Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

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.

"Oh dear" is right. We find more an more fossil data supporting evolution all the time. As I said, Darwin had an explanation from the beginning. Who says that the fossil record must be 'complete'? The point is that we have an explanation and you do not. Please document the fossils you are talking about.

What 'barnacles, worms and sponges' of the Precambrian are you talking about? Please document. You keep spouting this stuff like you know something about them.

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 Please be advised that, by any standard, the Bible qualifies an authentic, historical document.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.

No, we mean the fossil evidence that actually exists and an explanation for it. There was precursor life to the Cambrian species. They were the link between earlier life and Cambrian forms. Except that it is tested virtually every day in paleontological research. And it is supported by new fossil discoveries. According to someone who has literally no background in science, yes?That's convincing.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

And there is an explanation for this, your denial notwithstanding. There are in fact several lines of evidence explaining why this happened, along with the condition of the fossil record of over half a billion years ago. And it tells you all about the Cambrian explosion.That's nice. Got a reference, chapter and verse?And where does the Bible tell you that the planet is billions of years old and life a bit less?And the fossil record is not about history, but pre-history, so a 'historical' codument is really irrelevant. He was probably just using language that he thought you would understand.Nuance is really lost on you guys, isn't it? Edited by edge, : 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.

The hell you did! You expressed the YEC belief in the recent appearance of humans, contrary to the teachings of progressive creationism, referring solely to the YEC practice (again contrary to progressive creationism) of biblical literalism to support your religious assertion of the recent appearance of humans (ie, 6,000 to 10,000 years ago). This is a Science Forum! What scientific evidence you have to support your religious assertion of the recent appearance of humans? You have not yet provided any scientific support for that!Therefore, you have not even begun to answer that question! So answer the fucking question, you troll!Furthermore, you mocked the idea of humans having been around for longer that you assert: For that reversion to your imbecilic trolling you have not offered any kind of evidence nor support. You need to support your bald assertion that humans could not have been around for that long. What is your scientific evidence that would indicate the impossibility of humans having been around for 200,000 years?Again, you have never even begun to answer that question. Therefore, when you claim that you have already answer either of those questions, then you are lying to us!Stop your stupid lying and answer the fucking questions!

Since you seem to have ignored my last post I'll reiterate; since you apear to be a bit confused what you're supposed to be arguing for. It's controversial whether there are any sponges in the pre-Cambrian, but there are definitely no barnacles. Barnacles; like insects; are arthropods, one of those animal phyla which you were telling us has no pre-Cambrian evolutionary history.The woms, as I said before, are the most plausible candidates for being the ancestors of some of the phyla you think don't have ancestors, so I'm not sure why you're raising them in this context.There are still no Cambrian fish.I strongly recommend perhaps reading a book or two about the animal fossil record; since it looks a bit silly making sweeping pronouncements about the world based on something you clearly know little about.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Please be advised, just because you assert something does not make it true. By no standard is your bible an actual history. In order to be considered a document that recounts actual historical events it would need provenance and corroboration. That would just be the start to be considered a document reflecting actual history.

That IS the evidence.And it happened over an unimaginable amount of time (in human terms) and over almost all of the extant phyla. The fossil record slowly and apparently became dominated by organisms with hard body parts. This happened along with other major shifts in the geochemistry of the planet during the Proterozoic Era. If you are talking about 'dreaming' constrained by evidence, fine with me.

Well, I'm sure that you've made up your mind. I knew it!No, but thanks once again for showing a remarkable talent for missing the point. We should take that into account when dealing with trolls. In your world, it appears to be so.

What sponges, worms and barnacles of the pre-Cambrian? Described fossils have names so be specific. There are no fish in the Cambrian. Judging from what you write, you really are ignorant of this subject. Maybe you should stick with fictional characters like Adam and Eve. Earlier Arthropods, obviously. They seem pretty scientific to me. Your credibility is well into the negative when you post this sort of thing in a science thread. Here are my questions from Message 510 again. Credible or a troll?

It is fiction. Only by the standard of delusional believers is it anything but fiction. You don't know anything about atheists either. Your credibility is in the shitter when you try to use the bible in a scientific discussion.