Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Call it whatever you like. The main point is that the human and chimp genomes differ by 40 million differences with the rest being the same. If being different causes diseases, as you claim, then God couldn't create species with these differences because they would die from disease.Therefore, you have to be wrong about differences only causing disease. That's your cognitive dissonance getting in the way.

It's not that hard to figure out.Let's start with creation and a very simple model. God creates humans and chimps separately, and the genetic differences are responsible for their physical differences. We find the genetic difference responsible for our larger brains, and the corresponding area in the chimp genome. The sequences look like this:

*
human  AACGAGGGATGAGGT
chimp  AACGAGGGTTGAGGT

I put a little asterisk above the difference. This is the difference responsible for our bigger brains.Now, if that same difference was caused by a mutation, would that be a beneficial mutation? Can you come up with any reason why that mutation could not occur?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It can be confirmed by both the pattern of physical differences and similarities and the same for genetic differences and similarities. We find a correlation between the nested hierarchies in both sets of data which confirms the mechanisms of vertical inheritance and random mutations. Why would aliens produce a nested hierarchy? You need to explain this.

Macroevolution is seen in every comparison of genomes:"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"We can also see it in the fossil record: Covering your eyes doesn't make the evidence go away.

You need to know more than that. You need to explain the following, and this is just a good start:1. The twin nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics.2. The difference in divergence between exons and introns.3. The pattern of transition, transversion, and CpG substitution mutations.4. Orthologous endogenous retroviruses and transposon insertions, and the pattern of divergence between the LTR's of a single ERV.Those are just a few off the top of my head. There is no reason why we would expect to see genetic engineering produce these patterns. Only people who lack scientific evidence to support their claims stoop to calling people deluded. If you had evidence you would present it.

They absolutely were.

quote:

---

Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]

---

quote:

---

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common”and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. . .

​

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record”geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)”reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record.
--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

---

You haven't shown that the fossil record is incomplete since you haven't dug up every fossil there is. The only thing that you can show to be incomplete is the search for fossils.

Every individual in every generation is born with mutations which increases genetic variation. This is an observable fact.

Inbreeding reduces genetic variation, for a start. Also, please explain why genetic variation accumulated over just a few thousand years in bottlenecked populations should be equivalent to the genetic variation accumulated in wild populations over 100's of millions of years.

Genetic engineering does not produce a phylogenetic signal. Evolution does. What do we see? A phylogenetic signal.

I can show that genetic engineering can produce any pattern of similarities and differences. Evolution can only produce one pattern of similarities and differences, and that is the pattern we see. That makes evolution the better explanation. Absolutely. The same pattern of similarities and differences seen in living species is also seen in the fossil record.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That's completely false. The matching phylogenies at the morphological and genetic level tell us the how: evolutionary mechanisms. Phylogenies are the fingerprint of random mutations, selection, drift, speciation, and vertical inheritance, and that fingerprint is all over the distribution of characteristics in living and fossil species as well as the genomes of living species.

You would need to show how your theory predicts the observed distribution of characteristics. You have yet to do that. The theory of evolution does predict what features should and should not be found together and why, but your theory does not.

You are demonstrating that you don't understand what theories or facts are.

quote:

---

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money

---

Synapsids are amniotes. The one trick they haven't tried is to allow dogs to breed in large populations over millions of years to get rid of the harmful mutations and accumulate much more genetic variation. Humans and chimps differ by 2% at the genetic level. Can you show me two dog breeds that differ by 2% at the genetic level? All descendants of dogs will be dogs. What can change is the variety and number of dog species. If you don't understand this very simple concept, then you can't critique evolution.

Due to the contingent nature of evolutionary histories, we shouldn't observe modern reptiles evolving into birds. If you understood how evolution works, you would already know this. All descendants of fruit flies will be fruit flies. Again, if you understood how evolution works you would already know this. Chimps and humans are both primates, as was our common ancestor. Bears and humans are both mammals, as was our common ancestor. Trout and humans are both vertebrates, as was our common ancestor. You don't evolve away from your ancestry. Already happened:

quote:

---

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
Observed Instances of Speciation

---

When you see evidence that is consistent with a natural mechanism you don't invent a supernatural mechanism that just happens to look exactly like the natural mechanism.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony”or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects”this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
--George Romanes, "The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Reality doesn't care what you believe. It's kind of strange that way. Once you realize that reality does not conform to what you believe, perhaps you could start having a science based discussion with us. If you had intelligence, imagination, and scientific aptitude you could show us a genetic comparison between two dog breeds that shows the same genetic divergence as that seen between humans and chimps, which is about 2%. You claim that dog breeding should be able to produce the genetic differences seen between separate species, so let's see you back it up. Where's the data?