Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

OK... so what do you think adding "God did it" does for our ability to explain the fossil record?You say "Don't be silly" to my question and then go on to say this: Who's being silly? Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of aliens, that explanation hardly provides a suitable explanation. So what are you thinking? Did these aliens tinker around for millions of years manipulating the DNA of a species until they came up with something they liked... that was just a little bit different than the previous version? Because genomes are a mess. There is no obvious organization or methodical restructuring to genomes, they are put together chaotically, disorganized and lack any indication that they have been systematically engineered.To you, it may seem plausible. We find a fossil of Thrinaxodon from 230 mya, then Probainognathus from 210 mya, and then Morganonucodon from 200 mya and we can observe the changes in the shape of bones in the jaw and to you it may seem that genetic engineering aliens is as good an explanation as any (since we don't have a fossil example from every single generation between those three creatures). But it's really no explanation at all, unless you can point to some reason other than you don't want it to be evolution. That's why modern evolutionary biologists don't use Darwinist explanations. We have moved on since then to more modern theories and explanations. We now know how DNA and inheritance works for one thing. Why do anti-evolutionists always harp on Darwin? It's not like we worship him - any more than Pasteur, or Francis and Crick, or Wallace, or Mayr, or Haldane, or Einstein, or Galileo, etc. They are scientists who have made significant contributions to our understanding of our natural world. That's it. Well, I guess you wouldn't, seeing as how you are not a biologist and do not study biology or biological systems. If you did... these ARE questions you would want to know the answer to. Oh... I must have misunderstood. I thought you said the ToE was a failed theory and your theory about genetic engineering aliens was the best scientific explanation. Oh wait!! You did say that... Well, judging by how you asked the question, you really have no clue as to what you are talking about even though you seem quite confident that you are right.If you don't know what the ancestral state of a character is, how can you determine what the derived state is? How would you determine what traits were locally adapted? How would you determine how selection is affecting the character?The idea that all life shares a common ancestor is central to biological studies. Of course, if I am studying a family of plants, the idea that those plants share a common ancestor with an elephant is pretty much irrelevant. However, if two organisms share a common ancestor, we can assume they will have similar genomes except where evolution has cause modifications. These modifications are clues as to adaptive traits. It is this framework that provides context within which to view biological organisms.With genetic engineering aliens, all bets are off. We would have no context within which to put the genome differences.HBD

This video (YouTube) is from the American Museum of Natural History.Without an understanding of a UCA and the genetic bush that sprang from it, this stuff would be meaningless.Very interesting science at 3 min. And I like the philosophy to the end. Here

Creationists need a guru. Darwin is that. They can't conceive of anyone believing anything without one. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

What a pity the theory of common descent can't be tested using the aforementioned method ... or any other method. A theory that can't be tested doesn't even qualify as science.

I'm glad you said "If", because I think you are talking nonsense - my understanding is, only about 2% of the human genome shares 95-89% DNA with chimps.

Your "understanding" is nonsense.

I fear you're talking rubbish. Fossils confirm that life-forms on earth have changed over time, but fossils can't confirm or validate the cause of those changes. Fossils don't validate ToE and its mechanisms anymore than they validate my "aliens" theory and its mechanism of genetic engineering. And ToE does? You're dreaming. [qs]Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Curious that you ignore all the evidence that contradicts ToE - where is the evidence for the evolutionary ancestors of trilobites, fish and insects? Where are the missing links between the Ediacaran fauna all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion? The evidence for these "ancestors" doesn't exist! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The aforementioned method of looking at the facts and making inferences from the logic behind them? We got that.And testing? Every new fossil found is another test.You've heard of tiktaalik, right? Then you know that its discovery was a product of prediction from ToE.Hard facts, libraries of data, frequent and rigorous testing, predictive capability and predictive success.That qualifies as scientific theory on any planet. And on this planet this ToE is especially productive and accurate. I mean, look at this place. Pond scum growing up everywhere. In just over 3.5+-bnys its taken over the whole damn planet and is making internet, Hagen-Dazs Chocolate Ice Cream and is reaching for the moon.And you got what, again?

Curious that all this is incorrect. You have presented no evidence that contradicts the ToE. Which "novel" phyla?Curious beyond belief that a creationist knows the evidence that contradicts the ToE, but none of us know about it...Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

You're dreaming. It's impossible for fossils to "confirm" anything about random mutations or any other mechanism of evolution or any aspect of genetics. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

"may not have"? ... more like, "has no need at all to" - UCA is useless. Prove this nonsense claim. Supply a scientific article or paper that demonstrates that a practical use in any applied science is predicated on the concept of UCA.

Ever heard of the fossil record? For thousands of years, humans have tried to alter the characteristics of dogs, for example, in all sorts of ways using every trick in nature's toolbox - even resorting to unnatural methods such as inbreeding - but no one has managed to produce anything but more dogs. Obviously, there are genetic limits to how much organisms can change.
It was only when genetic engineering came along that the potential for producing radically different organisms was realised. Compared to genetic engineering, the mechanisms of evolution have been observed to produced only very limited and puny changes with a population. The claim that these evolutionary mechanisms can change a dinosaur into a bird (for example) are absurd and an embarrassment to science. ... like fish and insects appearing out of nowhere in the fossil record! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

And fossils confirm nothing at all about what caused these changes.

Thanks, I'll try it. If it doesn't improve things, I expect you to pay for the aluminium foil I wasted.