Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Well of course you don’t turn chimp anything into human anything. Both humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.That’s very basic stuff Faith. But I do have some sympathy for your disbelief, it’s quite hard to accept as it’s outside of common, everyday experience. That’s why it took a long time to be accepted by science.

Anything to confuse the issue, right, Tangle? Any stupid misrepresentation will do. Pick whatever ape ancestor you like to human beings, pick whatever humanoid you like as the next in line, THEN answer the question how you can get from the one to the other. What incremental changes are necessary? Etc. Etc.

You understand the question. Answer it for whatever time frame you think appropriate. What has to change in whatever time frame you think appropriate? What has to happen to the genome to cause the change? Etc. \Gosh you don't say. It's also not a map. Or a recipe. Or an instruction booklet. But any will do as a metaphor to express the relationship between gene and protein and trait. Or if you don't think so, then please provide the best word for the job.Anything to confuse the issue.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Same answer as the last hundred times.Mutations.Your misunderstandings notwithstanding. There is no one word, since there are multiple processes operating. Especially since the relationship between proteins and traits is not coded into the genome.PZ Myers wrote :

quote:

---

Analogies have a troubling effect on developmental biology because the fundamental processes are so different from what we experience in day-to-day life that they are always flawed and misleading. My main message is going to be that while they may help us grasp what's going on, we have to also recognize where the analogies fail (like, everywhere!) and be mentally prepared to leap elsewhere.

---

You seem to be the only one confused about the explanations.

quote:

---

Gosh you don't say. It's also not a map. Or a recipe. Or an instruction booklet. But any will do as a metaphor to express the relationship between gene and protein and trait. Or if you don't think so, then please provide the best word for the job.

---

Blueprint is not a good metaphor, because the genes do not directly represent the phenome in any way - map isn’t exactly better for the same reason. Recipe or instruction booklet are not as bad, but still potentially misleading.The relationship between gene and phenotype depends very, very much on the trait you are talking about. The structure of a protein depends directly on the genes. But the further you get away from that the less and less sense it makes to talk about individual genes instead of the whole system - including the environment where development is taking place, especially if it is an egg or a womb. Look up “maternal effect genes”.

This is again just another obfuscation and distraction. There are plenty of genes that are actually defined by the trait they build, and researchers are always identifying genes by the particular traits they produce, for various reasons including studying how to deal with genetic diseases. So picking one gene that doesn't fit with my question is sheer fraud.I don't care how you want to go about it but the question is about how you get a new species from the genome of another species and of course you can't do it because it is impossible. The ToE is impossible and all anyone is doing is putting up one smoke screen after another.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem Faith, is that you continue to make these mistakes which show that you don't yet understand what you're talking about.Humans did not evolve from chimps so asking how hands can change from one to the other is a category error. You have to start from a single ancestor from which small changes over time led eventually to the differences we see today. The answer is by mutation.I sympathise also with your inability to type words like 'like'. It's a cruel and unusual punishment. But quite funny.

You are again confusing things which I am not confusing. I used chimp because caffeine used chimp, not because I don't know the ToE drill. You are the confused one.If mutation could bring about a new species you have to say how, you have to specify the pathway step by step from a genome that can only produce a particular species to the traits of a completely new species that are not in that genome.It is clear that insofar as anyone understands the question there is no motivation to try to answer it because you know it's impossible. You all prefer to repeat the same ToE false belief system. Oh mutations will do it. No they won't. Millions of years will do it. OK, how?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This is again just another obfuscation and distraction

---

No, it’s the truth. Really, this aggressive lying is not helping anyone, least of all you.

quote:

---

There are plenty of genes that are actually defined by the trait they build, and researchers are always identifying genes by the particular traits they produce, for various reasons including studying how to deal with genetic diseases. So picking one gene that doesn't fit with my question is sheer fraud.

---

But I am not picking “one gene” at all, and it certainly isn’t true that only one gene doesn’t fit with the idea that a gene directly causes a trait, so your accusation of fraud is another lie. Researchers may identify genes by effects - but that may mean no more than that one particular allele is associated with a particular trait in a single species. Until you understand the relationship between the allele and the trait you can’t say any more.

quote:

---

I don't care how you want to go about it but the question is about how you get a new species from the genome of another species and of course you can't do it because it is impossible.

---

Of course, since you believe in the Creationist “kind”concept you don’t really believe that it is impossible at all. Nor have you identified any real issues that would prevent genetic changes accumulating through drift and selection until a population of descendants has become a distinct species. So the general question is answered - and your claim of impossibility remains unsupported.

I've many times identified barriers to change beyond the species, both in the genome and in population genetics. But now I'm asking for anyone to show how I'm wrong by specifying the genetic pathway by which such changes could occur step by step. It's amusing how nobody can do that and just keep trying to throw it back on me.It's hard to believe that nobody really understands the question so I assume it's dishonesty that precludes a reasonable discussion of the facts. Well, that's nothing new for my opponents at EvC. I'd really really like to see someone honestly address the question but I guess it isn't going to happen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I've many times identified barriers to change beyond the species, both in the genome and in population genetics.

---

You’ve identified no real barriers at all.

quote:

---

But now I'm asking for anyone to show how I'm wrong by specifying the genetic pathway by which such changes could occur step by step. It's amusing how nobody can do that and just keep trying to throw it back on me.

---

You ask a general question you get general answers. Which you can’t refute. And the fact that you obviously don’t want answers and object strongly to any explanation of how genes relate to traits is hardly helpful.

quote:

---

It's hard to believe that nobody really understands the question so I assume it's dishonesty that precludes a reasonable discussion of the facts

---

We don’t have to assume that dishonesty on your part is obstructing reasonable discussion - we know it for a fact.

quote:

---

I'd really really **** to see someone honestly address the question but I guess it isn't going to happen

---

People have. You don’t like it at all.

There will never be a step by step explanation, the data isn't available. But we have enough data by far to conclude the outline of the process.Of course you can provide a step by step explanation of your scenario. Looking forward to it.

Repeating unsupported assertions over and over is not identifying barriers. Claiming some process exists or does not exist based only on your imagination is not identifying barriers.You need evidence. Measurements and observations of what happens in the real world. Especially the fossil record.

Some genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, found hereWikipedia explains MYH16
And ACTN3
However it must be remembered that chimpanzees are very similar to humans in many waysE.g.