Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

So, about ten fossils spanning a period of millions of years demonstrate microevolutionary steps? I think you’re a few fossils short to make that claim - by about a thousand . at least.

What a pity you haven't recognised all my other nuts of wisdom

. of a fraction of the total genome - that's the point

Your observation that this sequence is short a thousand intermediate fossils is based on what rationale?How long did you expect microevolution to take turning one species into another?You have shown us no reason to doubt either the lineage or the timeline in this sequence. You have only your personal incredulity as an objection.Your incredulity, born of a lack of training and a religious motivation, means nothing here.Got anything else?Anything actually substantive?

You're ignoring my point: You can dig up all the fossils you like, but they don't tell us HOW macroevolution occurred. Neo-Darwinism is found wanting when trying to explain the fossil record:"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 NewsEdited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I didn't expect you to understand how/why the video relates to UCA.You're a denier, remember? Did you lose your list of the cast in this little play?I added the video to show everyone else in the lurk-o-sphere there is both utility and applied use to the theory. You'll notice that the video was not a response to you.

We already know how macroevolution occurred.The fossil record shows us that microevolution over many thousand generations is macroevolution. The fossils tell us what happened and Genetics tells us the chemistry. That's how.It's all covered in the The Theory of Evolution. You really should learn about it.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So you neglected to mention the whole point.So what? What evidence do you have that the rest of the genome would make any difference? Do you know the difference between the tested part and the untested part? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Of course the fossils themselves do not tell you the mechanism for evolution. We have other known data sets that provide us with a number of mechanisms, both known and documented and others that make sense in a geological framework.Your argument is irrelevant. Wow...So Muller wants to replace 'evolution' with the 'extended evolutionary synthesis'. Is that correct?That would be devastating to evolution, I'm sure.The point here is that as our knowledge base grows we see more of the finer details of evolution and see where it needs to be refined. I call this 'learning'. You may have heard of it.In the meantime, neither Muller, nor Bechly, nor DI, nor you can provide us with a mechanism for intelligent design or 'progressive creation'. Show me a designer. Show me a genetic engineer from the Triassic. Show me a genetic engineering facility from the Cambrian. Show me a 3+ billion year old genetic engineering project that leaves behind no independent evidence of its existence. You may be absolutely correct, but you cannot present any hard, independent evidence for your opinions.

That's just a bunch of wishful hogwash. Even a hundred generations of microevolution would deplete the genetic variability to the point that no further variation could occur down that llne of variation, while thousands would most probably lead to extinction of that llne of variation. You might get what you laughably believe to be "speciation," which is really nothing but a variety of the same creature that's so genetically depleted it's lost the ability to continue breeding with the parent population. Then you fantasize further variation from there which is impossible but you haven't noticed.The fossils tell you nothing, you just imagine it, you impose your imagination on what is nothing but a cemetery of dead creatures killed in the Flood. So the Genetics you hang your hopes on is impossible, and so are the bones.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet both are documented, tested, verified. Not bad for the impossible.By your definition Science does impossible things more and more these days. It's hard keeping up with all the impossibilities science is uncovering in this universe. That's just a bunch of wishful hogwash.

That seems somewhat unlikely since, as I pointed out earlier, it's a meaningless definition. Principally for the reason that there's no agreed on definition of 'genus'. How many organisms are included within a genus is a matter of fashion, aesthetics and what seems most convenient for taxonomists. As an example, titi monkeys have been for a long time been classified as one genus, Callicebus. Recently, though there has been a push by some taxonomists to recognise three genera of titis, Callicebus, Cheracebus, and Plecturocebus. The long discussion of why can be read here for free if you really want to, but it can be briefly summarised thus: 'There are loads of species of titi monkey, and we can split them into three clear groups on genetic, morphological and ecological grounds. We want these groups to be different genera.'By your genius-level definition, then, would recognising the common ancestry of titis be macroevolution now? Was it a few years ago, before anyone recognised different genera? What's the point of such a meaningless and arbitrary definition, and how can it help if we're not even in agreement on whether evolution is a thing.I went and dug out some Mayr to read what he actually said. From his 1942 book, Systematics And The Origin Of Species:

quote:

---

Under the term microevolution such evolutionary processes are understood as occur within short spaces of time and in lower systematic categories, in general within the species (hence also, intraspecific evolution). By the term macroevlution we understand the development of major evolutionary trends, the origin of higher categories, the development of new organic systems - in short, evolutionary processes that require long periods of time and concern the higher systematic categories (supra-specific evolution). There is only a difference of degree, not one of kind, between the two classes of phenomena. They gradually merge into each other and it is only for practical reasons that they are kept separate.

---

Seems to me that he saw the term, much like genus, as having an imprecise definition that varies according to convenience.

Every individual in every generation is born with mutations which increases genetic variation. This is an observable fact.

It's also an observable fact that after thousands of years of animal and plant breeding, using even unnatural methods such as inbreeding to produce gross mutations, it never occurred to anyone that plants and animals could be breed to became something radically different to the original species ... until the atheist fairy tale of Darwinism came along and hijacked science, that is.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

It's got nothing to do with the CC selling out to theistic evolution, but everything to do with reinterpreting Scripture in light of scientific discoveries ... as opposed to denying reality and clinging to an unenlightened sixteenth-century exegesis.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.