Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

You keep repeating this claim, but hitherto have failed to explain how the theory of common descent (ie, the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor) has provided a practical use in medical science.

That genealogy goes back only to about 800 BC, which doesn't do much for your theory that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. 800 BC is in line with the much shorter Biblical time-frame.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Of course Adam and Eve were real!I believe Noah's flood is an historical fact, but I also believe it wasn't global.Did all humanity descended from Noah's family? I think so.No modern animals evolved in last 4000 years - all animals were created, beginning billions of years ago.

"Recent research"? You mean just another untestable theoretical fantasy dreamed up by atheists who can't accept the implications of the non-existence of fossil ancestors leading up to the Cambrian explosion. An untestable theory doesn't even qualify as science - it's just a worthless story.

Oh dear ... if this is your best defence, you're in trouble. As time goes by, the "incomplete fossil record" argument gets weaker and weaker. The Chinese Cambrian fossil beds did evolutionary theory no favours at all - more soft-bodies fossils were found but no evolutionary links between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian.

Deary, deary me. Another mistake of embarrassing proportions. Apparently I'm a "YEC" who accepts the scientific evidence that life on earth could have started billions of years ago - hilarious!Listen, this is how it works: “YEC” stands for Young Earth Creationist. Please note the part that says “Young Earth”. I don’t believe in a “Young Earth” - in fact, I accept that scientific evidence that suggests the earth (and life on earth) could be billions of years old. I accept the same fossil record and time-frame as you do. Therefore, I cannot be a Young Earth Creationist. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Where are the fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary links between the sponges, worms and barnacles of the pre-Cambrian and the fish of the Cambrian? What are the evolutionary ancestors of insects? Your questions are unscientific in nature and not relevant to the thread.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Of course there are - I never said there weren't. But unfortunately for your evolution belief system, there are no fossils that show evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian life-forms and all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion. Please be advised that, by any standard, the Bible qualifies an authentic, historical document. I'm sure your homophobic language does not please the Great False god of Equality that you atheists invented.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Why is it “superior” to the Biblical genealogies? Wait . is it because it claims men descended from gods and that Japanese Emperors are gods? If so, Yes, you make a very valid point - genealogies based on such fantasies are completely trustworthy! I’ve already answered that question. You’re so funny sometimes! Laughter is the best medicine. The reality is, only God can fill the gaps. Take the Cambrian explosion, for example - your evolution story is hopeless at explaining the total lack of pre-Cambrian ancestral links. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

So organisms went from soft-bodies to hard-bodied with no fossil evidence? Dream on.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Beats me. We will never know when the fossil record is complete. I’m glad you mentioned this, as I have recently adopted a scientific explanation for the fossil record (which I will preface by saying, science cannot explain the fossil record and I don’t believe in aliens): The history of life on earth is the result of genetic engineering performed by aliens. This explanation seems to me to be at least as scientifically valid as Darwinian evolution, but one that makes a lot more sense. (Science cannot rule out the existence of intelligent aliens who could perform such feats of creative daring-do.) I can’t document fossils that don’t exist.

Just google “Ediacaran life-forms” . any mug can do it. Btw, there will be a question on this subject in the final exam - you have been warned.

The Ediacaran fossils were a “precursor“ to the Cambrian, but they can hardly be described as a “link” - there are no fossil links between E and C. For example, where are the links between the Ediacaran organisms (worms, sponges, barnacles, jelly fish) and the fish that appeared in the Cambrian? Ditto for Ediacaran life-forms and insects. My scientific explanation is that aliens took the Ediacaran creatures, seriously fiddled with their DNA and voila!... welcome to new and improved creatures of the Cambrian!"BSTs (Burgess Shale Types) from the latest Ediacaran Period (eg, Miaohe biota, 550 Ma) are abundantly fossiliferous with algae but completely lack animals, which are also missing from other Ediacaran windows, such as phosphate deposits (eg, Doushantuo, 560 Ma)" - Daley AC, Antcliffe JB, Drage HB, Pates S 2018. Early fossil record of Euarthropoda and the Cambrian Explosion. PNAS, 9 pp. It’s interesting how you’ve conflated “testing a theory” and “finding evidence for a theory”. I think of a “test” as confirming or proving something. Hence, there is no way to test what happened between Fossil A and Fossil B. All you’ve got is a gap between two different fossils, which you fill in with blind faith in evolution. My “aliens did it” explanation can’t be tested either (although it remains the best scientific explanation)."To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion" Henry Gee, Nature (magazine), 1999. “It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test” - Colin Patterson, from a letter to Luther Sunderland, 1979."To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed-time story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." Henry Gee, Nature (magazine), 1999.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Oh, if only that were true! My IQ has been evaluated at 9 . which I’m told is “above average” for someone with a fragile, eggshell mind. But I would dearly love to move my IQ into double-digits - 12 would be great.

There are several so-called explanations, none of which can be tested, for course. My favorite is the “Oxygen” explanation - apparently, an increase in oxygen in the environment can turn a sponge or a worm into a fish . and in a very short period of time!Imo, my “aliens did it” explanation trumps all the insipid evolutionary explanations. If I were an evolutionist confronted by the Cambrian explosion, I would stick my head in the sand of wishful thinking, pseudo-science and denial too. Please consider adopting my “aliens did it” explanation - it explains the evidence so much better than dumb ol’ evolution, which is about 150 years out-of-date.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.