Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

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.

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.

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.

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.) 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?

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.

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.

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.

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. I think it's impossible - see above You've been shown that. You just deny it. 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. 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.

There is no "burden" on anybody to show anything to a blind person.

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.

---

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.

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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 LAGACGVGGYWould 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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes. 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.