Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Yeah, right ... yet so many palaeontologists point out that there is very little evidence of evolution in the rocks! But hey, who cares what paleontologists think?

All I need to know is that genetic engineering has the potential to reshape the genome such that massive changes in morphology are possible. Believing that your puny mechanisms of evolutionary can turn a rodent into a whale is grand delusion.

No. You supply a scientific article or paper that demonstrates that (no) practical use in any applied science is predicated on the concept of UCA.You don't understand how crazy both requests are. Not surprised.

Quite the contrary, Oh Demented One.Fossils give us great big clues to what happened and when. You just have to know how to look, something you with your religious fantasies are especially poor at.Then there is the genetic data, by the dredge-load, that more that very nicely verifies, challenges/changes, and fills in the rest of the gospel according to ToE.

Please support this assertion. From my experience, it is only anti-evolutionists who don't.

Before we get to that level, if you're unhappy with the fedora you need to try the Stetson. After that I got a couple hundred more styles for you to try.

Correct. It is all the YOU need to know.And need I add that this bar is not set very high? Thank you for your opinion.

What are your criteria for determining 'outside tampering'.I mean, as long as you brought it up.

So many as in what? Two?We got 10,000+- others who say they are wrong.Ever hear of Project Steve

The trilobites, fish and insects ARE the evidence and they exhibit a progression of life forms.If you cannot connect the dots, that sounds like a personal problem. The progression is the evidence that evolution occurred. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

That's grade school. We are talking way beyond that. No wonder you're lost. A grand delusion of actual fact. And we got pictures. With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one saying what each one was. Yea, Dredge, we know the lineages quite well and with a lot more consensus than you could afford to admit.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Do you have any idea how easy it is to research the real number and get it right the first time? How easy it is to verify your own understanding?Do you have any idea the depth of intellectual laziness you have displayed for us yet again?Do you realize just how dumb that is?Creationists. Religionists. How do you people survive to breed?

Actually, it's four.The number had doubled!So there!

You need to know more than that. You need to explain the following, and this is just a good start:1. The twin nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics.2. The difference in divergence between exons and introns.3. The pattern of transition, transversion, and CpG substitution mutations.4. Orthologous endogenous retroviruses and transposon insertions, and the pattern of divergence between the LTR's of a single ERV.Those are just a few off the top of my head. There is no reason why we would expect to see genetic engineering produce these patterns. Only people who lack scientific evidence to support their claims stoop to calling people deluded. If you had evidence you would present it.

Yeah but, in Message 954 he said:

quote:

---

I know next to nothing about genetic engineering.

---

So that means he can make up any fantasy that pops into his noggin.