Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Yeah, right - your "evidence" is a few fossils with a gigantic gap between reptiles and mammals. That's it.
You have no the slightest idea what so sort of environmental pressures would cause the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a mammal, nor can you begin to explain how the supposed mutations evolved in this process would confer survival advantages.As usual, the massive holes in your tissue-thin "theory" are filled with huge doses of wishful thinking and blind faith in evolution.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

According to your own view, humans and chimps are physically different because of the differences between their genomes, correct?If so, then mutations are capable of producing different species because mutations produce differences between genomes. If this were the case then a Creator could not produce different species because any change to a genome would interrupt functioning alleles. Name one difference between the human and chimp genomes that the mechanisms of mutation could not produce. Just one.

The fossils fill that gap. That screeching sound you hear is the goal posts being drug across the field. Are transitional fossils evidence or not?

As you have already agreed, if we change the human genome into the chimp genome then we would get a chimp.

Yes, 'whatever'... Seriously? How do you get that?I just said that I don't "know" (your sense of the word) how it happened.I'm beginning to think you have some serious comprehension problems.

That's easy. The genetic differences between chimps and humans are the mutations that produced different species.

You guys are good at making unsupportable assertions or stating the Evo Creed over and over again and thinking you've actually said something scientific. It's ridiculous, Taq. You have to SHOW that mutations can turn an ape into a human. You have to show first of all how they can change something that is characteristic of a species into something entirely different that doesn't belong to that species. That is impossible for starters. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, what have you got?Are you saying that we should ignore the data that are present? It is an explanation that fits the data, the timing and has a mechanism.What is your explanation?Nothing? So, we should just ignore the data that are present, because they do not satisfy you?Sorry, it isn't going to work that way.

Thank you for the information. I need to re-acquaint myself with the details - my memory, my fragile eggshell mind and my low IQ (9) have conspired against me on this occasion.Anyways, none of that weakens my argument: There is no fossil record of evolutionary ancestors for the many novel phyla that appeared during and after the Cambrian explosion. For example, trilobites, fish and insects seemingly appeared out of nowhere.
The best scientific argument for this evidence is genetic engineering performed by aliens (and not Darwinian evolution, which is little more than a glorified version of the nineteenth-century superstition of spontaneous generation).Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Not to mention that mutations, being random, aren't going to occur where you want them when you want them and it would take hundreds or thousands or millions of them before you'd get anything remotely close to the inner ear bones of the mammal, by which time you should have accumulated that many transitionals with so many bizarre looking bone things growing out of the reptile jaw all utterly useless to the animal, but still you think this is possible? Oh I'm sure. Too bad it's impossible.

All the differences between the human and chimp genome can be ascribed to mutations. Mutation is defined as a change in the genome. If we tabulated every difference between the two genomes we could produce a chimp by making those changes in a human genome and vice versa.Those changes would be mutations..We haven't actually done this, it's beyond our current capabilities, and there's ethics issues. But the process would produce a genome identical to a chimp. It would produce a chimp.

I suggest Karl Popper's grasp of the English language is pathetic - I understand very little of the above statement. Okay. Thanks. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Darwinian explanation prevailed in primitive minds, but Darwin et al had no concept of advanced aliens from outer space and no experience of UFOs, but these days we know better.
The best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth is that it is the result of billions of years of aliens having fun with genetic engineering. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Show the math. Small changes can have far-reaching consequences.Of course the point is that you have no clue how many changes or what changes would be required over a time period about which you are, wait for it...Clueless!

We have no credible evidence of advanced aliens or interstellar travel.ABE your inability to understand Popper is yours. That paragraph is well written and easily comprehended by one with the appropriate vocabulary. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Please describe the genus and species of your Cambrian insects.I'd also like to see your documentation of a Cambrian trout.And an explanation of why the Edicaran-type of fauna could not be precursors to the Cambrian ones. According to you. As yet, you have provided no evidence of such aliens. You have no mechanism.