Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

I didn't say anything about macroevolution. Your delusions are showing. Says the person who uses a fictional book as guide to life.

Oh gosh, you didn't actually use the term "macroevolution?" So that means it isn't necessary to the ToE? Ha ha.

The conversion in your mind must be fascinating.

It really isn't necessary to the ToE.Even though it has been mentioned dozens of times here, there and beyond I can see you're going to be hard pressed to figure out why.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

It's kinda like how a cup-holder isn't necessary in a car, even if every car has one.

But if you use the cup-holder on your computer, then you break the CD-ROM drive.
(old tech-support joke)

As I said, our understanding of genetics has gone way beyond Mendelian inheritance. We barely even talk about Mendelian inheritance anymore it is so rare. I don't understand why you feel insulted when I present a simple example of a theory (my illustration using germ theory) because I was talking at an "elementary school level" but you can only think of genetics in terms of Mendelian inheritance which is itself "elementary level genetics."But anyway... Let's assume you're right and Mendelian inheritace is the primary mechanism that generates variation in a species. This of course would apply to sexually reproducing diploid organisms. Shuffling alleles through recombination is what creates genotypic and phenotypic differences. What about asexually reproducing haploid organisms (these types of organisms make up the vast majority of species on earth)?So what I'm thinking is that if Mendelian inheritance is the primary driver of diversity and the other factors are hooha, then asexual haploids should have very low genotypic and phenotypic diversity since they don't shuffle alleles around. Is that what you would predict?I am asking a serious question here and want you to really think about it and make a prediction as to what diversity in asexual haploids would be like. They do not undergo recombination so they cannot shuffle alleles around in that way. I predict, based on your theory of genetics, that asexual haploids would have almost no diversity. Do you agree?HBD

And that is what the current evidence shows, whether that original ancestor derived from horizontal gene sharing single cell life or not.But that is still not from the section that gives the definition of evolution. Conflating them is quote mining, a form of lying. Actually it is describing simply the same process. When the parent population begins to divide into two daughter populations the process is the same, offspring from parents and grandparents. Since macroevolution (as defined and used by scientists) has been observed, it is a fact that it occurs.Further all life falls into a pattern of nested hierarchies (clades) and the end result is a common ancestor population for all life.

quote:

---

Tree of Life

​

---

That is what the evidence shows. This is an observation of the evidence, and it shows how the theory of evolution explains the evidence in a concise and easy to understand way.Other concepts, like "Progressive Creation" do not explain the pattern of nested hierarchies, nor the placement of fossils within the spatial-temporal matrix.Does "Progressive Creation" have any practical use? or is it just a desperate shell game to hide evidence from believers. Indeed, but I would say "macroevolution = microevolution over multiple generations" rather than time. This does not follow -- it is a non-sequitur conclusion, and it's rather backwards.(L)UCA + many multiple generations of life = the natural history of life on the planet, and it is explained by ToE.Further, the pattern of nested hierarchies and the location of fossil evidence within the spatial-temporal matrix match what the theory predicts for the pattern of life.Other concepts, like "Progressive Creation" do not predict the pattern of nested hierarchies, nor the placement of fossils within the spatial-temporal matrix.Does "Progressive Creation" have any practical use? or is it just a desperate shell game to hide evidence from believers.Enjoy

So you agree that your use of genera was mistaken, good. And again, honorary degrees are not issued in specific fields. Strange obsession here. Except that microevolution is what occurs within each generation of a breeding population, while macroevolution is the accumulation of changes over multiple generations.Curiously, biologists have no difficulty in distinguishing one from the other, and have no need for this distinction. Since the process of evolution is observed in the fossil record as well as in life today it is empirically observed evolution. Theoretical evolution is the theory of evolution (hint - theory → theoretical). Again scientists have no trouble with this. Another shell game with the words. Typical creationist ploy. When you get a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed biological science journal that uses this minor distinction let me know.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

1. If everyone believed that, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to applied science ... which just goes to show how irrelevant interpretations of ancient history (including Darwinism) are to real-world science.2. You might be surprised how many religionists today accept the scientific concensus that says the history of life on earth began billons of years old - science which has nothing to do with Darwin. 1. PE is a far-fetched, band-aid measure that attempts to cover up all those "embarrassing" (Gould) gaps in the fossil record.2. The untestable theory of PE is a "discovery"? Hilarious! PE is an untestable theory within an untestable theory - and this is science? ... which is why I describe the history of life as PROGRESSIVE creation. Please be advised that the first human beings didn't evolve but were created from inanimate matter 6000-10000 years ago. An atheist with preconceptions about how and why God went about creating life on earth ... that adds up to a fascinating melange of thoughts.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.

So what? I've actually covered this before: I believe "God's finger" in evident every time a species from one genus appears to "evolve" into a species of a different genus (something that has never been observed, despite thousands of years of selective breeding by human beings, using every technique under the sun, trying to change the morphology of various animals and plants). You expect a religous (non-scientific) theory to have a practical, scientific application?

Yeh, science would just think it was magic how everything worked without any coherent theory about anything, from radioactive decay, disease to stellar movements. Nope, I'm not at all surprised. What did surprise me was how many religionists are still YECs. If you say so. PE is an observation. You can describe it anyway you like because you're just making it up without evidence. Well now we have it. H. sapiens did not evolve, he was placed here whole by a (Christian) God. Great, now show your workings.And while you're at it, explain why H. Sapiens have been dated at c200,000 yo.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

A progressive creation model easily accounts for the Cambrian explosion, the never-ending missing-links in the fossil record and the sudden appearances of fully-formed creatures with no evolutionary history. The theory of evolution has to explain these problems away with yet more theory - punctuated equilibrium, for example. You haven't thought this through, have you? Expecting a practical application for a religious belief is illogical.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Sorry, but it's not "exactly what the OP says". The OP specifically asks for PRACTICAL uses for UCA. The concept of UCA is not "useless", because it's useful in evolutionary theory - however it is useless in any practical sense.

The name of this site is "Evolution verses Creation". Are you trying to tell me the "Creation" part is strictly scientiific? As an atheist you must delude yourself that there is a scientific explanation for "problematic" evidence - the Cambrian explosion, for example. You began your message by complaining that this site is for science only and three sentences later you want to talk about God - make up your mind!