Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

see reply to Message 997Enjoy

see response to Message 1003Enjoy

Message 966Except that there is evidence for macroevolution via known evolutionary processes, you just don't accept them. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent for some known as of 2012. It will take forever without objective empirical evidence substantiating it. All you appear to have is anecdotal evidence and wishful thinking pretending to be science. Message 997Sadly - for you - you are (still) wrong again. The changes documented in the fossil record show the pattern of proximity in space/time and in degree of evolution predicted by the ToE, and that are actually seen and documented in living species today: this is sufficient to say they are explained by the ToE. This what validation looks like. Nope, it is accepted by overwhelming majority of biological scientists (because ... see previous comment), and it is also confirmed by the independent analysis of genetic analysis and genome comparisons. Objective empirical evidence, unlike anecdotal evidence which you appear to rely on. Message 998Curiously, missing information is not contradictory. That's called a swing and a miss: Message 1003Citing the fossil record is not sufficient to claim evidence for "outside tampering" -- you have to show what tampering was involved and why it supports your claim. Objective empirical evidence ... that you are missing And curiously, (micro)evolutionary change is still what the evidence shows: limited changes from generation to generation, within the temporal/spacial matrix limitations. The preponderance of evidence of dinosaur to flightless feathered dinosaur to bird increases every year. Plus bone types and breating system. Another case of a "missing link" being filled in by later objective empirical evidence.This hasn't been affected by progress in the relatively new field of genetic engineering. What genetic analysis has done is improve the evidence of evolutionary change explaning the known objective empirical evidence. Yes. It provides the best explanation provided by science, based on objective empirical evidence rather than fantasy, anecdotal evidence, denial of science and wishful thinking.... "out of nowhere" is really meaningless hyperbole in terms of the fossil record ... as it could be said of every fossil, which makes it redundant, tautological and banal, like most of your posts.It is amusing the lengths you've gone to in order to argue for an alien conspiracy theory instead of a fact based analysis ... because reality challenges your cherished strongly held beliefs (resulting in cognitive dissonance and resulting denial).

quote:

---

TIP Sheet
CONSPIRACY THEORY & CONSPIRACISM

​

You say you believe the government is hiding something at Area 51-captured alien spacecraft, perhaps? The conjectures and rumors surrounding Area 51 comprise a revered conspiracy theory (many theories, actually). Do you believe the aliens among us are the hidden driving force in human history? ...

​

Test your favorite conspiracy against the following components typical of conspiracism and conspiracy theories:

​

1. THEY (the conspirators) are a relatively small group, but powerful and corrupt. They are evil, or at least selfish, acting in their own interest and against the public interest. They have great foresight, patience, and deviousness. Nevertheless, they are not all-powerful or even that smart, really, since WE have figured them out.
2. WE are a small, dedicated group of freedom fighters and freethinkers. We are soldiers, rebels in the fight for good against evil.
3. YOU are clueless. Why can't you see what's going on here? (Conspiracy theorists place most people in this group.)
4. THEY have hidden or destroyed all the evidence that would implicate them and have manufactured false evidence that exculpates them.
5. YOU are close-minded. In fact, you are probably one of THEM.

​

The comfort of conspiracy theory is that it provides a well-defined enemy and a sense of control (or at least structure) in the face of upheaval and disempowerment; the tendency to perceive conspiracy is more common in groups experiencing social isolation or political marginalization. ...

​

Conspiracy theories and conspiracism share three problems:

​

• Unfalsifiability
• Fallacy
• Naivete

​

Unfalsifiability

​

The main problem with any particular conspiracy theory is not that it's wrong, but that it's inarguable; not that it's false, but that it is unfalsifiable. Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable.

​

A theory is falsifiable if it is possible to test it against evidence to discover if it is true. To test a scientific theory, for example, a scientist would examine a body of evidence to formulate a general theory, which she, in turn, would test against more evidence to try to determine whether her theory might be true. Conspiracy theory is untestable because it invariably proposes that the evidence has been tampered with. ...

​

Fallacy

​

In addition to being unfalsifiable, conspiracy theories fall into a variety of fallacies. For example, the insufficiency of evidence leads to the fallacy of hasty conclusion. The tendency to demonize the conspirators falls into the ad hominem fallacy. Circular reasoning or special pleading emerges when, while the freedom fighters agree in principle that claims should be substantiated by evidence, in the special case of this conspiracy, evidence has been lost/altered/fabricated/destroyed. ...

​

Naivete

​

... Philosophy professor Jerry Goodenough at the University of East Anglia, U.K., points out in his article "Critical Thinking About Conspiracy Theories" (www.uea.ac.uk/~j097/CONSP01.htm) that "believers" often fail to take a sufficiently critical look at the quality of evidence, such as it is. Objective evidence for conspiracy theories is typically sketchy or absent. Eyewitness evidence, then, is the mainstay, even though study after study demonstrates the inaccuracy of most eyewitness accounts. ...

---

Sounds a lot like all the evolution disbelievers, from fundamentalist YEC to apologist OEC, IDologist, and science denialists. People who want reality to match their belief instead of belief matching reality.Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

See response to Message 1022Enjoy

I'm not a YEC

Thousands of people have claimed to have seen UFOs - on the other hand, ZERO people have claimed to have seen macroevolution.You're getting ahead of yourself - fossils show that macroevolution has occurred, but fossils don't tell us HOW it occurred. Your Darwinist explanation is merely one possible explanation ... which is supported by fossil evidence, but isn't CONFIRMED by fossil evidence.

I didn't ask why "you would WANT to know the answer to" such questions. I asked why I - or more to the point - why a biologist would NEED to ask such questions. Why do you as a biologist NEED to link an extant organism you are studying to some distant ancestor that lived millions of years ago? I contend that doing so achieves nothing of any practical benefit - in other words, it's a useless exercise and a waste of time. By "ancestral state" I take it you mean the ancestral state of an extant organism. But that's not what I'm talking about - obviously. You haven't yet explained to me how the theory of common descent is useful in your work. (Note: For Pete's sake don't confuse the "theory of common descent" with "common descent" - the latter is obviously useful in a practical sense.)Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Fossils reveal that "evolution" has occurred, but fossils don't confirm any explanation for that "evolution". One find in scientific terms is regarded as no more than luck - oh, except in evolutionary "science", in which the accepted norms of statistics are ignored when convenient.

What the evolutionary ancestors of a trilobite? Algae? Bacteria?

I agree - but fossils don't tell us HOW.

Inexplicable gaps and sudden appearances of novel creatures in the fossil record - insects, for example.

Ah yes, but fossils don't confirm that Darwinian evolution is responsible for that progression. And insects appearing out of nowhere, for example, is hardly evidence of Darwinian evolution. Other huge gaps in the fossil record don't support Darwinism - they contradict it.

1. Aliens manipulated DNA to produce nested hierarchies. That capability is evident in the ancestral patterns of extant creatures.As for 1-4, all these phenomena (which any Grade 7 student would be familiar with) are explained by 1. above - they are legacies of genetic engineering performed by aliens over millions of years. Consider this scenario:
One group of scientists is given the task of producing a whale from a rodent using the principles of mutations and artificial selection.
Another group of scientists is given the task of producing a whale from a rodent using the principles of genetics engineering.Given that thousands of years of humans using mutations and artificial selection has failed to produce anything even close to macroevolution in any plants or animals, which group of scientists do you think is going to have the most success? (You don't have to be Einstein to come up with the correct answer!)Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Nonsense - "known evolutionary processes" demonstrate nothing more "known evolutionary process". You are conflating wishful thinking and science. Oh, and I suppose all those gaps and sudden appearances in the fossil record are predicted by ToE as well! Your quack theory relies on cheery-picking the evidence. The "incomplete fossil record" excuse is running out of puff - Gunter Bechly considers the fossil record to be "saturated" - meaning, we have enough fossil evidence now to conclude that the record is complete in a general sense. That is to say, the gaps and sudden appearances will always be gaps and sudden appearances. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Yeah, right ... and this is why Gould described the fossil record as an "embarrassment" to Darwinian gradualism! Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes.
And apparently insects appearing out of nowhere demonstrates microevolutionary changes - hilarious! Tell that to Gunter Bechly. Deny the evidence, if that's the best you can do. It amusing the lengths you've gone to in order to deny that my "aliens" theory is light years ahead of your simplistic, still-stuck-in-the-nineteenth-century Neo-Darwinism (a horse-drawn cart with new wheels is still a horse-drawn cart).
The history of science is littered with the remains of mediocre, conservative thinkers who couldn't adapt to change.