Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

How do you falsify ToE?

Why do you think macroevolution is related to breeding? You don't seem to know anything about macroevolution.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What is the Darwinist narrative? And what's it got to do with atheists? Well, those atheists are persistent.

No that doesn't answer my question. I asked why you defend a theory as the best scientific explanation when you don't believe it. That does not lend a whole lot of credence. In fact, it makes your argument a strawman.I would just as soon argue that the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory because I DO believe that the evidence supports it. Arguably, that makes my theory more valid than yours.And I haven't even got into the lack of evidence for such alien intervention which makes it NOT scientific. So this renders neither of your two theories as scientific and shows that you are just trolling this board. Is that the real reason for defending something you don't believe in?That's fine with me, but I'll go with the evidence for now. That is an apt description of the situation. You are playing games. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Several ways. This is an amusingly worn old PRATT. See Talk Origins Pratt List
Claim Claim CA211:

quote:

---

Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.

​

Source:

​

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7.

​

Response:

​

1. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
   • a static fossil record;
   • true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
   • a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
   • observations of organisms being created.
   ​
2. This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.

---

Finding a fossil that is out of place for the spacial/temporal matrix -- ie one that has no nearby parent populations in time and space to evolve from: a rabbit in the cambrian is a common example.Finding a genetic genome that doesn't fit the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution.Note that the perception that "Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution" is due to all the known information/facts currently fitting the theory of evolution -- strong evidence that the theory is either correct or very near to correct. This gives us high confidence in the accuracy of the theory.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : note

See Message 1160Enjoy

I can show that genetic engineering can produce any pattern of similarities and differences. Evolution can only produce one pattern of similarities and differences, and that is the pattern we see. That makes evolution the better explanation. Absolutely. The same pattern of similarities and differences seen in living species is also seen in the fossil record.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That's completely false. The matching phylogenies at the morphological and genetic level tell us the how: evolutionary mechanisms. Phylogenies are the fingerprint of random mutations, selection, drift, speciation, and vertical inheritance, and that fingerprint is all over the distribution of characteristics in living and fossil species as well as the genomes of living species.

You would need to show how your theory predicts the observed distribution of characteristics. You have yet to do that. The theory of evolution does predict what features should and should not be found together and why, but your theory does not.

Well it could have been something like Keretsa brutoni which dates to 555 Ma (just scroll down to page 131, don't worry it starts on page 127).

Almost exactly as one might have predicted as a precursor to Cambrian arthropods.Good find.

I’m not surprised others have noticed the same thing - it seems to be a fundamental and obvious contradiction. Btw, you haven’t answered my question: If the THEORY of evolution is “true”, why don’t you call it the FACT of evolution?
Furthermore, it’s my understanding that a scientific theory is never “true”, but is “validated” according the evidence in its favour. Sorry, but you haven’t told me anything useful in terms of a breeding program. If you have an amniote, for example, how do you breed it to evolve into a synapsid? Dog breeders have experimented with inbreeding simply to see what will happen and what weird mutations they can come up with. In other words, they have used every trick in the book to change the morphology of dogs - and what they have found is, the further genetics are pushed the more harmful mutations arise, thus limiting how far breeding can go. This fact contradicts your Darwinist fantasy that a dog can eventually be bred into a non-dog. You live in a dream world. Try and bred a dog into a non-dog and see what happens - you will end in the same genetic “dead-end” that thousands of years of dog breeding has - ie, a drastically less-diverse population riddled with harmful mutations. All you will end up “evolving” is sick, weak, unfit dogs!But hey, I understand that an atheist has no choice but to believe that evolution is responsible for the fossil record, despite the reality-denying absurdity of that position. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

1. No, as I've pointed out many times, I'm not a YEC.2. For someone with a fragile, eggshell mind and an IQ of 9, I think I'm doing alright (Did you know it only took me ten years to complete seven years of primary school?)

No, Dredge accepts the same fossil record as you do.Here’s the problem for Darwinists: Fossils tells us nothing about the mechanism of macroevolution, and it cannot be demonstrated that microevolution leads to macroevolution (on the contrary, thousands of years of animal and plant breeding demonstrates that there are genetic limits to how far organisms can “evolve”) . So all you have left to “explain” the fossil record is blind faith (born of atheism) in Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately blind faith is not science. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Very sorry - I got the strong impression that you were gay - my bad.