Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Except that it isn't ...But the modern theory of evolution predicts that there will be explainable gaps in the fossil record.

So was the Permian extinction event. So was the K-Pg extinction event. So was the break-up of Pangea and the formation of the Moon.How does a 'unique' event disprove the theory of evolution? Mere assertions. How does the Cambrian explosion contradict the theory of evolution? So far, all we have is assertions. And the theory of evolution has myriad applications in science.So there ... To which process do you refer? (Sigh...) Once again, the YEC community has to be schooled on the difference between evidence and proof. No on is trying to 'prove' that something happened. In this case, we simply know that it happened. The theory of evolution explains that transition. No one is trying t 'prove' any such thing. The theory of evolution explains the transition. Since they happened, the must be possible.You are not getting this. The problem is that we know changes have occurred. We also know that some processes for change actually exist. And we know that there is no evidence for supernatural intervention. We can only 'prove' with the weight of evidence, to a reasonable person. So, I agree that we cannot 'prove' anything to some people who are unwilling to learn. And so .... what have you got beside faith? Not really. The main difference between Ediacaran fossils and Cambrian fossils (not speaking as a biologist) is the development of hard body parts that could be preserved more readily. Hence, the "explosion".By the way, what insects do you find in the Cambrian?And how do primitive jawless of the Cambrian fish compare to a modern lake trout? How many 'explosions' do you need to get from one to the other? Search me, what do you think? There are plenty of transitional fossils in other instances.The point is that there are more 'primitive' forms in the Precambrian that were beginning to develop some of the characteristics of Cambrian life.

Most of us here have a pretty good idea of the topic of the forum. If you are confused, we can discuss your problem.

So biostratigraphy is wrong because Faith things that it is funny.Now I understand. Hilarious! Ignorance and denial win again! I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

I'm mot the least bit concerned. First, I seriously doubt that will happen; and second, my my mind doesn't shatter with the the introduction of new information.

Well, that's false expectation.I do not have any problem with hare-brained, unsupported ideas that contradict my own. They are feeble and will die a natural death.On the other hand, I do not have a problem with valid ideas that contradict mine either. I can accept progress and do not live in a permanent intellectual box defined by religious myth. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Nonsense. If there were a better explanation of all the evidence I would have no problem accepting a contradictory idea.Your telling me that something is better does not meet that requirement.

Fine, common descent is not useful to you, nor in the area of your choosing. Other people find it useful in their areas of interest.Thank you for your opinion. What is going to be your next revelation?

Except that even Darwin had an explanation a century and a half ago. That basic explanation still stands. Another argument by assertion. Your opinion is noted.

Now there's a cogent argument!I'm sure that everyone here is now convinced. Why have you held back such profound reasoning till now?

So, does this mean that you accept the existence of practical uses for the theory of evolution, just not for common ancestry?Actually, in this thread there has been a lot of mixing of the two concepts, even by yourself IIRC. Are you also aware the 'proof' is not a criterion for a theory? Are you also aware that , as scientists, we consider 'scientific proof' to be the weight of the evidence for a theory? A common mistake among YECs. Actually, I say that it is the best explanation for the evidence. I do not "know" (your sense of the word) nor do I "prove" anything. See above. It would seem that "proof" applies to YEC and alcohol, which may not be a coincidence. See above. Once again, I do not attempt to "prove" anything, at least not in the sense of absolute proof (200, I would guess) that you require.As for your comment about the Pope and aliens, I would like to see your evidence before I consider "knowing" anything about the subject. I believe that it is the best explanation of the data.You really have no idea what scientists think or believe or do; and yet you cant sit at your keyboard and attribute all kinds of nonsense, innuendo and outright falsehoods about them. Once again, I do not "know" anything in your sense of the word, but AFAIK, you have provided no evidence for any other possible explanation. If I were a YEC, I don't think I'd delve into the realm of logical fallacies for supporting argument. The problem you have is that this evolutionary event is supported by evidence. All we have is the data and some known mechanisms. Unlike anti-evolutionists, we do not claim to "know" everything and there are disagreements as we learn more about evolution.I'm not sure how someone who is a proponent of the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" can be considered as a source to support your anti-evolution arguments.

You should have stopped there ... Oh, now that's just wonderful. You 'dredge' up three quoted from edited, anti-evolution sources.How convincing!Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Some how it doesn't seem odd at all to me anymore that someone who complains about being labeled a YEC has no problems reading all kinds of fallacious and nefarious motives into what scientists do and think. It's all very trollish if you ask me.

"Oh dear" is right. We find more an more fossil data supporting evolution all the time. As I said, Darwin had an explanation from the beginning. Who says that the fossil record must be 'complete'? The point is that we have an explanation and you do not. Please document the fossils you are talking about.

What 'barnacles, worms and sponges' of the Precambrian are you talking about? Please document. You keep spouting this stuff like you know something about them.