Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Practically no one adheres to 'Darwinian gradualism' any more. Please try to catch up to the 1970's. The point being? You are easily amused by false arguments. What is really pathetic is your complete lack of an intersection with modern science.

That would not be typical troll behavior.

I don't know what puff is, but it is an accurate description. Every new fossil discovery makes the record a little less incomplete, so science seems to be working properly. Do you have a reference for where he says this?I assume he is talking about discovered fossils when he refers to the fossil record, so obviously we have we have the fossils we have discovered so far.Also obviously, the complete fossil record includes all the discovered fossils and all the undiscovered fossils and all the gaps.The only way Bechly can support his quack theory is by intentionally ignoring evidence. They are predicted by paleontological and geological theory. The ToE explains them.You are correct, the Theory of Evolution, cherry picks ALL the evidence, that's the point, to explain ALL the evidence.This may be end up being true for some, but as discoveries are made some gaps disappear and sudden appearances turn out not to be sudden after all.

Well you could ask him to answer this - it's what I've attempted to pull out of his muddle; so far he doesn't seem to want to.

quote:

---

Just to clarify a few things that you believe.

​

The earth is very old - let's say 3.4bn years?
Your Christian god created it?
Your Christian god created simple life forms which then evolved through natural processes into more complex lifeforms?
Until they got to the Cambrian, then aliens got to work with their genetic engineering?
Then normal evolution occurs again for the next 600million years or so?
(Do the aliens return after the various mass extinction events- maybe after dinosaurs go extinct for instance?)
Then we get to our ape descendants where your Christian god comes back and create Homo sapiens?

​

Is that about it?

​

Did you Christian god make the aliens?

​

Do you worship the aliens?

---

Obviously he doesn't actually believe the alien stuff, he just thinks he's being clever substituting his god for aliens. Not understanding, of course, that he's introduced two unidentified and unidentifiable agents which makes whatever argument he thought he had doubly fatuous.

Unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable.

IIRC Dredge is an OEC

quote:

---

Old Earth creationism is a form of creationism which includes gap creationism, progressive creationism, and theistic evolution.[1] Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with the scientific evidence on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology, and the age of the Earth, in contrast to young Earth creationism.[2]

---

And he has several times referred to "progressive creationism"

quote:

---

Progressive creationism (see for comparison intelligent design) is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."[1]

---

Sound familiar?Always good to try to understand what you are arguing against.Enjoy

Actually it has been observed, in the field, and documented in scientific journal. Happened via mutation and selection ... known evolutionary processes, not by mystical alien invisible/undetectable fingers. Gaps were predicted by Darwin. "Sudden appearance" would be at the end of a gap, of course, and they were also well explained by Punctuated Equilibrium, something Darwin had also discussed. Curiously, the record IS rather complete "in a general sense" ... meaning that in spite of the "gaps and sudden appearances" currently in the record, we know enough of the general process from LUCA to now to get the general picture of the diversity of life over the natural history of the planet. We also know that new finds will more likely fill in the gaps than present contrary evidence. That's because of the high confidence level scientists have with the ToE being the best explanation available at this time.Enjoy

And amazingly they are still unidentified. Well, except for all the scientists who have documented speciation occurring, which is how science defines macroevolution. Maybe not, but evidence from other branches of science do tell us how evolution occurs, so as more evidence is discovered we we can understand more and more about how it occurred in the past. Our evolutionary theory is the only one that explains all the evidence in a scientifically consistent way.And while you may not accept that the conclusion that life may have descended from one or more common ancestors has a practical use in "applied science" it turns out, as is often the case, that technologies and techniques developed from one field find useful applications in many other fields.

But not to evolution in general. Even Darwin rejected universal gradualism. There is evidence of gradualism in the forminafera fossil record, and there is evidence of more rapid evolution and stasis (eg punk eek) in the fossil record. All known evolutionary processes. Wrong. Except they did not appear "out of nowhere" ...That's 3 wrongs in 3 sentences. You really appear to know not that you know naught about this topic.Enjoy

Apparently, Dredge thinks the earth is billions of years old but humans have only been around for 10ky.This strikes me as a bit of cognitive dissonance and cherry-picking of the Bible.In post 556, Dredge comments that the Bible is historical and that the reported genealogies are valid.It struck me at that time that perhaps Dredge believes the earth to be something 'more than 10ky' in age, which would hardly qualify him as a legitimate old earther.But we may never really know, considering the cryptic and sometimes contradictory nature of his posts. Good luck on that. I don't know if we can assume that someone is trying to make sense.

We should start a new designation. Young/Old Earth Creationist (YOEC).The vocalization of which would come out as yokel.

That would be funnier if I were laughing at *them* instead of examining myself. For the record, I consider myself only as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence. Beyond that I have no belief. Biblical creationism never made much logical sense to me, but I dont reject it 100% due to the fact that so many people whom I otherwise respect DO in fact believe it.

I always enjoy reading these arguments, assertions, and litany of facts presented here at EvC by our science-qualified members. Just as I don't reject Biblical Creationism wholesale only because I know quite a few who believe it.By the same standard, I respect the contrarian views of the educated members here at EvC and thank them for their patience, humility, and willingness to share what they know with many of us who don't.Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time.

quote:

---

Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time.

---

That really depends on what you mean by “Creationism”. As the idea is usually understood the evidence is very much against it.Creationism started by endorsing fixity of species - which was reasonable for a long time, before fossils were recognised as the remains of living creatures. Historical evidence did not show signs of change. Egyptian tomb art, for instance - and their animal mummies showed recognisable species. Artificial selection could modify form, but it did not create new species.Creationism carried on endorsing that for a long time, even after the fossil evidence was understood. But that changed in more recent decades. Granted the reason for that change was the realisation that there were too many species to fit on Noah’s Ark - but still it is significant that they endorsed evolution as the answer. Even now Faith is extremely uncomfortable with that and wished that creationists wouldn’t admit it.However, that raises a question. Granted that evolution works to the level of producing species and genera can it go even further ? The evidence does not reveal any convenient boundaries or limits that would restrict evolution to the Creationist “kinds”. The evidence for evolution does cross the assumed boundaries - the taxonomic “tree of life” is a single tree, not a collection of little shrubs. Even if we reject the “transitional fossil” label for the more descriptive “anatomical intermediate” we do have many such fossils and they do support the idea of evolutionary transitions. Genetic evidence, too, points to common ancestry beyond the level where creationists would be happy.It seems unreasonable, then, to treat that sort of creationism as a scientifically or even intellectually valid point of view. The “kind” concept lacks even any theological validation beyond “solving” the problem of room in the Ark. Why then, should anyone other than those apologists who find it necessary to answer the Ark problem consider it at all likely to be true ?

Becoming Deist? Christian Deist? Logical fallacy of popularity, ie not a valid reason. Seems more like reluctance to me. I was told (by Mr Jack IIRC) that I was by definition a creationist when I first visited here, because I believe god/s created the universe, so that really opens up a spectrum of creationism versus "Biblical Creationism" (young, old, etc), ID etc. It really doesn't matter to me what one believes, as long as it is both logically consistent and consistent with the available evidence. Belief in a young earth is patently/provably false (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1), as is belief in an actual world wide global flood. Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, cherry picking and idée fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.Enjoy