Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Already given in previous posts.

quote:

---

Data on replacement mutations in genes of disease patients exist in a variety of online resources. In addition, genome sequencing projects and individual gene sequencing efforts have led to the identification of disease gene homologs in diverse metazoan species. The availability of these two types of information provides unique opportunities to investigate factors that are important in the development of genetically based disease by contrasting long and short-term molecular evolutionary patterns. Therefore, we conducted an analysis of disease-associated human genetic variation for seven disease genes: the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, the neural cell adhesion molecule L1, phenylalanine hydroxylase, paired box 6, the X-linked retinoschisis gene and TSC2/tuberin. Our analyses indicate that disease mutations show definite patterns when examined from an evolutionary perspective. Human replacement mutations resulting in disease are overabundant at amino acid positions most conserved throughout the long-term history of metazoans. In contrast, human polymorphic replacement mutations and silent mutations are randomly distributed across sites with respect to the level of conservation of amino acid sites within genes. Furthermore, disease-causing amino acid changes are of types usually not observed among species. Using Grantham’s chemical difference matrix, we find that amino acid changes observed in disease patients are far more radical than the variation found among species and in non-diseased humans. Overall, our results demonstrate the usefulness of evolutionary analyses for understanding patterns of human disease mutations and underscore the biomedical significance of sequence data currently being generated from various model organism genome sequencing projects.
Understanding human disease mutations through the use of interspecific genetic variation | Human Molecular Genetics | Oxford Academic

---

From the paper itself:

quote:

---

hus, as with our analysis of the frequencies of different amino acid changes, we only analyzed amino acid changes among species that could have been the result of a single nucleotide mutation and scored each type of amino acid change seen at a site once to account for the residue’s common ancestry within a phylogenetic lineage. In the cases of CFTR and TSC2, we further analyzed the observed polymorphic amino acid changes in humans. From the chemical distance scores, we used a non-parametric Kruskal—Wallace test to determine if significant overall differences existed among the sets of human and interspecific amino acid changes. Scores for CFTR and TSC2 were further subjected to Mann—Whitney U tests post hoc to determine where the significant differences lie among the disease associated, human polymorphic, and interspecific scores. This same procedure was used for comparisons of type I mutations, types II, III and IV mutations and interspecific mutation scores in G6PD. These analyses were conducted using SPSS 10.0 (SPSS Inc, 1999).

---

I have given the same example multiple times, and yet you ignore it. I don't think the delusion is occurring on my end.

For one thing, it means Dobzhansky's claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is deluded nonsense.

Edited out.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

So that's your reason for provoking this thread, so you can throw sand in some old dead guy's face?Nothing more intellectual? No grand insights into the workings of the universe?How does UCA lacking what you would define as practical use in applied science sever the well established connection between evolution and biology?Do you contend that the scientific field of evolution only involves UCA? Are there no other practical links between evolution and biology?As an example, is it your contention that mutation has no effect on biology?Is it your contention that mutation in bacteria and viruses can never have an effect on your personal biology function?There has got to be more to this than just you pissing on a dead guy's grave is there not?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Fine, but that’s not what I asked for. What you need to do is explain how common ancestry has proven useful in a practical application. For example, demonstrate how accepting the information that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is necessary for any practical application of biology. Your post doesn’t do that. It didn’t work the first time you offered it and surprise, surprise it didn’t work this time either. You appear to be a slow learner. This is not a practical use - it is merely theorising about common ancestry - completely useless speculation, in other words. Evidently, you don’t know the difference between a useless theory and a practical use.

The bad news is, you have descended into a cesspit of strawmanism, extreme silliness and embarrassing fatuity. Please be advised that this display does nothing for your credibility as someone with intelligence.The good news is, you have at least conceded that your Darwinist bedtime story is scientifically irrelevant.

I guess you can't answer the questions because you haven't any reasons or because you don't understand the questions. Fatuity indeed.The bad news is this is an open public forum and everyone can see you trying to avoid giving an account of your UCA foolishness.The good news is you have another opportunity to put forward your reasoning.How does UCA lacking what you would define as practical use in applied science sever the well established connection between evolution and biology?Do you contend that the scientific field of evolution only involves UCA? Are there no other practical links between evolution and biology?As an example, is it your contention that mutation has no effect on biology?Is it your contention that mutation in bacteria and viruses can never have an effect on your personal biology function?

Words used to become personal rather than address the topic will be added to the members disallowed word list.

The bad news is, a public forum is not the best place to find oneself indulging in meaningless babble. This question if off-topic. The question is, how has the information that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of Darwinian common descent provided a practical use in applied science? These questions are off-topic. The question is, how has the information that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of Darwinian common descent provided a practical use in applied science? 1. Mutation is a demonstrable principle of biology. So in effect you’re asking me if certain principle of biology has an effect on biology.2. This question is off-topic. The question is, how has the information that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of Darwinian common descent provided a practical use in applied science? This question is off-topic. The question is, how has the information that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of Darwinian common descent provided a practical use in applied science?

My questions are as legitimate to this thread as was your OP.Your question has been answered numerous times despite intransigent denials from you.Since you choose to avoid the questions I ask I must assume you have no rational answers which means you are not here for discussion but for trolling.

Please explain how. Please provide a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth.

The "original statement" was hired liar Barr's lying smoke screen statement about what was in the Mueller report. The original Mueller report listed several cases of probable obstruction of justice and said that they could not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, and that they could not prosecute a sitting president and that it was up to the congress to pursue.Of course you could read the Mueller report if you wanted the truth. You don't.You can't handle the truth.We have now seen several more cases of obstruction of justice by proven liar Trump.Enjoy

Apparently the subject turned to Trump at some point in this thread. Please take discussion of Trump to one of the threads where Trump is a more appropriate topic of discussion, such as Dominant Force in West Today According to Dennis Prager is Fear of Left, The Trump Presidency or The Right Side of the News.

That's you all tied up by your denial.Microevolution IS evolutionAll evolution occurs within a living breeding population, within a species. What happens later ("Macroevolution") is just the observation that species continue to change (by "Microevolution") generation after generation, where the only limitations are survival and reproduction of the individuals living at that time, and of the population as a whole as it adapts to their changing environment/s. At any one time the breeding species would - by definition - be all one species. The question here is whether or not they are the same as an ancestral species or have they changed to the point where it is useful to label them a new species. Unless we can clone ancestral species or find some isolate that has not changed significantly from the ancestral species it is rather difficult to determine inter breeding ability.Names are useful. For instance we can say that all chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are apes (hominoids). But is it useful to talk about hominoids being democrat or republican, or is it more useful to use a name that is more restrictive in meaning so that we don't confuse the issue with whether or not chimp hominoids are politically inclined?And it is useful to identify groups of individuals by their common ancestry in the natural geological history to talk about their development within the geological/temporal matrix -- whether we use "species" or genus or family.This is a practical use of common ancestry. By this mega-macro-lumping viewpoint all life is ultimately the same species ... because you can follow the historical lineage back, via fossils and DNA, to the first living species ... for every living thing on earth today. Plants and trees and algae and bacteria included. Says the person who classifies all trilobites as one species, while at the same time saying that humans and chimps are not related by a common ancestor.In other words inconsistent irrational claims based solely on opinion/belief and ones inconsistent with the evidence.Your view is irrelevant because of the inconsistencies in your arguments.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .