Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Well of course you don’t turn chimp anything into human anything. Both humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.That’s very basic stuff Faith. But I do have some sympathy for your disbelief, it’s quite hard to accept as it’s outside of common, everyday experience. That’s why it took a long time to be accepted by science.

The problem Faith, is that you continue to make these mistakes which show that you don't yet understand what you're talking about.Humans did not evolve from chimps so asking how hands can change from one to the other is a category error. You have to start from a single ancestor from which small changes over time led eventually to the differences we see today. The answer is by mutation.I sympathise also with your inability to type words like 'like'. It's a cruel and unusual punishment. But quite funny.

This is the sort of stuff you could look for yourself, but we all know you actually don't want to know, you just want to dispute stuff that you're not capable of understanding.The chimp genome was only sequenced a short time ago, so it's asking rather a lot but the information is there if you really want it. Here's a starter from Nature. I wish you luck.

quote:

---

Abstract

​

Human-chimpanzee comparative genome research is essential for narrowing down genetic changes involved in the acquisition of unique human features, such as highly developed cognitive functions, bipedalism or the use of complex language. Here, we report the high-quality DNA sequence of 33.3 megabases of chimpanzee chromosome 22. By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. Furthermore, we demonstrate different expansion of particular subfamilies of retrotransposons between the lineages, suggesting different impacts of retrotranspositions on human and chimpanzee evolution. The genomic changes after speciation and their biological consequences seem more complex than originally hypothesized.

---

DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22 | NatureOh, and by the way, it's another practical use of the concept of the UCA.

Right, you think we can look back five or six million years and show you each genetic change that occurred? Do you think that a reasonable request? Would you accept it even if it was possible? (Rhetorical, we already know that you can't.) Well it was there in the abstract...

quote:

---

we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions.

---

Are you hoping that someone is going to take you through each of them?As another little btw, before the genomes were sequenced the ToE allowed us to predict that the genome of Pan troglodytes would be very, very similar to Human sapiens. And it was. It didn't have to be that way, had a creator been involved it could easily have turned out to be made of entirely different base pairs - or liquorice and chocolate. Funny how the evidence mounts up isn't it?

Correct. It's impossible because we don't have the genomes of 5 million year old human/chimp ancestors and never will. What we have are the fossils plus the modern day genomes showing the differences. I think it's impossible - see above You've been shown that. You just deny it. Yes, the order is the nested hierarchy depicted in both modern organisms and the fossil record. It all looks exactly like it would had stuff evolved and exactly like it shouldn't if it had been created. Nope, we predicted the genetic closeness of Pan to Homo. Something your 'orthodoxy' would have denied under pain of death a few hundred years ago. We are all apes.

Forgive me, I've forgotten how you rationalise all the other human species. Same genera. Was god just practicing?Homo - close relatives of modern humans
Homo gautengensis”
Homo rudolfensis”
Homo naledi”
Homo habilis”
Homo georgicus” (thought by some to be an early subspecies of Homo erectus)
Homo floresiensis”
Homo erectus”
Homo ergaster” (considered by some to be an early subspecies of Homo erectus)
Homo antecessor”
Homo heidelbergensis” (sometimes called Archaic Homo sapiens)
Homo cepranensis”
Homo helmei”
Homo palaeojavanicus”
Homo tsaichangensis”
Denisovans (scientific name not yet assigned)”
Homo neanderthalensis” (sometimes called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)
Homo rhodesiensis”
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens idaltu”
Archaic Homo sapiens”
Red Deer Cave people ” (scientific name has not yet been assigned; perhaps a race of modern humans or a hybrid[27] of modern humans and Denisovans.

Important to make your mind up I think. Seems a bit of a waste to me. But not much time to have the lot of them all running around together. Only one made it to the ark too.

Not that you're making this up as you go along...If chimps have somewhere around 95-98% human DNA, how much do you think, say, Homo habilis had?

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?

Just to clarify a few things that you believe.The earth is very old - let's say 3.4bn years?
Your Christian god created it?
Your Christian god created simple life forms which then evolved through natural processes into more complex lifeforms?
Until they got to the Cambrian, then aliens got to work with their genetic engineering?
Then normal evolution occurs again for the next 600million years or so?
(Do the aliens return after the various mass extinction events- maybe after dinosaurs go extinct for instance?)
Then we get to our ape descendants where your Christian god comes back and create Homo sapiens?Is that about it?Did you Christian god make the aliens?Do you worship the aliens?

I agree, it helps identify the degree of crazy. True YEC is up there with the flat earthers. On the scale of moronic, YEC is the full 10.This guy is also a 10, though for different reasons.

Well you could ask him to answer this - it's what I've attempted to pull out of his muddle; so far he doesn't seem to want to.

quote:

---

Just to clarify a few things that you believe.

​

The earth is very old - let's say 3.4bn years?
Your Christian god created it?
Your Christian god created simple life forms which then evolved through natural processes into more complex lifeforms?
Until they got to the Cambrian, then aliens got to work with their genetic engineering?
Then normal evolution occurs again for the next 600million years or so?
(Do the aliens return after the various mass extinction events- maybe after dinosaurs go extinct for instance?)
Then we get to our ape descendants where your Christian god comes back and create Homo sapiens?

​

Is that about it?

​

Did you Christian god make the aliens?

​

Do you worship the aliens?

---

Obviously he doesn't actually believe the alien stuff, he just thinks he's being clever substituting his god for aliens. Not understanding, of course, that he's introduced two unidentified and unidentifiable agents which makes whatever argument he thought he had doubly fatuous.

AIDS vaccine development using monkeys - our closest genetic relative.Now what?

Well, that's just more denial, twisting and wriggling, but I was answering the question you asked which was And the answer was inoculation testing using monkeys which is possible because we share a close common ancestor. No. But without the knowledge we have of common descent he'd have to try every living organism to find something that worked.