Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Ah, so it's valid but not true. Thank you for the clarification.Okay, then, let me reword my question. If your theory is not true, why have you spent 70 some pages defending it? I never said that you believe it or that you should believe it. That's kind of the point.A valid theory should have some evidence to support it, however. So far, you have not provided evidence that supports your theory at all, much less why it should be preferred over another theory. Learn what?

Translation of the translation: "I can't possibly bring myself to admit that there is a well-established continuum of life forms from the first signs of life to the modern living communities."

About .12 caliber.

Inbreeding reduces genetic variation, for a start. Also, please explain why genetic variation accumulated over just a few thousand years in bottlenecked populations should be equivalent to the genetic variation accumulated in wild populations over 100's of millions of years.

this is the internet, loud mouth assholes like you are a dime a dozen.

Genetic engineering does not produce a phylogenetic signal. Evolution does. What do we see? A phylogenetic signal.

He thinks he's a special kind of loud mouth asshole.He should have seen talk.origins in the 90's. Karl Crawford, Ted Holden, Zoe Althrop...He's a dilettante. Those trolls were dedicated to their craft for years.

Aliens could choose to replicate a phylogenetic signal. Easy-peasyThere's an answer to every question, and yet there's no answers.

Fixed it.
Verification of the conman confirmed.Snake oil! Snake oil, I say!!

CC = Catholic Church I presume?I interpreted Dredge's statement as saying the CC is indeed "reinterpreting Scripture in light of scientific discoveries".Moose

That's probably right. I shouldn't inject my comments into religious inconsistencies.

I’m not trying to get all Shelbyville Manhattan, but why do you describe inbreeding as unnatural? Yes as Taq correctly pointed out this reduces genetic variation, which means that there will be an increased probability that detrimental traits will be expressed, as well as beneficial traits. The reason this is a problem when we look at modern humans is that dying from a genetic disorder is a tragedy that could be avoided. Similarly, in terms of livestock, food plants (I don’t know the technical term for that) and I suppose pets, the detrimental effects can be mitigated by how we manipulate the environment that these organisms live in. It’s also worth pointing out that inbreeding doesn’t create mutations, since they happen all the time, but the environment we create allows the detrimental mutations to propagate at the same time as we try to maximise our artificially selected preferential mutations. It is for these reasons that our perception of what genetic mutations can accomplish can become skewedBut in nature for plants and animals, including us not too long ago, things are different. All things being equal, a significant majority of offspring in each generation will die from lack of resources, predation or disease. Individuals held back by their genes will die off, freeing up resources that those individuals who have an advantage through their genes can use to thrive. Sometimes this differential between advantage and disadvantage can occur within a single brood. This means advantageous mutations can propagate through a population more quickly, while disadvantageous mutations can be removed without lingering, like in the artificial environments we create.Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.

... and you failed miserably. No one here knows what the hell you're talking about.

You seemed to have missed the point. I not talking about your "macro = micro + time" theory; I talking about what fossils tell us - they tell us WHAT happened, not HOW it happened. Science cannot determine HOW the history of life unfolded; it can only guess.

So you "know" ToE is true? If so, why do you call it the "THEORY of evolution" and not the "FACT of evolution"?Furthermore, since you "know how macroevolution occurred", please explain how you would use the principles of ToE to breed reptiles into mammals. Or fish into amphibians? Can you even begin to explain how you would go about achieving such feats? Can't wait for your answers!And while you're thinking that over, let me remind you of what happens when dog breeders, for example, try too hard to "evolve" dogs - harmful mutations arise, producing weak, unfit animals. These mutations are so severe that they seriously limit how much selective breeding can achieve in terms of changing the original animal. So if dog breeders come up against a genetic "brick wall" and can't get even remotely close to breeding a non-dog from a dog, how the hell are you going to breed a mammal from a reptile, or an amphibian from a fish?Oh, and another thingt: The only way dog breeders can produce radical mutations is by grossly reducing the genetic diversity of the population. So how does your Darwinist macroevolution manage to produce an INCREASE in diversity?It seems to me that there's a substantial disconnect between your evo-fantasy and reality.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.