Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Show the math. Small changes can have far-reaching consequences.Of course the point is that you have no clue how many changes or what changes would be required over a time period about which you are, wait for it...Clueless!

We have no credible evidence of advanced aliens or interstellar travel.ABE your inability to understand Popper is yours. That paragraph is well written and easily comprehended by one with the appropriate vocabulary. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

And many have been falsified.Getting some of it correct is not evidence that any other part is correct.

The ol' "we don't know everything therefore we know nothing" gambit. Boring.Gets harder and harder to cram God/aliens into those gaps, amirite?

The find was not "lucky".Your aliens are compatible with anything and explain nothing.

"cat"Mutate "c" to "b"..."bat"Two different words with a lot of features in common. Similar to chimps and humans.That's the process. There are lots of important details left out. But without understanding how the process changes a chimp/human precursor into chimps and humans there's no point in going into them.

You think we don't know or agree with that?We do. Nobody has claimed any coordination or denied the independence of mutations in the two genomes. The possibility would never occur to someone who understands basic genetics.It's hard to tell where your misunderstandings lie. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Three points, two of which you've accepted

• A chimp genome produces chimps.
• A human genome produces humans.
• Since the two genomes are comprised of the same four bases, and how a genome came to be is irrelevant to what it does, we could change the bases in the human genome to be that of a chimp. It would produce chimps.

Denying that third point is exactly like saying you can't change the word "cat" to the word "bat" by changing the "c" to a "b".

So this thread is pointless.

Spontaneous generation and the ToE are polar opposites. One could not "rework" one into the other.

Wow, that's one very tight example of circular reasoning.

God of the gaps.Aliens of the gaps.As we learn more the gaps get smaller no matter what you're trying to stuff in them.

False dichotomy. Lack of understanding or evidence does not invalidate what we know.By definition the gaps are where evolution isn't.

Um, no. I'm not an atheist but I know why atheists do not find everything pointless. The answer begins with "ev" and ends with "on".You wrote "Null and void. A scientific theory doesn't need a practical application to be accepted as valid."So whether or not the concept of the LUCA has practical application is irrelevant.As is this entire thread.

Yeah, there is that. But the thread is still based on a viewpoint he's explicitly rejected.