Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

So, you've got nothing, that's what I figured. You are stuck in 1859. Most fossils have been discovered since then.Fiction never depresses me.I note you didn't answer any of my questions from Message 510.

Well, almost correct. Unencumbered by the shackles of religious stupidity science can even explain all those things you consider "problematic".Of course none of it is problematic to science, only to the twisted uneducated religious minds that so fear the facts of reality.Science has no problem explaining the 30-50 million year run of the cambrian radiation from its pre-cambrian beginnings.Yes, there are pre-cambrian fossils. Look 'em up. Here, I'll help get you started.The kid is counting begats? Really?And note that a lot of these begatters were 700, 800, 900 years old.And note that in all this begatting there were no women around.No wonder you see your god as so pissed at the humans. According to you the whole population was begat into existence by a bunch of really way-old faggots.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So, Santa Claus fiction is your evidence. Your credibility just keeps dropping.

You need to learn something about the Bible, not simply accept the tall tales that your religious leaders tell you.The books of the Old Testament were written down in the Persian Period starting in 538 BCE. Before then, it was primarily oral tradition, stories passed down from generation to generation. Furthermore, that oral tradition had just gone through half a century of the Babylonian Exile where it had been exposed to and influenced by foreign traditions (eg, the assimilation of elements of the Gilgamesh Epic into the Noachian Flood story). Note also the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE) which pre-dates Mosaic Law by a few centuries (estimates of when Moses was supposed to have been date to the 1500's BCE), yet Mosaic Law very strongly parallels Hammurabic Code (though Hammurabi was more lenient on some questions, such as the status of children of slaves and freemen).Please also note how much oral tradition can change in even a couple decades. One example is the old parlor game of "Telegraph" (AKA "Telephone") in which you line everybody up, give a message to the first person, have each person whisper the message to the next person, then compare the final version with the original -- they're usually wildly different. Another example is the fundamental conceit of Romanticism, which was that folk stories extended back many centuries into the past, whereas few were more than two or three generations old. Oral tradition is interesting, but its validity cannot be trusted, especially to the degree that you are assuming.Working through the chronology presented in the Old Testament yields a purported date for Creation of about 4185 BCE (see my page, ARE THERE GAPS IN THE GENEALOGIES IN DETERMINING WHEN ADAM LIVED?, which is a reposting of a YEC article). That date is 3647 years before the Old Testament started being written. We've seen how much that oral tradition changed in just half a century, but that's just a drop in the bucket compared to 3647 years of change -- assuming that the oral tradition had even been around that long and not simply 500 to 1000 years.Plus there's the trivial point that the word for such a period dominated by oral tradition is "prehistory." There can be no such thing as a prehistorical historical document.Now, if you want to see a historical genealogy, look to the complete genealogy of the Japanese Emperor which traces his ancestry directly all the way back to Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess. Every single ancestor in that line, generation after generation, is written down. Therefore, by your own logic, Shinto is the One True Faith, you barbarian heathen. So show us why that would be. Support your nonsense. Since you have now revealed that you are a YEC, I assume that you would use the human population growth claim, so just present it.Edited by dwise1, : Hammurabi

Oh, so you think I should place my trust in evolutionary scientists? That's 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 so funny!

The Cambrian explosion exists and is there for all to see - you have no excuse.

I realize that - like I said, a species from one genus evolved into a species of another genus. Hey, that's a very impressive graphic - but you forgot to mention that it's all based on the ASSUMPTION of common ancestry - all those branches are inferred from a BELIEF, not fact.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The OP asks for practical uses for the theory of common descent, not for ToE. Thank you, but I'm aware that a scientific theory is not proven. 1. You say you can't "prove" that the inner-ear of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. This could mean you observed it happening ... but somehow I doubt that's the case.2. You cannot demonstrate (prove) that the inner-ear of a mammal is even capable of evolving from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. (This is like saying, "I know the Pope is controlled by aliens", but you can't so much as prove that aliens exist.) It seems to me that your claim to scientific knowledge consists of taking a gigantic gap in the fossil record and filling it in with your blind faith in evolution.3. The fact of the matter is, you don't "KNOW" it happened - you merely BELIEVE it happened.4. The only reason you claim to "KNOW" it happened is that you believe there is no other possible explanation - thus your claim to Knowledge is actually nothing more than an example of a Fallacy of the False Alternative.5. What selection pressures could have possilbly caused the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a reptile and how did each evolutionary step (mutation) confer a survival advantage? Evolutionists can't even begin to answer such questions, of course; they simply do what they've always done ... pull out their "evolution done it (somehow)" card and bluff their way through. Is it any wonder increasing numbers of evolutionary theorists (such as Gerd Muller) are calling out current evolutionary theory for its lack of explanatory power viz-a-viz macroevolution?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Since there are different definitions of ToE, I hesitate to say that the Cambrian explosion contradicts it. Rather, I would say the Cambrian explosion contradicts the theory of common descent, which is included in some defintions of ToE."... there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors. Even though conditions for the preservation of ancestral forms, whether soft-bodied or microscopic, are ideal (even sponge embryos are found in similar strata), the precursors are nowhere to be found. Paleontologist J. Y. Chen said in the film Icons of Evolution, “Darwinism is maybe only telling part of the story for evolution. Darwin’s tree is a reverse cone shape. Very unexpectedly, our research is convincing us that major phyla is starting down below at the beginning of the Cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows. This is almost turned a different way.” His colleague Zhou Qui Gin, a senior research fellow at the site, says (translated), “I do not believe that animals developed gradually from the bottom up. I think the animals suddenly appeared. Among the Chengyiang animals we have found 136 different kinds of animals. And they represent diversity in the level of phyla and classes. So their sudden appearance makes them very special.”
Chinese Fossil Bed Astounds Paleontologists, freerepublic.com, 02/21/2003
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists"On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Gnter Bechly, paleoentomologist and former curator for amber and fossil insects for the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about evidence for macroevolution among insects. The fossil record is “saturated,” Bechly says. By that he doesn’t mean there aren’t new fossil forms to discover. Bechly himself has discovered several. He means we have an extensive enough sampling to confidently discern the major patterns of change and stasis in the history of life. And it shows no sign of insect evolution. It shows no transition from marine arthropods to terrestrial insects, none from wingless insects to winged insects, and no gradual evolution to insects (such as beetles and butterflies) that go through a metamorphosis that includes a pupal stage. And evidence for common ancestry is either contradictory or missing. In short, Bechly argues, the insect fossil record is much better explained by intelligent design than blind evolution."
Gnter Bechly: Rich Fossil Record Says No to Insect Evolution, March 11, 2019 , discovery.org.
Gnter Bechly: Rich Fossil Record Says No to Insect Evolution | ID the Future"The 1909 discovery of the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies provided the best fossil record of the Cambrian explosion until the 1984 discovery of the slightly older Maotianshan Shales in Chengjiang, China. Because of their excellent preservation, the Chengjiang fauna (many of which were soft-bodied) document the Cambrian explosion in exquisite detail, and J.-Y. Chen was the world expert.
In his February (1999) lecture at the Burke Museum of the University of Washington, Chen described many of the Chengjiang fossils and argued that their abrupt appearance in the early Cambrian was a problem for Darwinian evolution. Darwin’s theory predicts that minor taxonomic differences (such as species and genera) gradually evolve into larger differences (such as classes and phyla), whereas the fossils show that the phyla and many classes appeared first and then diversified into a variety of genera and species. Chen called this “top-down” evolution, to contrast it with the “bottom-up” evolution required by Darwin’s theory. Afterwards, scientists in the audience asked him a lot of questions about specific fossils, but they completely avoided the topic of Darwinian evolution. When Chen later asked me why, I told him that perhaps they were just being polite, because most American scientists disapprove of criticizing Darwinism. At that he laughed, and said: “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
""In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude"
"In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude | Evolution NewsEdited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I don't discuss YEC beliefs because I'm not a YEC.

Thank you for that explanation. This means that when an evolutionary scientist claims the theory of common descent is a fact, he has committed the fallacy of an appeal to authority, since an evolutionary scientist is not an authority on reality, but only an authority on evolutionary science.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

No manipulation of words required ... and you're a bit late - I've already won the debate.

It's interesting that even the many highly qualified scientists who doubt the claims of evolutionary science make the same complaint about evo' scientists - ie, ad hominem attacks.

I said, "all life shares a common ancestor"... which you've somehow twisted into "life comes from a common ancestor".I will reiterate: To say, "all life is connected", is to say that all life shares a common ancestor - a belief that has no practical use in applied science.

Bullshit! You presented a YEC claim, so you are responsible for that claim. That is a false YEC claim. I specifically called upon you to explain why you make such a false claim: Instead, you went out of your way to avoid answering the question. Like a typical YEC. If you do not want to be seen as a YEC, then stop behaving like one.So answer the question!