Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

No, you are confused. The aliens are the cause, not the mechanism. Your dud ToE doesn't even have a cause! Genetic engineering as a mechanism is as detectable as your mechanisms of evolution. The difference is, your evo-mechanisms can only demonstrate puny little microevolutions, whereas the potential of genetic engineering to produce macroevolutions cannot be doubted and has in fact already been demonstrated by scientists via observations and repeatable experiments. Where is your demonstration of observable macroevolution?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I have - millions of people believe in the existence of aliens based on evidence. The fossil record is also scientific evidence of aliens. Oh, you mean a "pattern" such as inexplicable jump from assymetrical to bilateral? Or from worm to insect? That's funny!

You should have just said, "I can't think of any practical medical use for the theory of common descent".

It's funny you should mention that - I once paid (a carton of beer) a motorcycle mechanic to do some brain surgery on me, and as far as I can tell, it worked out just fine. My mind feels numb most to the time, yet I am still capable of producing ingenious thoughts in the form of beautiful science.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Correct. Not quite correct. My Christian God created it (ie, not "god" but "God"). Incorrect. God created simple life forms which "evolved" via non-natural processes into more complex lifeforms. Incorrect. My "aliens" theory has nothing at all to do with my "God" theory. They are two separate theories. I wear two different hats - my "God" hat and my "Science" hat, depending on the audience.When I'm wearing my Science hat, my "aliens' theory is my best SCIENTIFIC theory for the what was responsible the fossil record. But having said that, I don't believe my or any "best scientific theory" for what is responsible for the fossil record, because I believe science cannot explain what is responsible for the fossil record.When I'm wearing my God hat, I believe the fossil record can be explained only by miracles and divine intervention.So I believe my God theory, but not my "aliens" theory. My "aliens" theory is simply a demonstration the stupendous brilliance of my scientific mind and an attempt to win a Nobel Prize for Science. Extinction events can be explained by some unforeseen natural event that the aliens had no control over, or they can be explained by the aliens getting bored with a certain line of genetic experimentation and starting again on a different tact - although other aliens scenarios can be thought of besides the "boredom" hypothesis. No way! I worship only God. The "aliens" are just a fantasy masquerading as science . you know, just like Darwinism is.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.

A probable explanation for that is, I am a genius and you are a intellectual mediocrity. Er, why have you posed me this question immediately after I said "I know next to nothing about genetic engineering"? A genius doesn't know everything!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Prejudice is easy - the hard part is proving that it's "crap".

Er, no . that's not how it works - you made the claim that it's crap, so the onus is on your to prove your claim.Furthermore, I made no claim about Gelernter's opinion on the fossil record; I merely posted his thoughts.

What a pity the theory of common descent can't be tested using the aforementioned method ... or any other method. A theory that can't be tested doesn't even qualify as science.

I'm glad you said "If", because I think you are talking nonsense - my understanding is, only about 2% of the human genome shares 95-89% DNA with chimps.

I fear you're talking rubbish. Fossils confirm that life-forms on earth have changed over time, but fossils can't confirm or validate the cause of those changes. Fossils don't validate ToE and its mechanisms anymore than they validate my "aliens" theory and its mechanism of genetic engineering. And ToE does? You're dreaming. [qs]Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Curious that you ignore all the evidence that contradicts ToE - where is the evidence for the evolutionary ancestors of trilobites, fish and insects? Where are the missing links between the Ediacaran fauna all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion? The evidence for these "ancestors" doesn't exist! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

You're dreaming. It's impossible for fossils to "confirm" anything about random mutations or any other mechanism of evolution or any aspect of genetics. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

"may not have"? ... more like, "has no need at all to" - UCA is useless. Prove this nonsense claim. Supply a scientific article or paper that demonstrates that a practical use in any applied science is predicated on the concept of UCA.

Ever heard of the fossil record? For thousands of years, humans have tried to alter the characteristics of dogs, for example, in all sorts of ways using every trick in nature's toolbox - even resorting to unnatural methods such as inbreeding - but no one has managed to produce anything but more dogs. Obviously, there are genetic limits to how much organisms can change.
It was only when genetic engineering came along that the potential for producing radically different organisms was realised. Compared to genetic engineering, the mechanisms of evolution have been observed to produced only very limited and puny changes with a population. The claim that these evolutionary mechanisms can change a dinosaur into a bird (for example) are absurd and an embarrassment to science. ... like fish and insects appearing out of nowhere in the fossil record! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.