Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

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.

You raise some valid points ... which is probably why Mayr suggested the definition of macroevolution rest on a level of "genus OR EVEN HIGHER" (at least, that's what someone told me Mayr said - I don't have his original quote). Perhaps the higher one goes, the less ambiguous classification gets.

I greatly fear you’re suffering a delusion. The truth is, you only THINK you know how macroevolution occurs - you’re conflating your personal belief and a scientific theory. All we “know” is how MICROevolutions occur. You don’t even “know” that microevolutions lead to macroevolution. because you can’t demonstrate it is so.Furthermore, since you “know how macroevolution occurs”, you won’t have any trouble telling me how you would go about breeding a mammal from a reptile. Good luck with that.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I greatly admire you debating skills and your clever arguments. But most of all I admire your sense of humour.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I knew you did. The truth is, you only THINK you know what I think I know about how macroevolution occurs. You're mixing personal belief and bullshit. You don't know how microevolution occurs. You have demonstrated this numerous times. And you can't demonstrate it is not. I don't give a shit about reptiles and mammals, I'm in charge of the important ones, INSECTS.

I'm sure most of the folk out there knew exactly what the subject was and what the video presented. Again, it was not for you.But, you, not knowing what you're talking about, was the very reason it was presented.In this case we kept the video away from you so as to not confuse you. We know how facts and reality confuse you.Don't feel bad, Dredge, we know where your intellectual failures are and we are trying to compensate for them.

So, you can demonstrate this it's impossible for genetic engineering to produuce a phylogenetic signal?Btw, is a phylogeneitic signal detectable in the fossil record?

Yes, of course, I should have adjusted for your reading comprehension problem.Notice in my message I said "The fossils tell us what happened ..." while in your message you complain "You seemed to have missed the point. ... I talking about what fossils tell us - they tell us WHAT happened...".For anyone with a reading comprehension above 4th grade these two statements are equivalent.Sorry to have confused you yet again. More confusion.Science has determined how life unfolded. You are just too confused by your own blind religious stupidity to acknowledge or understand. And then you get hung up on some gap or other in the fossil record then act like the the rest of the record doesn't exist.Again, the Theory of Evolution with both its fossils and its chemistry, tells us HOW the history of life unfolded.And no, I didn't miss any point. I WAS talking "macro = micro + time" theory and so were you. It's been a side topic in this thread for quite a few messages.You may need to go back and re-read this thread. I think we've reached beyond your intellectual capacity and you need to refresh to catch up ... again.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Are you kidding me?This YEC trope has been around forever. It was an intellectually vacuous argument decades ago and is downright stupid now.You are a YEC. And a rather dumb one at that. OK. But only the mammal one.So first you get a population of amniotes which evolve into the synapsids, and the sauropsids. The synapsids begat the Eupelycosaurs who begat the sphenacodontians who then begat the Sphenacodontids who then begat the Therapsids who finally begat the mammals. And at each begat we're talking millions of years of microevolution with lots of intermediate begats in between each of those.That was easy. Well, you see, Dredge, dog breeders are not looking to breed a non-dog. They want to breed only a specific type of dog with a highly restrictive set of features. So they inbreed closely related animals which restricts the resultant gene pool for that breed leading to deformities. Artificial selection does that.The only time natural selection does that is when some disaster constricts the breeding population to the point that only closely related animals breed which restricts the resultant gene pool for that population leading to deformities. Like today's Cheetahs.Otherwise, natural selection allows breeding across multiple genetically diverse populations leading to even greater genetic diversity.So that's how you get around this fictitious "brick wall" your strawman invented. Easy. It draws from a more diverse gene pool which in turn adds yet more diversity to the gene pool.”Don't think too hard on the thing. It's chemistry and math and you know those are way beyond your capabilities.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I think this is an important point.Dredge harangues us that the fossils don't tell us how life changed over time. Here, you point out that there is more than just the fossils.Like most anti-evos, Dredge is only capable of looking at one line of evidence at a time, conveniently ignoring known chemistry, biology, physics, relative dating and general evolutionary patterns, along with the damning fact that there is no evidence to support his position. It's like he's examining one particular set of fossils under a microscope at one moment in time, while ignoring the library of existing knowledge around him.There's really not much new in the basic operation of Dredge's line of reasoning. It's what we've seen from YECs since the beginning of discussion boards such as this. The idea is to attack a single detail in an incomplete and imperfect knowledge base and apply that uncertainty to the entire body of knowledge. Since he has the certainty borne of ignorance, it makes sense to criticize real science. To most people trained in the sciences, the argument becomes nothing but irrelevant gibberish.

ah that's sweet but you shouldn't waste your time flirting with me, i like women

Okay, so how do you falsify the theory that"Macroevolution = Microevolutions + Time" ?

I appreciate that, as an atheist, you have no choice but to believe the Darwinist narrative - even if creatures appear out of nowhere in the fossil record. In a thousand years' time, atheists will still be using this excuse - "the fossil record is incomplete!"Those poor little trilobites: They gaze up from the fossil beds asking, "Where did I come from?"

Let me get this straight . You’re a professional biologist and you claim to “know how macroevolution occurs”, yet you are clueless as to how you would breed a mammal from a reptile? Okay, well let’s try something really simple: How would you breed a double-cell organism from a single-cell organism?
Not your area of expertise? Fair enough; how about this then ... How would you breed an insect with wings from an insect without wings? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Haven’t I already answered this question? For your sake, I will reiterate: I believe my “aliens” theory is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the fossil record, according to the parameters set by modern science - ie, methodological naturalism. However, since I believe there is more to reality than methodological naturalism, I don’t believe my “aliens” theory is the best explanation for the fossil record (notice how I didn’t say “the best SCIENTIFIC explanation”). I believe the best explanation for the fossil record is a non-scientific explanation.So I have two explanations for the fossil record, depending on which “game” I’m playing. Are you familiar with the term, “Horses for courses”? But you can believe that a theory is false - even if you believe it's the best scientific theory available.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.