Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Believing man is 6,000-10,000 years old is not dependent on believing in a young earth. Sorry, but I can’t answer your question: I don’t know what you’re talking about. You have discombobulated my fragile, eggshell mind.

1. Some “basic theories of evolution” may be “basic theories of biology” that are useful, so I would have no reason to throw them out. The theory of common descent is both useless and untestable, so it wouldn’t matter if that one was throw out (although many atheists would accuse me of disrespecting their religion).2. What would I replace the theory of common descent with? I wouldn’t replace it with anything, because no one needs an explanation for the fossil record - it’s nothing more than an irrelevant, historical curiosity. However, I believe the best scientific explanation for the fossil record is that it is the result of genetic engineering performed by aliens (I also believe that within ten years, the “aliens did it” explanation will become the dominant explanation in science, finally replacing the inadequate, nineteenth-century Darwinian story). I would be happy to answer your question . if I knew what the hell you were talking about. I would be happy to answer your question . if I knew what the hell you were talking about.

That what I meant (which should have been bleedin’ obvious). It may infer common ancestry via biological evolution . but common ancestry via genetic experiments performed by aliens is a much better explanation. However, there is no way of testing either hypothesis. In case, you can pay for it. I’ve actually got better things to spend my money on than evolutionist stories - lamingtons, for example. You may not have heard of lamingtons - they’re native to Australia. A lamington a day keeps the doctor away.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I asked you to explain your claim, not to mindlessly repeat it. Explain why is necessary to accept that all life shares a common ancestor in order to understand antibiotic resistance and the evolution of blind fish?As before, you won't supply such an explanation - because you can't.There exist professors of biology who are YECs - according to you, these professors can't understand how antibiotic resistance works or how blind fish evolve!

Don' t be silly. The best scientific explanation for the history of life is that aliens performed feats of genetic engineering. The Darwinist explanation is a nineteenth-century idea that is inadequate and outdated. Why would I need to answer these questions? The theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless. No kidding? Biology needs research to progress. What are you talking about? Why the hell would I want to you stop using "what has been proven to work"?
All I want you to do is explain why is it necessary to "root" a plant you are studying to some extinct "ancestor" that supposedly existed millions of years ago - because this sounds like a complete waste of time to me.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Whatever. When you said you "know" the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bones of a reptile, you were talking nonsense.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Yeah, right - your "evidence" is a few fossils with a gigantic gap between reptiles and mammals. That's it.
You have no the slightest idea what so sort of environmental pressures would cause the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a mammal, nor can you begin to explain how the supposed mutations evolved in this process would confer survival advantages.As usual, the massive holes in your tissue-thin "theory" are filled with huge doses of wishful thinking and blind faith in evolution.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Thank you for the information. I need to re-acquaint myself with the details - my memory, my fragile eggshell mind and my low IQ (9) have conspired against me on this occasion.Anyways, none of that weakens my argument: There is no fossil record of evolutionary ancestors for the many novel phyla that appeared during and after the Cambrian explosion. For example, trilobites, fish and insects seemingly appeared out of nowhere.
The best scientific argument for this evidence is genetic engineering performed by aliens (and not Darwinian evolution, which is little more than a glorified version of the nineteenth-century superstition of spontaneous generation).Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I suggest Karl Popper's grasp of the English language is pathetic - I understand very little of the above statement. Okay. Thanks. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Darwinian explanation prevailed in primitive minds, but Darwin et al had no concept of advanced aliens from outer space and no experience of UFOs, but these days we know better.
The best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth is that it is the result of billions of years of aliens having fun with genetic engineering. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Many historical facts and events described in the Bible have been corroborated by archaeology. Look it up and learn.

Really? According to Gunter Bechly, there is no evidence whatsoever of evolutionary ancestors of insects.Who should I believe - you or a world-renowned paleontologist who has three insects named after him?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

1. Er, please be advised that one lucky find is hardly statistically significant.2. Fossils indicate that some kind of "evolution" has occurred over billions of years, but fossils tell us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what caused that "evolution".3. Tikaalik and "evolution" can be explained by my "aliens did it" theory. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Did I say that? 1. There are plenty of transitional fossils. Every fossil is a transitional. But their paucity suggests very large jumps have occurred, which doesn't suggest a steady process of biological evolution. In others words, genetic engineering is a much better explanation of the evidence.2. Fossils tell us ZERO about what caused evolution. The Darwinian explanation is not confirmed in the slightest by fossils. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Fossils of evidence of Darwinian evolution, progressive creation and genetic engineering by aliens. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Thomas Aquinas argued that it is a much greater feat for God to create than to modify something that already exists.