Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

And still no evidence or argument for that other than your personal incredulity. Translates to "Gosharootie, Buffalo Bob, that tens of millions of years of evolution of hard body parts is too much for my feeble brain."

Ned made the same point as I did. You brought up the actions of antibiotics to avoid the point.The actions of antibiotics have nothing to do with the discussion. How bacteria evolve in the presence of antibiotics is relevant. Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong. Want to try again, or take a free copy of the home game and go away? You keep insisting that LUCA is a critical foundation of the ToE. If so, a practical application of the concept LUCA is supporting the ToE which has practical applicadEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yes.

HGT.

I see you don't know much set theory. If a subset of the ToE has practical use then the ToE has practical use.

Nope.HGT. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yeah, you have no clue about set theory or logic.Say set A has subsets B and C. Subset B has no practical use, subset C does. One subset of A does not have practical use, but A has practical use.You should have said "In that case, if all subsets of the theory do not have a practical use, that means the theory does not have practical use." Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Parts of this site are strictly and explicitly scientific, parts are explicitly non-scientific. Click "forums" at the top of the window and note the grouping.Duh.Somewhere around here there's an explicit statement of the differences between the groups, but I can't find it r now.

Dupe. . Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

If it were well supported by evidence, no problem.Your ideas don't fit that classification, no matter how often you claim to have evidence. The devil is in the details.

Content-free as usual.

Yes.They are expressed differently in humans and chimps, but they are the same genes.

quote:

---

In particular, the researchers found that two genes, PAX3 and PAX7, known to affect snout length and shape in laboratory mice, as well as skin pigmentation, were expressed at higher levels in chimpanzees than in humans. Humans with less than the normal amount of PAX3 have a condition called Waardenburg syndrome, which includes craniofacial, auditory and pigmentation defects. Genomewide association studies in humans have identified PAX3 as a region involved in normal facial variation.

​

If we want to understand what makes human and chimp faces different, we have to look to the source ” to the cell types responsible for making these early patterning decisions.
In contrast, another gene known to be involved in determining the shape of the beaks of finches and the jaw of a fish called a cichlid was expressed at higher levels in humans than in chimpanzees. In mice, overexpression of this gene, BMP4, in cranial neural crest cells causes a marked change in face shape, including a rounding of the skull and eyes that are more near the front of the face.

---

Scientists home in on origin of human, chimpanzee facial differences | News Center | Stanford Medicine

Prove it. Proving a negative is always good for a laugh.Whoopsie,, we have an explanation. There's a big difference between "have no explanation" and "have an explanation an ignoramus dislikes".

And, given that soft bodies don't fossilize well, so what?

Name some and quote their complaints.