Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Speciation is "macroevolution"? So a Green Warbler speciating into another Green Warbler is "macroevolution"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!Ernst Mayr suggested an eminently more sensible definition - macroevolution occurs only at the level of genus or even higher (an idea he may have stolen from yours truly, btw). Other branches of science tell us only how microevolutionary variations within a population occur - no more, no less."As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior ” whose variation it describes ” actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences."
Gerd Muller, “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.”
Evolutionary Theorist Concedes: Evolution Largely Avoids Biggest Questions of Biological Origins | Evolution News Nonsense. You are evo-extrapolating into the realms of evo-fantasy. There is no way of testing the theory that observed microevolutions can account for the fossil record.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I can appreciate your point of view. I believe creation is so mysterious that I don't try and break it down into something that can be explained. For example, the fossil record can give us a good idea of the history of life on earth, but as for explaining how it happened, I have no idea and I'm happy to accept it as a divine mystery. As for scientific attempts to explain it - forget it; it's a waste of time - all you end up with is dud science like neo-Darwinism. The Biblical creation account won't make sense if one reads it literally. The pre-Adamic history of life is presented in symbolic language - because creation is a series of miracles and a literal description it's not important or relevant to the relationship between God and man (which is what the Bible is all about).Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Er, except the evidence of thousands of years of animal and plant breeding by humans, who have tried every trick in the book (include unnatural techniques like inbreeding) to change the morphology of various "kinds". No one has yet managed to produce anything even close to the macroevolution required by the Darwinian story. You forgot to mention that fossils tell us nothing about HOW evolution proceeded. Fossils don't tell us how Fossil A came to be replaced by Fossil B. Some creations (like me) also accept that “evolutionary transitions” have occurred, but they don’t accept the Darwinian explanations for such transitions.

Punk eek is a "known" evolutionary process"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!You're dreaming - punk eek is no more "known" than aliens performing genetic engineering! Punk eek is just another evo bed-time story - a far-fetched hypothesis (born of desperation) that can't be tested - ie, a pseudo-scientific fantasy that Darwinists are happy to delude themselves with.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

If that were true, you would have accepted my "aliens" theory, which is clearly scientifically superior to the nineteenth-century evolution story you can't let go of.

Yep, well typing a bunch of of repeating HAs may be a coherent argument if you're 12.So, just where and by what biology do you think evolution happens?Biological evolution in multicellular organisms only happens during a reproductive event between a male and female of the same species.Do you think there is some organism that is not an individual member of a species, but it is a genus and that it is some how performing macroevolution? Are you daft? No he didn't. No more, huh? Are you sure? Nope, I'm just reading reports of interesting new fossil finds all the time. I'm not familiar with that theory, so I don't care.

As a self-described "scientifically trained person" you should know that a scientific theory has nothing to do with personal belief. I did - weeks ago. Do try and pay attention. No smokescreen. My best scientific explanation for the fossil record is my excellent "aliens" theory. However, it is not my personal belief. You seem to think the "best scientific explanation" must also be a personal belief.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Yes.See Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated EquilibriumWe also know speciation occurs as it too has been oberved.Enjoy

Except it is not logically consistent to propose unknown unobserved aliens when your actual belief is otherwise and there is an existing theory that adequately explains the evidence.Nor do you have any actual evidence of aliens, nor any actual mechanism for achieving the purported process and you have no evidence of that process being anything other than standard ToE processes ...... and it doesn't appear to be falsifiable - a drop-dead requirement of any actual scientific theory (but not for pseudoscience twaddle) ...... unlike the ToE which is falsifiable, and it is chock full of actual observed mechanisms and actual observed processes, so no, it is no consistent with the available evidence no matter how much you pretend otherwise.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

I thought that would bring out a snide comment. Just testing my theory. That is your opinion. However, one could believe that a scientific theory is valid. Believe it or not, I don't read all of your posts. I've had enough brain damage from reading YEC gibberish. This time, it was instructive to juxtapose your 'personal belief" with your "scientific theory" that you don't believe. If your 'theory' is so excellent, you must have evidence to support it, yes? Well, if you don't believe your 'scientific theory' is valid, then why have you wasted 70(?) some pages professing it? That is practically the definition of trolling. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

If it was "clearly scientifically superior", it would be clear to scientists and not just schoolboys.

"Gnter Bechly: Rich Fossil Record Says No to Insect Evolution
Posted on March 11, , 2019On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Gnter Bechly, paleoentomologist and former curator for amber and fossil insects for the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about evidence for macroevolution among insects. The fossil record is “saturated,” Bechly says. By that he doesn’t mean there aren’t new fossil forms to discover. Bechly himself has discovered several. He means we have an extensive enough sampling to confidently discern the major patterns of change and stasis in the history of life. And it shows no sign of insect evolution. It shows no transition from marine arthropods to terrestrial insects, none from wingless insects to winged insects, and no gradual evolution to insects (such as beetles and butterflies) that go through a metamorphosis that includes a pupal stage. And evidence for common ancestry is either contradictory or missing. In short, Bechly argues, the insect fossil record is much better explained by intelligent design than blind evolution."Gnter Bechly: Rich Fossil Record Says No to Insect Evolution | ID the Future

What do the fossils tell us?

What a strange phenomenon - scientists en masse accepting and dogmatically preaching as a fact a claim that can’t ever be confirmed. I’m trying to think of another example of this in science, but I can’t. I smell a big, fat rat Right, so you know better than Gunter Bechly, a world-renowned paleontologist who specializes in insects? With all due respect, I’d say your knowledge of the paleontology of the origins of insects is rather limited (which is perfectly understandable - knowledge of the fossil history of insects is useless and irrelevant to a working biologist) and is probably based on the assumption that evidence for the evolutionary ancestors of insects exists.

You assume this is my position, but your assumption is wrong. Apart from the creation of man, I accept the same history life as you do (although the explanation for that history obviously differs).