Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

It took nearly 40 years for scientists to wake up to it? How embarrassement! The Piltdown farce demonstrates how credulous and tendencious the scientific community is when it comes to evolution. The scientists who expressed early doubts were probably the creationists. Okay, let's consider this one: "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.I think what you mean is, "God did it" is not a scientific argument - which doesn't mean it it not a reasonable argument. I wholeheartedly support the "God of the gaps" approach.Saying ""God did it" is not an argument" is an excuse for intellectual arrogance and bigotry ... and atheism.

I'm going to pretend that you have a genuine confusion. All life on earth *is* related to each other.We have never found an organism that isn't made by the sugar molecules - DNA and RNA. We can see by examining the genes that these molecules build how closely related any organism is to another. We can do this with any living organism. So we can directly observe the relatedness of all living organisms.The ToE was developed 100 years before the discovery of DNA, yet it predicted that life shared common ancestry. Had we found that some organisms did not contain the same molecules to build genes the ToE would have needed to be modified to take this into account. If it couldn't it would have had to be scrapped altogether. The ToE does *not* say this. If it had said that you would have quoted it instead of inferring it yourself. It *does* say that life has common ancestry. It *may* also mean that there was a single, original, UCA but it is equally likely that there was not.It is also certain - in my mind anyway - that we will never know. This is because it happened more than 3bn years ago and involved nothing more than free-floating chemicals. I've shown you the models of how at microbe level things get very messy with the transfer of genes laterally between species. And at this level of life the definition of species is blurred and there are arguments about what 'life' itself means. Biology is messy, it does not conform to your need for bumper sticker definitions. And this is a reasonable statement. All life on earth is related. We can demonstrate it. What's more, because life shares common ancestry we can look back in time and see how it evolved. This implies a UCA. But a UCA is not a necessary part of the theory, nor is it a likely one. This is why science talks mostly of LUCA not UCA.

I don't recall claiming that Tanypteryx or any other scientist is not using evolutionary science to understand how life on our planet is reacting to changing climate.Btw, simply "understanding" something doesn't up to a practical scientific use of knowledge. How very dare you!! ... which I don't. Really? Why? I'm quite happy with the principles of evolution developed by science.Incidentally, there are different definitions of ToE - what's yours?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

It's more than time to tell us what *you* actually believe so that we can better understand your problem with the ToE.

As a layman with a fragile, eggshell mind, I can learn a great deal from the highly intelligent and very learned evolutionists on this forum. I appreciate your efforts in that regard.Btw, I'm not trying to refute evolution - there exist many practical uses for the principles of evolution.

If you were a highschool biology teacher and a student asked you for a definition of "the theory of evolution", how would you reply? I'd like to know because there are different versions of ToE.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

1. My conviction that there is a Creator has nothing to do with magic - it is a reasonable and logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.2. I believe creation explains a great deal. Science is actually very limited when it comes to the big picture. 1. All the evidence points to evolution? Oh yeah ... except for the gaps, missing links and the sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms!
Oh, and let's not forget all those major morphological changes that cannot be explained by evolution without producing fits of laughter (for example, how a double-circulation heart evolved from a single-circulation heart and how whales evolved from a rodent).2. How does evidence of evolution make God a "pathological liar"?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

That's very useful information ... it's right up there with, the Tooth Fairy and Leprechauns share a common ancector.

Fair enough. How about a short definition of "the theory of evolution"? I should think not - belief in the supernatural is not science.

As Tangle has pointed out, your game is to try to reduce the complexities of the ToE to sound bites and bumper stickers, so that you can try to mess around with the linguistic limitations of those bumper stickers in an effort to discredit the detailed theory.The ToE is a very large and complex field - my mother spent years on her doctorate, just examining certain aspects of it. The only chance anyone has of properly understanding it is to spend a long time, with a good brain, studying it.Scientists are pretty helpful and decent people on the whole, and like to help non-scientists by trying to encapsulate the science in short and easy to follow generalisations - or sound bites and bumper stickers, if you prefer. And it's great they do, because it can lead to a more rounded, better informed population. Wikipedia is good for soundbites like that.But the recipients of those soundbites don't get to have a seat at the table when it comes to attempting to discredit the science, based simply on the soundbites. People only get to do that when they've fully studied the science and understood it. That would be like discussing and critiquing a novel, having just been told the chapter headings.If you want credibility, study the science first - if you don't, you'll only ever be a complete and utter muppet on the subject.

It's difficult discussing evolution with people who have never studied it and have religious reasons for dismissing it out of hand. They have 'learned' things about the theory that are either partial or flat out wrong and can't seem to 'unlearn' them.The existence of gaps in the fossil record is not a reason to dismiss the ToE. There are sufficient fossils to validate it and have been for over a hundred years. Gaps are being filled as more fossils are found but the record will never be complete. (And even if it was complete - impossible - those with religious convictions would find reason to object anyway.)Nothing appeared suddenly fully formed. The Cambrian lasted 25m years.Whales did not evolve from rats - both are modern species.And so on.I can't see how we can make progress if you cling to these lies and lack of understanding of what the science actually tells us.
You might at least ponder why science would say the things you wrongly say they say, yet still claim the validity of the theory?Everything you've talked about and misconstrued has been the discovery of science. Your team has added nothing at all to the conversation. Why do you think misquoting and misunderstanding real scientists that have developed the ToE is going to get you anywhere at all except more confused?

It's more linked in the other direction:If anyone could show there is no such thing as evolving from a common ancestor... all our ideas on how to apply biology would be turned on it's head.But I get the feeling that you live in a constant state of "getting things wrong."
So you do you, buddy. Keep on chugging. I'm rooting for you!

Ned made the same point as I did. You brought up the actions of antibiotics to avoid the point.The actions of antibiotics have nothing to do with the discussion. How bacteria evolve in the presence of antibiotics is relevant. Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong. Want to try again, or take a free copy of the home game and go away? You keep insisting that LUCA is a critical foundation of the ToE. If so, a practical application of the concept LUCA is supporting the ToE which has practical applicadEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yes.

Or perhaps he was proposing an explanation for the known fossil record at the time. I'm not sure why he would be 'hoping' for anything.Perhaps you are projecting your own predilection for an agenda on other people. I've noticed that you often do that. That's what I said... Or it could be that the transition was not 'sudden' in the kind of terms that you think.As an average, anti-science fanatic, of course. That wasn't my question. Sure, when they say that jaguars are mammals, I agree. Then why do you take 'evolutionist' comments out of context in order to support your agenda? First of all, let me congratulate you on being such an expert on the rate of evolution over the last 4 billion years. But who says that PE is going to produce 'huge jumps' in morphology? What is a 'huge jump'? Once again, you ascribe motivations to me just as you did to Darwin above.Okay, first of all what is this about 'innumerable' transitional fossils? Does that compare to the huge amount of data you have to support your explanation of the fossil record?Oh ... wait! You don't have an explanation, do you? That's convenient for you. You can just sit there and complain about the generations of actual researchers who went out in the field and actually worked on the subject. That makes sense to me!And be honest now. You will never be satisfied no matter how many transitional fossils we would present, including an 'innumerable' number. Well, there you have it. Gould mentions a 'geological moment'. What do you think that means?He also talks about 'gradualism' against which he was arguing for the validity of his PE theory. However, even if gradualism were dead (which Gould did not believe), PE is still evolution. Okay. First of all what do you think Gould meant by 'so-called'?Could it be that he thought it was not really an explosion?And so what about the origin of all major Phyla? Where are all of the Classes and Orders? Where are the mammals for instance? Some of us have asked you this before. Are you incapable of answering? Indeed, but so what? First of all we know that he didn't think it was an instantaneous event. Second, Gould had accepted a number of evolutionary theories explaining the 'explosion'. And? Did you read on to see if there were any explanations for this? In particular, did you read about all of the life forms that did exist before the Cambrian?These are rhetorical questions, of course. I doubt that you have read beyond the extracted statement in the YEC quote-mine collection.