Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Dredge, you are not a regular here, which I hope changes because as comic relief you provide the hilarity of ill-informed creationist argument which we have too little of in this forum, but if you hang around a bit you may realize that Tanypteryx, the author of message 25 ringo referred to, IS one of those scientists from around the world who are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate.He makes pretty pictures of bugs, which are delightful to view, but the object is not the making of pretty pictures but the study of insects and their populations on this planet to a depth of detail and intellect you cannot even conceive.So, yes, ringo provided the evidence in the form of Tanypteryx and colleagues. If you dispute his work and the work of thousands of others in his discipline using the fact of "evolution," in all its facets, as their guide, then you are going to have provide evidence that they are not. You cannot do that.You will also have to provide an alternative to the evolutionary model that has the same efficacy as the TOE. You cannot do that, either.

It really isn't necessary to the ToE.Even though it has been mentioned dozens of times here, there and beyond I can see you're going to be hard pressed to figure out why.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Sincerely, M'Lady, a gentle suggestion.This "Inactive Member" stuff is your emotional flag of disapproval at the way you perceive your treatment in this community. It is not a fact, or true, or whatever term you care to use. It is blatantly false.Everyone here knows you are not inactive. Hell, even the lurkers know you are not inactive. Why persist in this falsehood? Is reality so foreign to you even this status designation needs to be a lie?If it makes you emotionally comfortable I suppose I have to accept that, but, given your penchant to believe and voice ... um ... contrary opinions, false/incomplete info, bogus processes ... this "Inactive Member" stuff is not doing your reputation any favors. It is just another lie.You don't need that.I suggest you come back to the fold officially, publicly, which in reality you never left, and stop with this most obvious falsehood.

Well, almost correct. Unencumbered by the shackles of religious stupidity science can even explain all those things you consider "problematic".Of course none of it is problematic to science, only to the twisted uneducated religious minds that so fear the facts of reality.Science has no problem explaining the 30-50 million year run of the cambrian radiation from its pre-cambrian beginnings.Yes, there are pre-cambrian fossils. Look 'em up. Here, I'll help get you started.The kid is counting begats? Really?And note that a lot of these begatters were 700, 800, 900 years old.And note that in all this begatting there were no women around.No wonder you see your god as so pissed at the humans. According to you the whole population was begat into existence by a bunch of really way-old faggots.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Thank you for your permission. I believe they probably will.But, it is good to have this other religious claptrap in comparison with Dredge's if only to emphasize how your two views differ so radically while on the evo side everyone appeasers to be citing similar information and the same conclusions. Consistency. Something you religionist's seem incapable of producing.That has to do, of course, with the fact that the former are fantasies open to personal embellishment while the latter is not. Real facts, not your made-up ones, are too powerful to be reputed by your book no matter which interpretation either one of you care to apply.

Then you haven't been paying attention since you have been provided this answer in multiple messages over the years.Mutations mapped to natural selection over millions of years. Micro-evolution times thousands of generations.

Error 1: Genes are not governed by the genome. Genes change and enter/leave the population's genome based on usage and fecundity.Error 2: The genome does what the genes that make it up produce. When a large proportion of the genes change the genome is different. The genome is not a static set of alleles but a constant flow of alleles into and out of the population. Error 3: New alleles are not built into the genome. Novel combinations of nucleobases alter existing alleles and produce new alleles thus producing new novel proteins. There is no limiting factor that could keep a species genome from the chemical alterations/production of novel alleles. From there the only limiting factor to the use/demise of novel alleles is what those novel alleles do to the fecundity of the resultant phenotype.You already acknowledge micro-evolutionary change. Slightly longer/shorter sharper/duller teeth, slightly longer/shorter stronger/weaker arms/legs. The same variation exists for every trait you care to mention.When populations split along geographic lines or into new habitats these variations are exacerbated by the environment leading over many thousands of generations to an organism so drastically different from its ancestors as to be called a different species.Further, as that new population differentiates, splits, and differentiates still more over millions of years, the resultant phenotypes are so different from the original population that we classify these as a new genus. And the process continues without the limits you impose (and cannot show to exist).From a Triassic rodent differentiating, splitting and differentiating more we get dogs, cats, moose, bear and whales after 200 million years. And that's just mammals. The same for all the other life systems from insect to reptilians ... and this on steroids for bacterium.You have been told how it all works. You no longer have recourse to say your question has not been answered.You disagree with the answer, of course, but that is based on your religious motivation not any demonstrable facts.There are no limits over time to changes in alleles, genes, genomes. Micro-evolution operating in disparate environments times millions of generations produces everything.

So, you're telling me that a change in bait won't help?

Is it a fact? Not in the way you mean. No.We know the chemistry exceptionally well. We know with near certainty what both the chimp and the human DNA look like. We seem to have a pretty good grasp of the exact chemicals involved and how they work. Each nucleotide is composed of one of four nitrogen-containing nucleobases - cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T]. You already know this.We have the complete sequence of the nucleobases, in order (more or less), for both. And, yes, this involves a whole lot of different alleles both common to both and different of each.More than 95% of this DNA is shared. It is precisely the same chemistry. That is why we are so similar. Call it a common base between us.Then there are enough alleles different between us, the other 5%, that makes us so different from each other.There are already human genes in the chimp, or vice versa. 95% of them. The common base.A lot of the alleles different between us are not all that different. We’re talking down at the per nucleotide position accuracy.Problem is we don’t know for sure how those unique proteins interact with everything else in the rest of the common base.Can’t plant even a single chimp allele into a human gamete nor would it be ethical the other way around.The one thing we do know is that, as you like to say, if you put all the separate chimp-only alleles (5%) into the common base (95%) then you would get a chimp. If you put in only the human 5% you get a human. No big surprises.Since we can’t experiment directly we can only think on these things and maybe do some computer simulations, but we first need a whole lot more study of proteins and how they interact. Proteomics. We’re learning a lot about this too, but proteins are so complex we know next to nothing about how they are used.As we understand more we may be able to simulate possible evolutionary pathways showing each step, each mutation, that made us evolve in such different directions from our common ancestor. The one that evolved the common base we and chimps use today. hereEdited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

So she was practicing.Didn't help.

No, you don't get to besmirch Dr. Mller like that.He's one of the good guys pushing the TOE in more detailed and technical directions, not dismantling it.Your misrepresentation of his work is disingenuous, reprehensible, disgusting, but, expected from such a small mind.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm enjoying this thread. This kid's hilarious.

So's your mother.