Faith, posted 05-04-2019 11:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 4:42 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 799 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 11:06 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 762 of 1385 (852050)
05-06-2019 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by caffeine
05-06-2019 1:32 PM


Re: Restating the question
I have to come back to this later but please answer this question: Isn't it true that the human genome will create only a human being with human characteristics and there is nothing in it that could produce anything else or even a single characteristic of another species? I'm not interested in the specific differences between chimp and human skin etc., just in the fact that we all recognize the difference between a chimp hand and a human hand and you cannot get either from the genome of the other. I'm not thinking of embryos either, just the fully formed creature.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by caffeine, posted 05-06-2019 1:32 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2019 4:59 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 765 by JonF, posted 05-06-2019 5:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 769 by Taq, posted 05-06-2019 5:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 763 of 1385 (852051)
05-06-2019 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by edge
04-28-2019 10:31 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:
Actually, I say that it is the best explanation for the evidence. I do not "know" (your sense of the word) nor do I "prove" anything.
Whatever. When you said you "know" the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bones of a reptile, you were talking nonsense.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by edge, posted 04-28-2019 10:31 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 770 by edge, posted 05-06-2019 5:14 PM Dredge has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 764 of 1385 (852052)
05-06-2019 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by Faith
05-06-2019 4:42 PM


Re: Restating the question
quote:
I have to come back to this later but please answer this question: Isn't it true that the human genome will create only a human being with human characteristics and there is nothing in it that could produce anything else or even a single characteristic of another species?
You do realise that this is a pointless question which can’t possibly help you ? The reason has been given over and over again.
Genomes change over time. They are moving targets. Nobody is suggesting that a (current) human genome would produce a chimp or vice versa.
You have to show that the changes are impossible. Arguing that the genome for a species produces that species is a complete irrelevance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 4:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 417 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 765 of 1385 (852053)
05-06-2019 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by Faith
05-06-2019 4:42 PM


Re: Restating the question
Re: Restating the question
I have to come back to this later but please answer this question: Isn't it true that the human genome will create only a human being with human characteristics...
Yes.
and there is nothing in it that could produce anything else or even a single characteristic of another species?
There's lots of things in it that are identical between humans and chimps. By far most of it. Those elements of the chimp genome are used for the same purposes as their counterparts in the human genome. So I have to say almost all of the human genome could produce anything else or even a single characteristic of another species.
As noted above we have a lot to learn about how hands develop. But we can say most of the genes that produce a human hand are identical to the genes that produce a chimpanzee hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by Faith, posted 05-06-2019 4:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024