Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

No I don't, You asked for the evidence, there it is. You have to be kidding... Wow, you read the titles! That's more rigorous than usual. Microevolution *is* evolution as described by the ToE. Any you knew that without reading any of it... Jesus woman, do you think I'd lie about it? I'm not a sodding creationist. The first of several times I give him the evidence was in post 167.

You're still fighting to misunderstand. Any scientific theory has to explain observed facts. The 'collection of facts' is the data, the theory provides the information to understand them.A room full of unlabelled fossils is data. It tells us very little. When the fossils are ordered in time and in families groups, patterns emerge. When we also have the data on how organisms change according to changing environments, how organisms can be organised into detailed taxonomical categories and (new information these observations from micro-biology confirm them), science can the pull all this information into a general theory that explains it all.That's what science has done over a period of 150 years. At a general level the ToE is a settled piece of science. Only religious zealots think otherwise but they have been incapable of even denting it.The priciples of the ToE are drawn from the theory - common descent, mutability of species, competition, survival of the fittest etc. The UCA is not part of the theory, it's a possible consequence of the principle of common descent.Religionists love picking at definitions because they can't pick at the facts. They think that by mangling the words, the facts will change. There are several ways of defining the ToE; they are all describing the same thing and they're all correct as far as they go. You'd be far better employed trying to understand the theory than quibbling pointessly about your misunderstanding of scientific terms. You're more than a bit daft aren't you?

The principles of evolution make up the Theory of Evolution. They are part and parcel of the same thing. THE SAME THING.You've been given many examples of practical uses of the ToE. Here they are again

quote:

---

Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists

---

Applications of evolution - WikipediaThat link gives you links to many other papers, the first of which is the one I've shown you twice now which provides practical scientific example of its use. Did you notice that the first paragraph actually uses the precise words your so hung up on and say never appear? Did you also notice that the wiki is only first result from the google search termpractical uses for the theory of evolutionThere are thousands of others. Impossible though you think it is.CA215: Practical uses of evolution.It would really help if you tried to understand what you disagree with, rather than dick about pretending knowledge. At a basic level the ToE is not hard to understand.

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.

Can you show what difference there is between 'progressive creation' and evolution please.

For fuck sake, Dredge, Berkeley are trying to reduce a complex scientific concept into a publicly understandable sound bite.If you emailed Berkley they'd explain to you what I've already explained to you that there may not be a single UCA, but just as Newtonian Gravitational Theory is correct enough for all everyday uses but requires Einsteinian explantions when things get more complex, common descent is good enough to get the idea across for the vast majority of species that have ever lived.Now grow up and learn something.

Thank you. I believe there are drugs available that might help you with your schizophrenia. The concept of UCA is a prediction/ possible conclusion of the ToE. Sure. There is no problem or contradiction.

I don't think so. You're simply trolling now. Either, both, I really don't care - it makes no difference. Think of Father, Son, Holy Ghost - Trinity - if it helps you. I'm not interested in farting around with pointless word juggling. It should be clear to you by now what the components of the ToE are, if it isn't you're either an idiot or a troll but more likely both.

In other words, it's the ToE Ah. Maybe not. Are you saying that process of evolving from 'some kind of rodent' to moden whales required your god to intervene at each/every stage? In other words you can't accept the ToE for religious reasons but can't deny the evidence for the ToE. Cake and eat it eh?.

To repeat the obvious, most evolutionary biologists are not atheists. And if it wasn't for Darwin, most religionists would be pushing the myth that the life we see around us was put here fully formed 6,000 years ago.My staement above, is, of course, false - like yours. There was nothing magical about either Darwin or Gould. If neither had existed the facts of evolution would have been discovered and developed by someone else. Darwin discovered what he could at the time. Many others since have discovered more - including Gould.There is nothing about punctuated equilibrium that is a challenge to the ToE; it's merely another discovery about how it works. That's what science does; improves knowledge about how thing are. Gould, like Darwin, is a good example of good science - he (and Eldredge) followed the evidence.And it doesn't help you either. Life began billions of years before the Cambrian and evolution continued for hundreds of millions afterwards. Insescts, fish and mammals did not exist in the Cambrian and moden man - the apparent reason for god's creation - is less than quarter of a million years old.
Your god took a hell of a long way round to get to the point. Almost like he didn't know what he was doing. Almost random eh?

It's your, hypothesis, you explain it. Which? When does he and when doesn't he? Did he start something off 3 billion years ago and then lose interest? Then pop up again in the Cambrian and have a fit of productivity then lose interest again before creating most of our modern species including man?Did he create anthrax? HIV AIDs? Tape worms? Or was that 'normal' evolution. How come he allowed almost everything he's ever created to go extinct. Why is he so crap at this creation business? Pick and mix beliefs are very useful. Evolution is all of a piece, if you reject one part of it you reject it all. You have no scientific objections to evolution. Or at least if you have, you've not given us any yet.So far your have told us that the ToE (and the concept of UCA) has no practical use, it has, but even if it hadn't it would have no effect on whether it's true or not.You have told us that the Cambrian radiation is is some kind of proof against the ToE and that gradualism is a cornerstone of the ToE. Neither are true. If they were, there would be no ToE that holds the scientific concensus. Magic is a perfect avoidance of explanation. Children are always impressed by it. But sadly magic is a black box, it actually explains nothing at all. Goddidit was used to 'explain' everything from lightening to flu. Sticking goddidit into the ToE is adding an unnecessary and unevidenced factor simply because you have an irrational belief. Really. Show me this god of yours then that intervenes routinely with the development of species on our planet. Show me how it's done - open the black box for us.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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.

I agree. That's why it never happens. And you can't show us any of these miracles nor the imagined god that does them either. It's almost like they don't exist isn't it?

After all this time, you still don't get it.If something was discovered that completely contradicted the ToE and/or geological time periods it would be enormously exciting to all scientists. Scientists *want* to prove stuff wrong, it would make their careers. It would open up massive new areas of research.Unfortunately though the evidence supporting the theories is now so overwhelming that it is vanishingly unlikely that anything material will be found to change the core theories - though they will almost certainly be modified.Science is not immutable, it's not a religious belief. That seems difficult for you guys to understand no matter what we say.

It strikes me that you've got the worst of all possible positions here. You tell us that you accept that the earth and the creatures in it are millions of years old and that you accept evolution. Or at least some bits of it that you ad hoc prefer.Then you tell us that man himself is less than 10,000 years old and you know that by adding up mythical bible story characters' ages. The earth and all the organisms on it is old but man is young and presumably did not evolve, but was created.It's hard to unpick this mess but it strikes me that you must therefore think that Adam and Eve were real and Noah and his Flood happened. So all modern animals evolved in the last 4,000 years? And all humans came from Noah's family? And all those human fossils and descendants are imaginary?God knows why you're confusing yourself with niche arguments about what happened in the Cambrian.