Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

And there we have it, the only reason for your pathetic attempt here is because you clearly believe it really does rule out the existence of your god.Your insecurity is showing.I think I'm done. Your redundancy is pointless.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

This post of yours completely destroys any credibility you may have had. Good grief. What gaps are you talking about? Be specific.So, you are criticizing the Theory of Evolution because it doesn't explain everything? Really? There is no "distinct lack of transitionals." Museums are packed with transitional fossils hundreds and hundreds of them. Thousands of papers and books are written describing new ones every year.That you would say this shows you have a distinct lack of knowledge on this subject. Do you even think about what you write?In what reality would you expect partly formed organisms to be running around? Are you daft? Right there you demonstrate that you don't know jack shit about any science.There are several different, unrelated ways that "theory" is used today.1. A theory is a wild-assed guess, used by uninformed people like you, who don't know anything about science.2. In science, a theory includes all the evidence, all the observations, all the facts about that field of science. As new things about that subject are learned they are added to the theory. If evidence is discovered that contradicts the theory or part of it, then the theory must be abandoned or corrected. Scientific theories can be used to make predictions.3. In physics, hypotheses are often called theories even though they have not been experimentally confirmed.People who have studied science and understand how it works should know about these different usages of the word theory.The Theory of Evolution has stood for 150 years. There have been numerous modifications and corrections, but anyone who refers to it as a mere theory has no chance of refuting it. No, the fossil record is evidence that life has evolved over the course of history on this planet. This is true. That is why science relies on evidence rather than strongly held beliefs. You have been repeatedly told that no one is convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, because there is not enough evidence to make that conclusion.Why do you keep claiming that's what we think, even after we repeatedly say we don't?I know this is your favorite delusion, but to keep repeating it is just plain stupid.You have no credibility.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Thanks for your opinion.I was pointing out some of the ways we used evolution in our entomology work and that you are mistaken. You seem quite deluded and ignorant about science, and biology, and evolution. Those two statements do not disagree and I have not changed my position. UCA is NOT the Theory of Evolution. No I did not imply anything about a "mere collection of facts." I stated that a scientific theory contains all the facts we know about the subject and it never contains speculations, wishes, or beliefs, so there is nothing "mere" about it.You have implied several times that there is "more" to the Theory of Evolution, but I don't think you said what the "more" is.You seem to be confused that there are multiple definitions of the Theory of Evolution, but that is what happens when someone tries to distill a subject as complex as biological evolution down to a sentence or two. The definition is a brief description of the theory. The theory is all the facts, all the evidence, everything we know on the subject and no speculations, wishes, or beliefs. Well done, you found a bunch.What's your point? Are you saying they didn't teach their students about the Theory of Evolution in their biology classes? Are you saying they taught young earth creationism in their biology classes. Is this supposed to convince me of something?I think my original statement stands, "there is a distinct shortage of YEC biologists." No it doesn't. It is not evidence of any such thing. You are clutching at straws. The goal is teaching them about all the evidence of the subject, in this case, how biology works, which is the Theory of Evolution. If their professors do not strive to do that then they are failing their students. If their professors teach creationist nonsense in biology classes they are betraying science and their students.A scientific theory is not a wild-assed guess, or wishes, or beliefs, or speculations. Using "theory" in this way is leading to your confusion.A scientific theory is supported by all the evidence, all the facts. The Theory of Evolution is everything about how biology works. In order to refute this theory you have to present something that describes the evidence more accurately. So far, you have presented nothing that accomplishes that.In physics, there are scientific theories that explain how the Universe works, and there are also hypotheses that have not been experimentally confirmed that are also called theories. This sometimes confuses people who don't know much about science.Your continued mistaken use the incorrect meaning of "scientific theory" destroys your credibility.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

O good grief, I was talking about the people (I even said "we") involved in this discussion, but beliefs have nothing to do with evidence, no matter how many hold those beliefs.Science is about evidence, not beliefs.Here is what I actually said in Message 217: Proving my point, beliefs are not evidence. You are quite a bullshitter though.I guess you didn't know that honorary doctorates are not awarded for knowledge or accomplishments in a field. You still have no credibility.

This demonstrates your ignorance of anything related to evolution. There is no such thing as genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.Biological evolution is a result of individual members of a species mating and reproducing. Genera do not mate so they cannot evolve.

And yet scientists around the world are still using it. Your credibility is kaput.

So is bullshit. I thought you left.

Dredge's mind keeps exploding because we all are giving different definitions of the ToE. A lot of them are saying pretty much the same thing, but even when they are not, they are still are ALL CORRECT. I think I have given 2 or maybe 3 in this thread and none of them are contradictory. Biology is a huge subject and the theory also includes data from paleotology, bio-geography, geology and more.Dredge seems to think that a definition of one or two sentences should include everything. He also mistakenly thinks the definition of the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution. Maybe just a bit... Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Are you saying YEC scientists used YEC beliefs to create drugs and vaccines?

Are you saying YEC scientists used YEC beliefs to create drugs and vaccines?

I didn't say anything about macroevolution. Your delusions are showing. Says the person who uses a fictional book as guide to life.

So, what is your definition of your theory of "Progressive Creation?"Is there a formal theory that is published somewhere or are you just making it up as you go along?Is there a scientific publication that lays out all the particulars of the "theory" or are you the only adherent?How does PC determine that any gaps in the fossil record are inexplicable by science? What specific evidence confirms that any gaps in the fossil record are scientifically inexplicable?Is your prediction that gaps in the fossil record can never be scientifically explained? If so, how specifically could you confirm that prediction?Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

So all you have is bullshit and a weird sense of humor.The BULLSHIT QUEEN, now that's funny.

Yeah, I was hoping you would be impressed.You are peddling the same bullshit you have always peddled, so no answer necessary.

And we have shot it down every time.