Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

We know there is no known fossil evidence for evolution from E to C. Your evolution model relies on evidence that doesn't exist. The huge jump from E to C is what the scientific mind would expect if aliens performed feats of genetic engineering. For once, you got something right. It's a great idea that sprung from the mind of a brilliant thinker and self-taught and self-declared scientist - namely, me. I haven't tested it - to test is to confirm - I can't test/confirm my most excellent theory. The fossil record is my primary evidence for the aliens - the best scientific explanation for the history of life as revealed in the rocks is genetic engineering performed by aliens. Furthermore, science cannot rule out the existence of intelligent life from another planet.And let's not forget the secondary forms of evidence that supports the existence of aliens - crop circles, abductions, UFO sightings, etc. Too easy - the mechanism is genetic engineering. The lack of evidence of evolutionary ancestors of animals. 1. One lucky find is not statistically significant.
2. That lucky find can also be explained by my "aliens did it" theory. Big words frighten me.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

You keep thinking in terms of mutations making the difference between chimps and humans but that makes no sense at all to a YEC. Mutations occur in both genomes completely independently. The Creator doesn't "change" anything. He made the creature and all its DNA perfectly designed to reproduce it. Mutations are a disease process that disrupts the perfect created DNA. Yes, in each genome, in any given genome. This makes not one iota of sense to me. Nothing you are saying makes any sense to me whatever. You must be thinking in irrelevant evo terms here but I can't sort it out. NOTHING happens "between the species" in the YEC scenario. They are completely independent of one another. NO idea how you arrive at this.

If Homo habilis was a human being then it had 100% If it was an ape I have no idea.

You think we don't know or agree with that?We do. Nobody has claimed any coordination or denied the independence of mutations in the two genomes. The possibility would never occur to someone who understands basic genetics.It's hard to tell where your misunderstandings lie. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I'm sure I don't get what Taq is trying to say, none of it makes any sense. What is the point of the differences between the genomes at all?

Call it whatever you like. The main point is that the human and chimp genomes differ by 40 million differences with the rest being the same. If being different causes diseases, as you claim, then God couldn't create species with these differences because they would die from disease.Therefore, you have to be wrong about differences only causing disease. That's your cognitive dissonance getting in the way.

Well we know he was an ape because we are too, but we also know that unlike, say, a chimp, he was also Homo. So he was human, though not of the same species as us. My guess is that his DNA is going to be pretty close but not exact. Because obviously if it was exact, he'd be H. sapiens, not H. habilis.So god made lots of prototypes, then killed them off? Any idea why? I don't recollect anything in the bible about these other human species. Or in any other texts at all anywhere or anywhen. How come?

The best scientific explanation for the appearance of a new genus is genetic engineering performed by aliens. On the contrary, the fossil record shows abundant evidence of "outside tampering". Certainly,, common ancestry is observed, but the evolution of a new genus has never been observed - even thousands of years of intensive artificial selection by humans - using every trick in the book - has failed to produce anything even close to a new genus. In other words, the evidence suggests the genus barrier cannot be crossed by natural means. 1. The fossil record cannot be explained by any observed process.
2. The existence of aliens may be "invisible" but it is not "undetectable" - the fossil record is powerful scientific evidence of genetic engineering - and the only scientific explanation for that engineering is aliens.The Darwinian "explanation" is lame, outdated and little more than rehashed spontaneous generation - a nineteenth-century superstition.

I prefer my lamingtons plainEdited by Dredge, : No reason given.

It's not that hard to figure out.Let's start with creation and a very simple model. God creates humans and chimps separately, and the genetic differences are responsible for their physical differences. We find the genetic difference responsible for our larger brains, and the corresponding area in the chimp genome. The sequences look like this:

*
human  AACGAGGGATGAGGT
chimp  AACGAGGGTTGAGGT

I put a little asterisk above the difference. This is the difference responsible for our bigger brains.Now, if that same difference was caused by a mutation, would that be a beneficial mutation? Can you come up with any reason why that mutation could not occur?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Null and void. A scientific theory doesn't need a practical application to be accepted as valid.

And aluminum foil.

What you have for the reptile jaw-mammalian inner-ear is a rehashed version of the nineteenth-century superstition of spontaneous generation - Darwinian evolution. The best scientific explanation for reptile-mammal "evolution" is genetic engineering performed by aliens. Wake up and grow up - modern science is calling you out of the darkness.

Do I still think it's possible? No, not at all - not by an natural means , at least. The Darwinian explanation for the supposed reptile jaw-mammalian inner-ear "evolution" is as weak as water. The best SCIENTIFIC explanation for such an "evolution" - if that is indeed what happened - is genetic engineering performed by aliens.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Three points, two of which you've accepted

• A chimp genome produces chimps.
• A human genome produces humans.
• Since the two genomes are comprised of the same four bases, and how a genome came to be is irrelevant to what it does, we could change the bases in the human genome to be that of a chimp. It would produce chimps.

Denying that third point is exactly like saying you can't change the word "cat" to the word "bat" by changing the "c" to a "b".