Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain. What really happens is that it's not expressed in the new population because other genes dominate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

so explain how a whole gene gets snipped out of the DNA chain please, how often it happens and so on.

. .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't get the question but the answer is that they are different because they are different creatures with different built in genomes that contain the genetic stuff for that species and no other. You have the ToE perspective that sees one evolving from the other but since I don't look at it that way I see two different creatures each with its own genome hardwired to its own characteristics since Creation. I'm arguing on the basis of how I understand mutations to affect a genome and that they can't affect it outside of its own created purpose in building the body of the species it is created for. I can't follow this reasoning AT ALL, I have no idea what you have in mind. The sense in which mutations make a genome worse is that they interrupt functioning alleles which in most cases has a neutral affect and doesn't change the product, but in some cases may kill a gene or produce a disease. This can happen in any species, in the genome for that one species, or in any other species independently of one another. This makes absolutely no sense. Each species has its own genome that produces the characteristics of that species and only that species. The ability to vary many of its characteristics is built into the genome for that species and only that species: that's the limitation on each sepcies' genome. You can get variations on any particular trait of that species, but you can't get a characteristic that doesn't belong to that species. You can get a variety of sizes and colors etc and to some extent some minor structural differences but you aren't going to get even the beginning of a mammal foot from a rodent foot. And so far nobody has even suggested a pathway for such a thing to occur. I say it simply can't occur, the changes are not possible because the genome is confined to producing the characteristics of its own species. I have a terrible time following your reasoning but I HAVE tried to explain that mutations can only alter the characteristics of the species the genome belongs to, at best can vary it but it will always be recognizable as a trait of that particular species and no other. It will be a rodent foot, not the foot of any other creature, no matter how it may vary in superficial ways. There is no mechanism for mutations to alter the genome to produce anything else than those characteristics.I hope you can follow my creationist reasoning although I'm having so much trouble making sense of your evo reasoning.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I gather it is a rare occurrence except in bacteria, and in any case it doesn't affect this discussion that I can see.

Clearly an undesirable event, but one that doesn't seem to affect this discussion in any case.

What mutations do isn't important enough to my argument to spend time on it. If there is something you want to get across you need to write it out yourself. From the little you did report I can see that a deletion would certainly change the gene frequency in a population where it occurred, but a change in gene frequency is still just a change within the genome of a species, it doesn't add anything to the genome that could even begin to point toward the formation of a new species.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry I failed to take it seriously but that's why I labeled it a "side issue." I was curious enough to ask but not interested enough to study the phenomenon, and as I say in my previous post it doesn't change my basic argument.

Instead of just blasting me about nothing why not try to figure out what I'm trying to say? I AM creating an argument here although it is clear few care enough to try to follow it.

Here's another way of trying to state the argument. Surely all would agree that any given species/kind/creature produces only that same species/kind/creature, with some variations mostly in superficial traits while the basic structure or form is preserved from generation to generation. Dogs are always the most dramatic example because there are so many breeds of them that are all still clearly dogs. They vary in size, temperament, color and length and texture of hair, while maintaining the characteristics by which everyone recognizes them as dogs, basic structure for instance but also some behaviors.So it would be with the Triassic rodent AZ mentioned in Message 669. It would produce only variations on the rodent into the distant future, with superficial variations that don't change its basic character as rodent.The ToE, however, says that at some point it will acquire changes that ultimately produce a new species, in this case some sort of mammal. Since all we know about any creature is that it always reproduces itself with superficial variations, which is commonly known as "microevolution" the question remains: since the theory holds that it will eventually produce something other than itself, how do you see this happening? What changes and where, either in the phenotypic traits or in the genome? Is a new kind of paw other than the rodent type of paw going to show up somewhere in the lineage, and how is that going to happen considering that only the rodent paw exists in the rodent genome? You would need something entirely different than exists in the rodent genome to get a new kind of paw. Mutations affect the existing genes, make variations on those genes, they don't change one kind of paw ito another, it's always going to be a rodent paw. I don't understand HOX genes very well except that they have to do with the structural traits such as a rodent paw and that they are fairly resistant to mutations, though when a mutation occurs it tends to creature a monster rather than anything at all beneficial, so changes there don't seem likely to further the evolutionary project.This is all another attempt to define the question I've been asking. How do you get from the genome of one species to that of another considering that each genome is a blueprint as it were for only the traits of the species it belongs to?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then answer the question and prove that mutations can make a new species out of an old one.

It makes sense to me and I don't know why it doesn't to you and I guess I never will because nobody can say why for some reason. I can see in Taq's case that he's so deeply into the evo box he can't think outside it but otherwise I don't get people's inability to follow what seems like a straightforward argument. It's reasoned out from what ought to be recognizable observations.Actually I don't believe you, I think it's easy enough to follow, you just don't want to bother.abe: Mad Censor: You censored "L-I=K=E"? You really ARE mad.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My reason for using the term "superficial" is nothing like what you are imagining. Your speculations are wrong and they are unwelcome.I already said there are differences from generation to generation. Pay attention.The question has to do with explaining how anything that does not exist in the species genome can come to exist in the creature.Obviously you do not grasp the question and are not interested in it but only in making irrelevant points.

Pick any creature. I don't care if it's a rodent or whatever you want. I just want someone to explain how the genome for the traits of that creature can change to make a trait for a completely different creature.I know that genes make proteins and that somehow a trait is the product of that protein. What's the problem? I wouldn't expect that one gene could make a hand either.But no I'm not at all surprised that all living things are made out of the same basic stuff. The form of the product is different in each case. You can make a lot of different things out of the same clay. Also it seems to me that comparison of hands doesn't have the proportions right. Aren't chimp hands much larger? And if the gene in the chimp genome that makes the chimp hand is the same gene in the human genome that makes the human hand and the same for the extinct creature whatever it is, you certainly do need new genes or something new to get from one to the other. The chimp genome is only going to make the chimp hand and tne human genome is only going to make the human hand and despite the picture and despite the fact that the basic materials are the same these are very different things. The powerful large slender chimp hand is so different from the human hand you cannot confuse them. I want to know how you propose to bring about the DIFFERENCES between them as supposedly the chimp evolves to the human. What's the genetic pathway? What has to change in the genome? How do you turn chimp skin and fur and nails into human skin and nails? What has to change and in what order? Obviously you aren't going to see a human hand emerge from the chimp genome, millions of changes have to take place all at once. In fact the number of "transitionals" that would have to occur must be staggering and yet maybe you'll find one somewhere that seems to be a transitional. I'm asking how you solve these problems. Nothing you've said so far solves it. If you think HOX genes could accomplish something along these lines let's see the argument. Yes this explains how a human genome makes these differences in the human body, or a chimp genome in a chimp body, but it says nothing about how you could ever get a human trait from a chimp genome.As for the same materials, one can make many different things out of clay but there's nothing about the clay that can get you one thing from another.Thanks for the information though. It just doesn't do anything to answer the question. It's obvious to me that it is simply impossible to get a human being from a chimp or other ape even after millions of years. FFEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.