Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

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).

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

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.

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.

Translation: “I can’t bring myself to admit that there is no known fossil evidence of evolutionary links between the Ediacaran biota and the Cambrian trilobites.”

How dare you! Do you have any idea of the calibre of human you're talking to?

I fear you are talking nonsense. Accepting “the best scientific explanation” has nothing to do with believing that theory is the truth. Let this be the last time you speak of this pathetic atheist delusion. 1. How many folks claim to have seen UFOs or aliens? Thousands.
How folks claim to have seen a reptile evolve into a mammal via Darwinian processes? Zero.2. The mechanism is genetic engineering. Ever heard of it? It produces observed, repeatable macroevolutions. Google it and learn . then wake up and grow up out of your primitive, simplistic, nineteenth-century Darwinist superstition. I suggest this for you own good. I can’t at this juncture think of a way to falsify my theory - but I will let the world know when I do. . which do nothing more than describe limited variations within a population. To get from this to an explanation for the fossil record, one needs to add huge doses of wild extrapolation and wishful thinking . as well as being blessed with a very vivid imagination.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

But I do believe it’s valid (except for little matter of falsifiability) - I just don’t believe its true. Since when did a scientific theory have to be believed to be a fact to be vaild? Then how are you going to learn?Edited by Dredge, : 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.

Well said, Faith. Apparently, Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers is solid evidence that a reptile can evolve into a mammal ... this is passed off as good science! Unfortunately for the space-cadets and charlatans down at Darwinism Central, the truth is, Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers demonstrates nothing more than Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers.
And to make matters even more comicial, evolutionists claim that Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers qualifies as "macroevolution"!Well, I guess all those atheist pseudo-scientists have no choice but to accept the fantastic evo' tale - junk science is as good as it gets. And we have to keep in mind that we’re trying to reason with irrational dreamers who think it’s “scientific” to believe that life can arise from inanimate matter. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.