Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

And?Is it a surprise to you that a robust theory relevant to a large number of science fields might mean different things to different people?Do you think it is uncommon for a given word or idea to have more than one meaning?Do you think that gravity means the same thing for a hydraulic engineer as it does to a theoretical physicist?As usual, it appears that you attempt to sow doubt where there really is none. Or is this just a semantic game that allows you a false feeling of superiority, when really it's just another straw-man argument?

Would you like to start again from the beginning?
It's okay, I fully understand how difficult it can be for some to remember such difficult ideas.Here it is again from Message 171:"Medicine."

The "silly" putdowns just reflect the absurdity of your position.

If you noticed anything it would be a bloody miracle. I have asked you to back up your claim that there is no use for UCA. You have been shown that your claim is nonsense. If you're too dense to see what you've been shown, that may be a reflection on my/our ability to demonstrate but it is not a reflection on the reality of the UCA or its usefulness.

It's pretty clear that the anti-science crowd mistakes their opinions for facts, and that contrary opinions can be dismissed for no other reason. If I find the theory of evolution useful in explaining the data that I see in the geological record, that means exactly nothing to Dredge. Therefor, he can invoke denial as an argument when really, it's just another blinded opinion from someone who cannot fathom the fact that someone might have an alternative opinion. It becomes an article of faith, a way to shut down dialog. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Dredge's mind keeps exploding because we all are giving different definitions of the ToE. A lot of them are saying pretty much the same thing, but even when they are not, they are still are ALL CORRECT. I think I have given 2 or maybe 3 in this thread and none of them are contradictory. Biology is a huge subject and the theory also includes data from paleotology, bio-geography, geology and more.Dredge seems to think that a definition of one or two sentences should include everything. He also mistakenly thinks the definition of the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution. Maybe just a bit... Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

I will ask you again.Do you know how to use a theory?Can you provide an example of any theory having a practical use?Can you provide an example of a theory that does not incorporate the principals that it attempts to explain?

"diversified through time" - that would include UCA, then.

Dawkins is an anti-evolutionist?
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 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I've already explained why - the Cambrian explosion looks nothing like a single "tree of life"; rather, it looks like an orchard of unrelated trees that appeared out of nowhere. Oh dear, that's not supposed to happen ... There's nothing in my religion about the fossil record. However, the fossil record does offer strong evidence of creation, which is in my religion. According to your belief system, evolution is a fact, therefore an inconvenient truth like the Cambrian explosiion is simply swept under the carpet and rationalized away. Ten million years is an "explosion" in modern ordnance? (whatever "ordnance" means.)Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in A GEOLOGICAL MOMENT, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time ... ALL MAJOR DISCOVERIES OF THE PAST CENTURY HAVE ONLY HEIGTHENED THE MASSIVENESS AN GEOLOGICAL ABRUPTNESS OF THIS FORMATIVE EVENT ..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682. Probably, but that's irrelevant to my point. What's relevant is what existed in the Ediacaran and what suddenly appeared without any evolutionary history in the Cambrian. Mammals appeared later - so what?

Spoken like a true atheist!"The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment ... all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." - Stephen J. Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682."Thus the fossil record seems to show that most of the major animal groups appeared SIMILTANEOUSLY. In the Cambrian explosion, we find segmented worms, velvet worms, starfish ... molluscs (bivalves, snails, squid and their relatives), sponges,brachiopods and other shelled animals appearing all at once, with their basic organisation, organ systems and sensory mechanisms already operational ... This explosive evolutionary radiation of the Cambrian seems to be unique ... nor was there a similar radiation when animals invaded the land ... the colonisation of the land saw no new ways of making an animal " - S. J. Gould."the Cambrian phylum count was larger, perhaps much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone ... The history of animal life is not a history of gradually increasing differentiation. It is a history of exuberant intial proliferation, followed by much loss" - S. J. Gould"Since the so called Cambrian Explosion ... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record" - S. J. Gould, Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990Please be advised that an "explosion" of very disparate life-forms appearing "similtaneously" and in "a geological moment" contradicts your evolution model. So the Cambrian explosion doesn't look anything like evolution's single "tree of life" - rather, it looks like an orchard of unrelated trees that sprang up out of nowhere, thereby providing powerful evidence of creation and powerful evidence against evolution.Furthermore, evolution predicts diverstiy followed by disparity, which is the opposite of what the Cambrian explosion reveals, which is dispartiy and diversity appearing simitaneously ... oops! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. More like 10 million years, actually. Are you qualified to judge how God should create?How do you know that man is the "sole point" of billions of years of creation? Haven't you heard? The creation story in the Bible is not literal - it doesn't need to be, because what happened pre-Adam is irrelevant to salvation.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Okay, I take your point, but if there is more than one common ancestor, how can one say "all life on Earth is connected ... to each other"? Tell that to Berkeley University:"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 ... The CENTRAL IDEA of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" - evolution.berkeley.edu, Understanding Evolution (emphasis mine).The moral of the story is, there is no definitive definition of ToE - it varies from person to person. Translation: "because we THINK life shares common ancestry we THINK we can look back in time and see how it evolved."

You obviously haven't read all my posts. Well, for starters, I accept the same time-frame for life on earth as you do and I accept same fossil record as you do - which shows that life on earth started with relatively simple forms and progressed in functional complexity over vast periods of time until we get to the present age. So I believe the history of life depicts an "evolution" of created life-forms, but it is not an evolution that is explained by a contiguous process of biological evolution. My progressive creation model also explains why all life on earth appears to be genetically related.

It is not correct to say, "The observed facts and principles of biology are the theory of evolution"; rather, it is correct to say, "the theory of evolution is based on the observed facts and principles of biology". On the other hand, when it comes to definitions of ToE, anything goes; so if someone wants to define ToE as simply the mechanisms of evolution, then who am I to judge? Not me. There is no definitive definition of the theory of evolution, so it hard to pick at a moving target So you agree with Berkeley Uni when it says "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"?

Thank you. But I'm disappointed to say that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are not atheists.I love your continued quoting mining of Gould as though he supported the creationists arguments. Just in case you might have missed any, here's some fallacious Gould quote mines plus a list of many others. I doubt that you'll read the actual words he said, but they're there if after a long prayer session with your god, you are overcome by a sudden moment of honesty.List of fallacious creationist quotes - RationalWiki

quote:

---

Because of his support for the theory of episodic evolution rather than gradual evolution Gould is a popular target for creationist quote-miners. For example, creationists often quote Gould as saying that "the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change", but forget to take note of the rather essential second part of the quoted sentence: "and the principle of natural selection does not require it ” selection can operate rapidly."

​

The depiction of Gould as sympathetic to creationists via quote mining crosses over the line from laughable to flagrant dishonesty. Gould was known as an outspoken opponent of creationism. Of it, he said "The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream."

---

Source please.

quote:

---

Though there is some scientific debate about what fossil strata should mark the beginning of the period, the International Geological Congress places the lower boundary of the period at 543 million years ago with the first appearance in the fossil record of worms that made horizontal burrows. The end of the Cambrian Period is marked by evidence in the fossil record of a mass extinction event about 490 million years ago.

---

Cambrian Period & Cambrian Explosion: Facts & Information | Live ScienceThe biological concensus seems to be 20-25m years.Biologists do not have a problem with these numbers - evolution sometimes appears to take place “rapidly” with long periods of relative statis. I'm qualified to point out the inconsistency of your argument of how he did it. Creation neither started nor ended in the Cambrian. Nor did it create the species we see today - including man. I think you had better say what else he has in mind. I can't find anything in your book to help me. Perhaps you can? That's what you say; I say that none of the stories in the bible are literal. I don't pick and mix. I think you'd better have that discussion with your fellow creationists.