Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

I didn't know ToE included "a God of the gaps". More or less. 1. I reject human evolution on religious and scientific grounds. But I have no religious objection to the evolution of non-human creatures - however, I reject such evolution for scientific reasons.2. I've always said evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life. However, I think it's a rather poor explanation, whereas creation is an excellent explanation. All I'm doing is following the evidence, wherever it leads.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Why don't you just admit you goofed up and painted yourself into corner?

1. If everyone believed that, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to applied science ... which just goes to show how irrelevant interpretations of ancient history (including Darwinism) are to real-world science.2. You might be surprised how many religionists today accept the scientific concensus that says the history of life on earth began billons of years old - science which has nothing to do with Darwin. 1. PE is a far-fetched, band-aid measure that attempts to cover up all those "embarrassing" (Gould) gaps in the fossil record.2. The untestable theory of PE is a "discovery"? Hilarious! PE is an untestable theory within an untestable theory - and this is science? ... which is why I describe the history of life as PROGRESSIVE creation. Please be advised that the first human beings didn't evolve but were created from inanimate matter 6000-10000 years ago. An atheist with preconceptions about how and why God went about creating life on earth ... that adds up to a fascinating melange of thoughts.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

So what? I've actually covered this before: I believe "God's finger" in evident every time a species from one genus appears to "evolve" into a species of a different genus (something that has never been observed, despite thousands of years of selective breeding by human beings, using every technique under the sun, trying to change the morphology of various animals and plants). You expect a religous (non-scientific) theory to have a practical, scientific application?

A progressive creation model easily accounts for the Cambrian explosion, the never-ending missing-links in the fossil record and the sudden appearances of fully-formed creatures with no evolutionary history. The theory of evolution has to explain these problems away with yet more theory - punctuated equilibrium, for example. You haven't thought this through, have you? Expecting a practical application for a religious belief is illogical.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Sorry, but it's not "exactly what the OP says". The OP specifically asks for PRACTICAL uses for UCA. The concept of UCA is not "useless", because it's useful in evolutionary theory - however it is useless in any practical sense.

The name of this site is "Evolution verses Creation". Are you trying to tell me the "Creation" part is strictly scientiific? As an atheist you must delude yourself that there is a scientific explanation for "problematic" evidence - the Cambrian explosion, for example. You began your message by complaining that this site is for science only and three sentences later you want to talk about God - make up your mind!

I don't recall denying that. Please point out where I did.

It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

Wrong. ToE can simply refer to the mechanisms of empiricial evolution, so there are practical uses for this information. A scientific theory can be "true or not"? I didn't know that. 1. If you see a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus, that is a supernatural event.
2. I can't show you "how it's done" - I have no idea how miracles happen.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The Cambrian explosion is unique. You know that. If I were an atheist, I would also do everything in my power to deny the Cambrian explosion or delude myself into thinking it is a "regrettable misconception", as it powerfully contradicts the theory of biologicial evolution and powerfully supports creation. If I were an atheist, I would be afraid of the implications of the Cambrian explosion. No. Empirical evolution has many applications in applied science. Your evolutionary theory relies on a process that cannot be proven to exist. How do you prove that the inner-ear of a mammals evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile? How do you prove that a double-circulation heart can evolve from a single-circulation heart? How do you prove that such evolutions are even possible? You can't - all you've got is your atheist faith in biological evolution. Please be advised that faith is not science an that your pseudo-science doesn't impress me. The fact you must deny is that all the novel organisms that appeared in the Cambrian explosion have no evolutionary history. In the Ediacaran, marine worms, jelly-fish and spongs existed and then, oh dear ... fish and trilobites and insects (for example) appear out of nowhere. Goodbye ToE.What is the evolutionary link between a fish and the worms, jelly-fish and sponges of the pre-Cambrian?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

My quote came from,
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, p.15 (Evolution is a Fact and a Theory) I accept that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth ... but what a pity it's not a very good explanation. This comes as no surprise - what chance does puny science have of explaining the miracle of creation? What is the difference between inherited traits and derived traits? As a biologist you don't need to think of common ancestors of genera. You don't need to "root the tree" beyond the genus you're studying. It's a waste of time because it's useless information. What is this - an appeal to authority? But I'll play along - No, I don't work in the biological sciences ... but my brother's best mate has a cousin who worked on a potato farm for a week. ... except thousands of years of animal and plant breeding by humans - no one has managed to produce a organism that has crossed the genus boundary.
Oh, and let's forget the fossil record, with all those problematic gaps and sudden appearances. I have no need to ask such questions (other than ones relating to common ancestry within a genus, which might prove useful).
I don't need to know how or when God created organisms or invent some "tree of life" that connects all life-forms ... and neither does a biologist. I don't believe you ... and no one needs to explain the diversity of life on earth - certainly, no biologist needs such an explanation in order to be competent and productive. There is no one "tree of life" - it's a atheist myth. The Cambrian explosion reveals many "trees of life" that began with no evolutionary history.

Nonsense. More nonsense. Your logic fails - it's not necessary to accept that "all life is connected" in order to accept that "life evolves from previous life". For example, one can breed a sheep dog from a wolf without accepting that all life shares a common ancestor (or even being aware of such a concept).I suspect you are mindlessly parroting a myth that you've been brainwashed with, and are not actually thinking about what you're saying. You've been conned. "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School (Boston Globe, 23 Oct, 2005).

They will make an exception for me - because I am exceptional. You are not exceptional - compared to me, you are a mediocrity. Try telling that to Douglas Futuyma, who says "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution.You evolutionists can't even agree on what a "theory" is!

Depends on what you mean by "the theory of evolution".