Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Perhaps. More likely, he understood that the fossil record is actually more than the known part of the fossil record. It really wouldn't take a genius to figure that out.Or we might say, sure, that was the status of the known fossil record 175 years ago. Wikipedia probably understands that 'sudden' in geological terms is not 'sudden' in human colloquial terms. Again, this is grade-school stuff. Or it could be that they considered their theory of punctuated equilibrium to be a characteristic of evolution.How about you? Are you impervious to personal philosophical convictions regardless of inconvenient evidence in the fossil record? You said that you did not get your information from YEC websites and yet you parrot the same inconsistencies and quote-mines that we see published on hundreds of YEC websites. Your opinion is noted. But please don't ascribe that same opinion to Darwin, Gould or Eldredge.But yes, gradualism is considered to be a only one simple element to the overall theory of evolution and perhaps not even that important. Well, it was formulated nearly two hundred years ago... I'm not seeing the serious problems. Perhaps you are having a problem presenting them?Maybe it is only the unintelligent folks who see such problems. Dawkins admits to his oversimplification as shown by Jon earlier. There is plenty of previous history as we have pointed out. Why do you continue to ignore this fact? Whut??You really think that I believe all fossils have been discovered? I 'hope for' nothing but the evidence keeps coming in. Your opinion is noted.But if you have nothing of your own, please refrain from constant complaints about other peoples' work Again, you create a strawman argument. Evolution does not try to explain 'everything' and it is certainly part of a learning process that continues. Is that such a bad way to gain knowledge?Oh, wait! You don't care about that, do you?

Sadly, but quite expectedly, dredge will not be responding to this post.One wonders why we bother to go to the work of doing actual research and presenting it.

Which is the result of your continued misuse of the scientific terminology which is there to be used by people talking about actual science evolution with clarity and understanding. You do realize, I hope, that taxonomic nomenclature is man-made and used to describe and discuss topics. For instance we have Pelycodus:Where the species at the bottom (oldest fossils in the chart) is labeled Pelycodus ralstoni while the two species at the top are labeled Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. As you can see the (arbitrary man made) genera nomenclature changes from Pelycodus to Notharctus, even though the evolution occurs within the breeding populations of the various species at the time they exist, as shown by their depth levels. Which is demonstrated by Pelycodus evolving by anagenesis through several species before the cladogenesis division into two independent species at the top.This is why cladistics is generally preferred these days compared to traditional taxonomic classifications, it reduces confusion.All the species above Pelycodus ralstoni in the chart are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade: Where Pelycodus ralstoni is the common ancestor population while Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus are the descendant daughter populations. See Fossil Fish (named "Tiktaalik") Sheds Light on Transition Humans are apes. LOL.Enjoy

Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Off course not. There is real science that is applied in practice like most branches of Biology and Physics. Based on knowledge and understanding it holds an extremely high standard of evidence that is falsifiableThen there is theoretical science. Untestable hypothesis based on speculation. As with all pseudosciences the objective is to generate funding.Just look at the centuries of debate and experiments on Spontaneous Generation that theoretical science tried to repress.And no sooner did Louis Pasteur killed the theory in 1859 did theoretical biolgy jump straight into a totally new theory and preaching it as fact. Darwins "Origin of Species" was also released in 1859.This time they went even further producing frauds like the pitdown man in a sad and desperate attempt to make the theory stick. Pitdown man was the basis of this pseudoscience for over 100 years before it was embarrassingly uncovered as a deliberate hoax.Such a sad excuse for science are the soft, theoretical subjects.
Attracting funding away from the real hard sciences like medicine.Even physics has turned all darwinist theoretical. Astrophysicists thought they were on the verge of a breakthrough in understanding. However Newton and Einsteins maths doesn't work in space.... HeheheheThe conclusive theory is that something is creating multiple universes only a tiny amount of them produce life. Sounds a lot like Darwinism to me.The past 16 months iv been on an atheist forum. So now im really woke on their views and motives.Anyways there is something in there that will trigger someone and send them to the cry cabinet. WahEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Too bad you didn't learn anything about science and scientists. E.g.: Hee hee hee indeed. That's false.

quote:

---

and tell me if are you using your false definition of "genus" (which is actually species by scientific technical definition) or the actual scientific technical definition for genera?

---

Is there such a thing as a technical definition of genus? The best I could come up with is 'the next convenient level of taxonomic group above that of species', which is vague and arbitrary. Nor is it even accurate, since taxonomists often make use of subgenera, or species groups.All of which renders Dredge's definition of macroevolution utterly meaningless.

quote:

---

If (D) and (E) are related via common ancestor (C), and (H) and (I) are related by common ancestor (G) and (F) is related to (C) by common ancestor (B), it is logical that there exists a population (A) that is a common ancestor to (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H) and (I). If evidence of population (A) exists at the proper place in the spacial-temporal matrix, then this conclusion is validated as tentatively true because this is the best known explanation for the evidence (until a better explanation is provided).

---

There's more to it than that. The existence of common ancestors G and B doesn't, in itself, tell us anything about whether G and B share a common ancestor. Darwin famously speculated that life was originally breathed into 'a few forms or one', and that was a reasonable assumption at the time. Maybe there was an ancestral plant, and an ancestral animal, but these themselves were not related.Now, however, that we know so much more about biology, we can see how much all life shares in common. It's all based on DNA and RNA, and the basic cellular machinery behind transcription and replication is the same in all organisms. If we'd discovered that plants, animals, bacteria etc had different types of molecule as the basic reproductive unit; if their replication was based on different types of chemistry, it's unlikely biologists would have concluded there was a universal common ancestor. We would have gone with Darwin's 'few forms', not his one.I know that you are aware of all this, I just thought the way phrased it may have been unclear for some readers.Edited by caffeine, : shouldn't post from mobile devices

'Real' science eh? Anyway, fyi the ToE is based on a very high standard of evidence and is very easily falsifiable. I would tell you how if I thought you had the slightest interest. You realise I suppose that rational examination of our natural world didn't really kick off until the Enlightenment (clue in the name) in the 18th century? Up until then and for at least a century or two afterwards they gradually debunked the religious and supersticious baloney swimming around in ignorant people's heads. Since then it's been a war of attrition.This is why people like you have to talk about ideas, mistakes and frauds from 150 years ago as if that had much relevance today. Their only relevance is that science - unlike religion - adapts its ideas according to the facts as they are uncovered. So here we have another century-old story presented as evidence against science. It's really bizarre as, in fact, it's a perfect example of the scientific process behaving as it should and exposing the fraud itself. For the record, the fraud was exposed in 1953, not 100 years later. Why do you guys always have to get everything wrong? I suppose it's because you prefer your own 'facts'.Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud by the very science that you scoff at.

The fact that you have no idea that it is Piltdown Man, not pitdown, shows we should not even consider your arguments. If you cannot even have the decency to attempt to understand the subject matter, than do not insult us with your attempt at an argument. This is a lie. Piltdown man was presented in 1912. Skepticism was expressed, by scientists, as early as 1915. It was fully exposed as a hoax in 1953. So you are wrong on all counts.
Here is a quick overview.Piltdown Man - WikipediaPlease look at my signatures. Why do you have to lie? Is it that your position has no validity?

And it was suspect from the beginning, and was never a significant basis for the ToE.Not that Porkie cares.

I can't see what evolution has to do with the action of antibiotics, but antibiotic resistance is "evolution".

I guess so - the theory of evolution can simply mean the mechanisms of evolution.

What is the theory of evolution?

I don't confine reality to the very limited parameters of science. Therefore I consider progressive creation to be a realistic explanation for the fossil record. Are you kidding? - Dawkins is an atheist; an atheist has no choice but to believe in evolution. In which case, the evidence for evolution is almost superfluous.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Oh, in that case what you mean is, the common ancestor is a theory based on observations. from evolution.berkeley.edu ("Understanding Evolution"):"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene ” or more precisely and technically, allele ” frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance ... The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor."from Encyclopaedia Britannica:"Evolution (is a) theory in biology postulating that the variious types of plants, animals and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishing differences are due to modifications in successive generations ... The virtually infinte variations of life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals descend from shewlike creatures that lived more than 150 millions years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600 millions years ago; and all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification."from livescience.com, "What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?"""The theory (of evolution) has two main points", says Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "all life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection" " Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.