Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Of course. That's what the ToE says, but Creation says that the genomes were created separately and uniquely for each species, created to produce a particular species through reproduction and no other. First of all I'm only stating what I understand to be what mutations do. They have mostly a neutral effect, not changing the product of the gene, or they have a deleterious effect causing disease or some other negative thing, or very rarely I gather they may bring about a beneficial change. So it MUST be the case, I don't understand how you can deny it.But the Creator doesn't need mutations to create a genome. He just creates them for the purpose of varying the species they belong to. He makes the functioning alleles for that purpose. Mutations are a product of the Fall, a disease process that interferes with the proper functioning of the genome. Mostly I gather it doesn't do anything particularly harmful but it can. For whatever reason I have the impression that no mutation in a chump gene could ever produce a human trait and I have no idea why. It seems to be something about the genome that ties it to the creature, like it's hardwired to that creature somehow, but I gather that although the ape and the human genomes are very similar even the same sequence of the DNA will always produce a chimp product in the chimp and a human product in the human. That is just a fact is it not? You can't get anything from a chump genome for anything other than a chimp. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but there's no way that can happen.

Only theoretically. In actual fact no mutation in one genome has ever produced a characteristic of another species. If it changes anything it changes it in accordance with the creature to which the genome belongs, it does not produce anything that is not what that genome normally does. Maybe but I wonder. As I said above I have the impression that you never get anything but the characteristics of the species the genome belongs to and nothing else. I'm not sure what sort of genetic engineering might make it possible to get a human from a chimp genome but I have the impression it can't happen because each genome only makes the creature it belongs to. ALways. Theoretically, again, but I've been doubting it as I say above. The genomes of our supposed ape ancestors and human beings are very similar, right, or even between chimp and human? Many of the same genes for the same traits etc. And yet in the chimp you always get a recognizable chimp version of the trait. With the very same DNA sequence that you can find in the human being. Why is that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's not that they can't be (chemically) accounted for, it's that you can't get the one from the other by mutations, you always get something that belongs to the given genome. Isn't that so?Sorry I'm dealing with your post in this piecemeal sort of way, not sure why, but hope I'll eventually do it justice.By the way I don't think I claimed STRUCTURAL difference between chimp and human hands, just recognizable differences, that the genome of each creature will produce only those recognizable characteristics, recognizable chimp hand in chimp, human in human.Also you seem to make much of the idea that a gene produces a variety of traits in different places. As long as it always does this, as long as it is consistent, I'm not sure why it matters. If it always produces eye color AND some other things why can't I just say it's a gene for eye color?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I assume so. But that's a big "if." For the sake of discussion I'll give you that but there is certainly an enormous number of genetic diseases that didn't get selected against. The Creator doesn't "CHANGE" anything. At the Creation He just made whatever He made, bodies for all the living creatures. He had the "clay" in His hands as it were and He made a human being and He made a chimp and He made a worm and a horse and a butterfly and so on. He made a genome to fit each creature, with the right genes and the right alleles for that creature. Nothing "changes," it's all there from the beginning. Over the generations of variation the genomes change, different alleles get emphasized and deemphasized depending on the changing gene frequencies, but again nothing "changes" in any other sense, such as by mutations, only the shuffling of the created alleles. Mutations are a disease process according to my YEC point of view.The ToE tells you mutations are the source of alleles but not according to YEC, the Creator made whatever was needed by the creature at the very beginning. Mutations are a mistake that may or may not do harm to the existing genome, but they certainly are not the source of functioning alleles. Sometimes you make an "if" statement about mutations making this or that and I have to say "yes" because of the way you've stated it, but to my mind mutations cannot do anything you think they do, that's just a statement of faith in a way, because the ToE needs them to do what you think they do. In actual fact I think they contribute nothing at all useful to the genome. Yes, if you change the entire genome as you say, to exactly match the chimp genome, but I'm talking about the present circumstances in which the existing genome will always without exception produce the creature it belongs to and can't produce even a fingernail as it were of any other species. This despite the fact of many similarities between the genomes. There has to be an overall governing genetic something or other that makes even the same or very similar sequences build a chimp versus a human. HOX genes?The mutations or changes that would be required to get a human being from an ape are impossible. Within the genome variations occur naturally from generation to generation because alleles have been designed to produce them as a result of sexual recombination, which is what we mean by "microevolution." But mutations that would actually change an ape into a human would have to change the genome itself, there is no pathway built into the genome for that so it's going to have to be a matter of trial and error and that level of change would have to take an enormous amount of time and meanwhile the errors would have to proliferate and many bizarre "transitionals" have to occur. The ToE imagines something much smoother and effective that simply cannot happen. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But that is not really what I'm saying. My point is that the genome can only make the creature it belongs to, so THEREFORE to get something entirely different which the ToE says is possible, at least over millions of years, the genome itself has to change and that is a completely different ballpark than the ordinary variations that go on within a given genome. Those ordinary variations are what we mean by microevolution and they occur in each generation simply through the shuffling of the alleles within the genome. They can make some dramatic variations for sure but it's all within the built in genetic stuff of the genome.For something entirely different to occur you need a change that is NOT built into the genome but is a change TO the genome and since mutations simply change what the genome already does you need mutations that do a lot more than that. This is what I keep asking for you to demonstrate. I'm sure you can't because it is impossible but at least I should be making you think about how it IS impossible. Outside the genome, I figure you could only get changes through trial and error, that is, changes that are entirely different from anything the genome itself produces; while within the genome mutations follow the given pathways of the genome itself.Trial and error HAS to produce weird anomalies because there is no pathway for them. Trial and error is going to produce huge numbers of errors before it ever got around to even a single change that could lead to a viable new species. If you understand this at all, please try to answer it instead of calling me names.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mutations occur within the genome and are part of microevolution IF they are viable at all. What you need is mutations that change the genome itself to produce something ENTIRELY new, ENTIRELY NOT within what the genome does. That doesn't happen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm making a distinction between "IN" the genome where they do nothing but produce a variation on what the genome does, and "TO" the genome where they putatively produce something the genome never could produce, which is what would be necessary if it really is possible to get an entirely different species from a given species. Which is impossible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A change in color is entirely within the genome. Any form of cat's ear is within that genome too. Give me a rodent ear or a chimp's fingernail on a human being. I know those are ridiculous ideas but the change would have to be on that order, something that the genome can't and never will produce normally.

As long as it's a color of fur or a kind of cat's ear it's within the genome though produced by a mutation. It is hard to come up with something the genome absolutely couldn't do but that's what is needed if the ToE is correct.

Well then pick a trait that is clearly chimpanzee, I'm making a general point, I don't care about the specifics and certainly there are chimp characteristics that COULDN'T be taken for human and my argument would be the same: mere mutations in the genome aren't going to turn the chimp genome into a human genome. You say they can, I say they can't. They can only reproduce chimp characteristics.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why would it have to be 100%? Good thing it isn't of course. Of course. He made the DNA from which the bodies are reproduced. God made each creature as He did, no mystery. I'm sure we could think of things humans make that have the same degree of similarity and difference. Creator's choice. What are those other parts by the way? WHAT? Something is getting VERY confused here. Genetic disease or a human????? You'll NEVER get a human. Mutations are never going to be able to produce ANYTHING that organized. The best they could do is make superficial changes in the genetic stuff of the given genome. Mutations can't produce ANYTHING organized that is not already part of the given genome in which they occur and there it is because the organization is already built in. Mutations did not and could not produce the differences between humans and chimps. Those differences were created into each genome. Mutations are RANDOM, they are MISTAKES, they can't produce ANYTHING ORGANIZED. No I didn't. You think it's possible for mutations to make such changes, I do not think it's possible, all I'm saying is that if you made such changes so that you have a chimp genome then it follows that of course you'd have a chimp. But there is no way to make such changes. Mutations cannot make such changes. Any of them, all of them. Mutations are random mistakes they could not possibly produce something organized. What I'm saying follows on what I've been saying. It's perfectly logical that if you COULD get a new species from an existing species this is how it would have to happen. And it's impossible so it's just a mental exercise anyway.

Chimp genome makes nothing but chimps. Human genome makes nothing but humans. Dog genome makes nothing but dogs. Mutations don't change this fact, each genome continues to make what it makes. So there's no reason to think more mutations would change that fact. Over however many years or millions of years you like.

Mutations hardly ever change anything in the phenotype and when they do it is usually a disease.

I got my understanding of mutations from you guys here.Your explanations are pretty familiar actually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.