Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Of course. That's what the ToE says, but Creation says that the genomes were created separately and uniquely for each species, created to produce a particular species through reproduction and no other. First of all I'm only stating what I understand to be what mutations do. They have mostly a neutral effect, not changing the product of the gene, or they have a deleterious effect causing disease or some other negative thing, or very rarely I gather they may bring about a beneficial change. So it MUST be the case, I don't understand how you can deny it.But the Creator doesn't need mutations to create a genome. He just creates them for the purpose of varying the species they belong to. He makes the functioning alleles for that purpose. Mutations are a product of the Fall, a disease process that interferes with the proper functioning of the genome. Mostly I gather it doesn't do anything particularly harmful but it can. For whatever reason I have the impression that no mutation in a chump gene could ever produce a human trait and I have no idea why. It seems to be something about the genome that ties it to the creature, like it's hardwired to that creature somehow, but I gather that although the ape and the human genomes are very similar even the same sequence of the DNA will always produce a chimp product in the chimp and a human product in the human. That is just a fact is it not? You can't get anything from a chump genome for anything other than a chimp. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but there's no way that can happen.

Only theoretically. In actual fact no mutation in one genome has ever produced a characteristic of another species. If it changes anything it changes it in accordance with the creature to which the genome belongs, it does not produce anything that is not what that genome normally does. Maybe but I wonder. As I said above I have the impression that you never get anything but the characteristics of the species the genome belongs to and nothing else. I'm not sure what sort of genetic engineering might make it possible to get a human from a chimp genome but I have the impression it can't happen because each genome only makes the creature it belongs to. ALways. Theoretically, again, but I've been doubting it as I say above. The genomes of our supposed ape ancestors and human beings are very similar, right, or even between chimp and human? Many of the same genes for the same traits etc. And yet in the chimp you always get a recognizable chimp version of the trait. With the very same DNA sequence that you can find in the human being. Why is that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's not that they can't be (chemically) accounted for, it's that you can't get the one from the other by mutations, you always get something that belongs to the given genome. Isn't that so?Sorry I'm dealing with your post in this piecemeal sort of way, not sure why, but hope I'll eventually do it justice.By the way I don't think I claimed STRUCTURAL difference between chimp and human hands, just recognizable differences, that the genome of each creature will produce only those recognizable characteristics, recognizable chimp hand in chimp, human in human.Also you seem to make much of the idea that a gene produces a variety of traits in different places. As long as it always does this, as long as it is consistent, I'm not sure why it matters. If it always produces eye color AND some other things why can't I just say it's a gene for eye color?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's not that they can't be (chemically) accounted for, it's that you can't get the one from the other by mutations, you always get something that belongs to the given genome. Isn't that so?

---

You’d always get something that belonged to the mutated genome, but that doesn’t exactly help you, does it ?

quote:

---

By the way I don't think I claimed STRUCTURAL difference between chimp and human hands, just recognizable differences, that the genome of each creature will produce only those recognizable characteristics, recognizable chimp hand in chimp, human in human.

---

And this is pointless. We are talking about changes to the genome. Just going back to an unchanged genome all the time evades the issue.We have proof that the genome does change. We know that the differences between chimp and human are compatible with the mechanisms of change. We have other evidence that chimp and human both evolved from a common ancestor (largely on the human side since chimps live in an environment that is very destructive to their remains).You have got a bald declaration that it can’t happen and instead of talking about it you go back to the current genomes every time.We are way ahead of you. Demanding more of us when you can’t even match what we have is less than fair.

Basically, you have that one point right but then completely misunderstand it. And that is what we keep trying to tell creationists (eg, Dredge and candle2) who try to use the false claim that evolution would require a species of one genus to give birth to a species of a different genus (eg, a dog giving birth to kittens or a chimp giving birth to a human or an "ape-man") -- they are also known for their befuddled cry of "But they're STILL MOTHS!!!!!".The genera of Homo and Pan (ie, chimps and bonobos) both derived from the tribe, Hominini. Our genome and chimpanzees' genome and bonobos' genome all come from our common ancestor's genome, a population of Hominini. We are still Hominini, as are chimps and bonobos.Hominini share a common ancestor with gorillas, Homininae, so we are also Homininae, as are chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, and we all share the same ancestral genome. And Homininae's ancestor was Hominidae, so we are also Hominidae and share its genome. And Hominidae's ancestor was Hominoidea (AKA "apes"), so we are also all Hominoidea and share its genome. Skipping a few levels of higher taxa, we also find that we are also Mammalia, so our genome came from that Mammalia genome. Skipping a bit again and we find that we are also Amniota (reproduction through eggs, whether oviparous or viviparous), so our genome came from that Amniota genome. Skipping again and we find that we are also Chordata (vertebrates), so our genome came from that Chordata genome. Basically, we just went through a rendition of Dem Bones and have reached the line, "Now hear the word of the Lord", but you are blind and cannot see and deaf and cannot hear.So then:

• The Chordata genome only produced Chordata, including its Amniota descendants.
• The Amniota genome only produced Amniota, including its Mammalia descendants.
• The Mammalia genome only produced Mammalia, including its Hominoidea descendants.
• The Hominoidea genome only produced Hominoidea, including its Hominidae descendants.
• The Hominidae genome only produced Hominidae, including its Homininae descendants.
• The Homininae genome only produced Homininae, including its Hominini descendants.
• The Hominini genome only produced Hominini, including its Homo and Pan descendants.
• The Homo genome only produced Homo, including its Homo sapiens descendants.

Nested clades, AKA Monophyly. That's how it works.

And Faith and Dredge and Candle2 will always state, unless you show me every step, I dont believe you. Actually even if you gave them every step they would still say godidit.

And why would anyone spend the time and effort to give someone like Faith a more detailed answer when you know she will dismiss it with insults and without reading it. That is what she always does, no matter how complete the information is.

If mutations produced those same differences, wouldn't the result be the same? Deleterious mutations are removed by selection leaving the beneficial and neutral mutations. This must be the case, I don't understand how you can deny it. What's the difference between nature changing a specific base and a creator changing that very same base in the same exact way? Won't the results be the same? That's not a fact. As I have discussed many times now, if you changed the human genome so that it exactly matched the chimp genome then you would have a chimp, not a human.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I assume so. But that's a big "if." For the sake of discussion I'll give you that but there is certainly an enormous number of genetic diseases that didn't get selected against. The Creator doesn't "CHANGE" anything. At the Creation He just made whatever He made, bodies for all the living creatures. He had the "clay" in His hands as it were and He made a human being and He made a chimp and He made a worm and a horse and a butterfly and so on. He made a genome to fit each creature, with the right genes and the right alleles for that creature. Nothing "changes," it's all there from the beginning. Over the generations of variation the genomes change, different alleles get emphasized and deemphasized depending on the changing gene frequencies, but again nothing "changes" in any other sense, such as by mutations, only the shuffling of the created alleles. Mutations are a disease process according to my YEC point of view.The ToE tells you mutations are the source of alleles but not according to YEC, the Creator made whatever was needed by the creature at the very beginning. Mutations are a mistake that may or may not do harm to the existing genome, but they certainly are not the source of functioning alleles. Sometimes you make an "if" statement about mutations making this or that and I have to say "yes" because of the way you've stated it, but to my mind mutations cannot do anything you think they do, that's just a statement of faith in a way, because the ToE needs them to do what you think they do. In actual fact I think they contribute nothing at all useful to the genome. Yes, if you change the entire genome as you say, to exactly match the chimp genome, but I'm talking about the present circumstances in which the existing genome will always without exception produce the creature it belongs to and can't produce even a fingernail as it were of any other species. This despite the fact of many similarities between the genomes. There has to be an overall governing genetic something or other that makes even the same or very similar sequences build a chimp versus a human. HOX genes?The mutations or changes that would be required to get a human being from an ape are impossible. Within the genome variations occur naturally from generation to generation because alleles have been designed to produce them as a result of sexual recombination, which is what we mean by "microevolution." But mutations that would actually change an ape into a human would have to change the genome itself, there is no pathway built into the genome for that so it's going to have to be a matter of trial and error and that level of change would have to take an enormous amount of time and meanwhile the errors would have to proliferate and many bizarre "transitionals" have to occur. The ToE imagines something much smoother and effective that simply cannot happen. 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.

Casting pearls before swine is rarely a total waste of effort, especially when done in a public forum. Even though the swine does not benefit, spectators can benefit and often will.Besides, it annoys the pig.

But that is not really what I'm saying. My point is that the genome can only make the creature it belongs to, so THEREFORE to get something entirely different which the ToE says is possible, at least over millions of years, the genome itself has to change and that is a completely different ballpark than the ordinary variations that go on within a given genome. Those ordinary variations are what we mean by microevolution and they occur in each generation simply through the shuffling of the alleles within the genome. They can make some dramatic variations for sure but it's all within the built in genetic stuff of the genome.For something entirely different to occur you need a change that is NOT built into the genome but is a change TO the genome and since mutations simply change what the genome already does you need mutations that do a lot more than that. This is what I keep asking for you to demonstrate. I'm sure you can't because it is impossible but at least I should be making you think about how it IS impossible. Outside the genome, I figure you could only get changes through trial and error, that is, changes that are entirely different from anything the genome itself produces; while within the genome mutations follow the given pathways of the genome itself.Trial and error HAS to produce weird anomalies because there is no pathway for them. Trial and error is going to produce huge numbers of errors before it ever got around to even a single change that could lead to a viable new species. If you understand this at all, please try to answer it instead of calling me names.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But that is not really what I'm saying. My point is that the genome can only make the creature it belongs to, so THEREFORE to get something entirely different which the ToE says is possible, at least over millions of years, the genome itself has to change and that is a completely different ballpark than the ordinary variations that go on within a given genome.

---

Aside from the fact that mutations are pretty ordinary that is basically what we’ve been saying.

quote:

---

Those ordinary variations are what we mean by microevolution and they occur in each generation simply through the shuffling of the alleles within the genome.

---

That may be what you mean by microevolution but scientists - and I expect most creationists count mutations as microevolution too. You probably should, too because you don’t want to define them as macroevolution - which would be the only reasonable alternative.

quote:

---

or something entirely different to occur you need a change that is NOT built into the genome but is a change TO the genome and since mutations simply change what the genome already does you need mutations that do a lot more than that.

---

Now you are not making sense. Mutations are changes to the genome. They include disabling and deleting genes, and even the formation of duplicate genes - or more rarely the creation of new genes.

quote:

---

Trial and error HAS to produce weird anomalies because there is no pathway for them.

---

Not really. Most weird anomalies are developmental problems which aren’t even caused by mutations.Many mutations have relatively little effect - as you would expect for small chemical variations in proteins. To understand more you would need to know more about developmental biology than you do.

quote:

---

Trial and error is going to produce huge numbers of errors before it ever got around to even a single change that could lead to a viable new species.

---

But this comes down to what should be considered an error. If we ignore all mutations without phenotypic effect - and there are huge numbers of those - any beneficial or neutral mutation should be considered a success, not an error.Your point is just an uninformed guess.

Mutations occur within the genome and are part of microevolution IF they are viable at all. What you need is mutations that change the genome itself to produce something ENTIRELY new, ENTIRELY NOT within what the genome does. That doesn't happen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Mutations occur within the genome and are part of microevolution IF they are viable at all.

---

Well obviously changes to the genome are in the genome. Where else would they be ?

quote:

---

What you need is mutations that change the genome itself to produce something ENTIRELY new, ENTIRELY NOT within what the genome does.

---

You are going to have to explain that because it is very unclear what it includes or excludes. Changes to the genome can obviously change what it does. We’ve seen examples. But any such changes are necessarily within the new genome and ARE what it does.So how different does the new genome have to be from the old genome to qualify ? Do very small changes count ? If they don’t what happens when a number of small changes add up to a larger change ? Does that count ?