Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

We know there is no known fossil evidence for evolution from E to C. Your evolution model relies on evidence that doesn't exist. The huge jump from E to C is what the scientific mind would expect if aliens performed feats of genetic engineering. For once, you got something right. It's a great idea that sprung from the mind of a brilliant thinker and self-taught and self-declared scientist - namely, me. I haven't tested it - to test is to confirm - I can't test/confirm my most excellent theory. The fossil record is my primary evidence for the aliens - the best scientific explanation for the history of life as revealed in the rocks is genetic engineering performed by aliens. Furthermore, science cannot rule out the existence of intelligent life from another planet.And let's not forget the secondary forms of evidence that supports the existence of aliens - crop circles, abductions, UFO sightings, etc. Too easy - the mechanism is genetic engineering. The lack of evidence of evolutionary ancestors of animals. 1. One lucky find is not statistically significant.
2. That lucky find can also be explained by my "aliens did it" theory. Big words frighten me.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The best scientific explanation for the appearance of a new genus is genetic engineering performed by aliens. On the contrary, the fossil record shows abundant evidence of "outside tampering". Certainly,, common ancestry is observed, but the evolution of a new genus has never been observed - even thousands of years of intensive artificial selection by humans - using every trick in the book - has failed to produce anything even close to a new genus. In other words, the evidence suggests the genus barrier cannot be crossed by natural means. 1. The fossil record cannot be explained by any observed process.
2. The existence of aliens may be "invisible" but it is not "undetectable" - the fossil record is powerful scientific evidence of genetic engineering - and the only scientific explanation for that engineering is aliens.The Darwinian "explanation" is lame, outdated and little more than rehashed spontaneous generation - a nineteenth-century superstition.

I prefer my lamingtons plainEdited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Null and void. A scientific theory doesn't need a practical application to be accepted as valid.

What you have for the reptile jaw-mammalian inner-ear is a rehashed version of the nineteenth-century superstition of spontaneous generation - Darwinian evolution. The best scientific explanation for reptile-mammal "evolution" is genetic engineering performed by aliens. Wake up and grow up - modern science is calling you out of the darkness.

Do I still think it's possible? No, not at all - not by an natural means , at least. The Darwinian explanation for the supposed reptile jaw-mammalian inner-ear "evolution" is as weak as water. The best SCIENTIFIC explanation for such an "evolution" - if that is indeed what happened - is genetic engineering performed by aliens.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The best scientific explanation for fossil record is genetic engineering performed by aliens - this amounts to powerful scientific evidence of the existence of advanced aliens. Since we have scientific evidence for the existence of advanced aliens (ie, the fossil record), it can be assumed that interstellar travel has been achieved. How this was achieved is irrelevant to the validity of my "aliens did it" theory.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Precisely when insects appeared in the fossil record is irrelevant - the point is there is no fossil evidence of any evolutionary ancestors of insects. 1. You criticise me for relying on "the opinions of others", then you supply an opinion from Wiki to back up your own argument! The blatant hypocrisy is hilarious!2. So the opinion of the nobodies at Wiki carries more weight than a world-renown palaeontologist with three insects named after him? More hilarity!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Why are you conflating a "God" theory and an "aliens" theory? There is no comparison - the former is theology and and the latter is science.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

An ad hominem attack is not science. Neither does the belief that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. And this is a criticism? So funny!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The Darwinian explanation is very poorly supported by the available fossil evidence, which features huge gaps - gaps that can be best explained by my "aliens did it" theory. Even with band-aid theories like PE, the fossil record should reveal a relatively steady process of evolution - but it often doesn't. Wrong. The mechanism of genetic engineering is not only known and supported, it is observable, repeatable and understood - unlike the nineteenth-century superstition of Darwinian macroevolution, which has never even been observed. Yeah, right . that's why evolutionary theorists like Gerd Muller think the modern synthesis is inadequate and cannot explain the fossil record.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

That's one possible explanation . but one that can't be tested and confirmed. All things considered the evidence can be
best explained by genetic engineering performed by aliens. Why not?

That would be a funny thing for an atheist to say - atheism means every living moment, every single thought, deed and emotion is pointless.

Mr. Occan is both right and wrong:"right" because all explanations for the fossil record are "unnecessary"."wrong" because it is necessary to replace the childishly primitive Darwinian explanation with something more in tune with modernity - such as my "aliens did it" theory, the best scientific explanation for the fossil record.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Don't forget, Evolution of the gaps. Where are the fossils that demonstrate the evolution of insects? Where are the transitionals between the Ediacaran fossils and animal fossils of the Cambrian. Or the links between sponges, worms, jelly-fish and fish?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.