Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

You don't fool me - I know that, as a result of my teaching on this site, you are now seriously questioning your Darwinist beliefs and are thinking of converting to some form of creationism.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Is that what you're looking for? A fuckin breeding program!Disingenuous fool.Hey, but ok, I'll have a few minutes of fun.To evolve amniotes to synapsids/sauropsids nature took millions of colonies of different species of amniotes, put them in a nice wet warm place and let chemistry work its majik. A few million years later the amniotes were still there but had evolved two separate forms.How's that for a breeding program. Like teenagers you leave them alone and they fuck on their own. Don't need no stinkin' program. So what? That doesn't mean what you think it means. We are quite familiar with this inbreeding disaster and how/why it forms. And you don't know dog breeders. No, fool, it does not. Any such fantasy exists only in your tiny little head.And of all my fantasies I don't recall Darwin being in any of them, though I've had some wide-ranging fantasies so I can't say for sure. A streetcar named Desire jumps both ways. Sixty-four is interdependent on the relatedness of motivation, subcultures, and management.Whiskey on the table is paved with good intentions. You make as much sense as the Do Nothing Button.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You're not just a YEC you're a yokel of a YEC.

Interesting - an assumption that Dr Jones is a man.Come on now Dredge - women can be doctors you know.

If a dog could eventually be bred into a non-dog it would completely falsify evolutionary theory as that is the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

Trolling and preaching that is all a creationist ever does.

Just in case you were wondering about that whooshing sound, it was my point going over your head. Yes, we understood you the first time.You didn't read my post, did you? What is really unfortunate is that you are unable to comprehend the whole point of my post.

As my wife and niece both prove every day. My wife is an M.D., Family Medicine and my niece is a PhD, Public Health.

Yep - we do spend a lot of time raking over the world's troubles on these pages, but it's good to remember we've come a long way, (even if there is still a long way to go).

You are demonstrating that you don't understand what theories or facts are.

quote:

---

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money

---

Synapsids are amniotes. The one trick they haven't tried is to allow dogs to breed in large populations over millions of years to get rid of the harmful mutations and accumulate much more genetic variation. Humans and chimps differ by 2% at the genetic level. Can you show me two dog breeds that differ by 2% at the genetic level? All descendants of dogs will be dogs. What can change is the variety and number of dog species. If you don't understand this very simple concept, then you can't critique evolution.

As I said before science does not work in truths. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the data we currently have. It could change if there were data that ran counter to it.You obviously have no idea how science works. You know about gravity I assume. There is no FACT of gravity. Since there is not I assume you don't believe in gravity.Scientific theories are not educated guesses. You are using the fallacy of equivocation.
Equivocation - RationalWikiHere is a quick primer on Theories and Laws. You might want to review to keep from looking so ridiculous in the future.Hypothesis, theory, law - Google Docs

quote:

---

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers...
Some scientific theories include the continental drift theory, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories have been tested and verified and are generally accepted by scientists beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

---

One should learn a subject before trying to expound upon it.

Yes - I asked you for a breeding program that will produce macroevolution. Believe it or not, macroevolution sort of needs organisms to breed in order for it to happen. Sorry, but your breeding program tells me nothing about how to breed a synapsid from an amniote.
If someone asked you how to breed a sausage dog from a wolf, for example, and you said "put them in a nice (warm) place and let chemistry work its majik", they would rightly conclude that you know ZILCH about dog breeding.So - as I suspected - you actually have no idea how you would go about producing a synapsid from a amniote. So much for you claimed knowledge of macroevolution - you've just proven you have none! It seems that your so-called knowledge turns out to be nothing but blind faith - "Gee, I dunno ... evolution done it!" .
... and why genetic disasters place a limit on how far the dog genome can be "stretched".Despite the obvious genetic "dead ends" encountered by dog breeders, you still believe the deluded fantasy that dogs could eventually be breed into non-dogs.I could ask you how you would go about breeding a non-dog from a dog, but you'd be as clueless about that as you are about breeding a synapsid from an amnoite. Oh look, a petulant insult - the last resort of the clueless. Classy stuff.

Ah, so if you know how macroevolution occurs, you shouldn't have any trouble telling me how you would go about breeding a bird from a reptile, for example ... or a non-fruit fly from a fruit fly. What about a double-cell organism from a single-cell organism? Go ahead, I'm all ears ... You stated in message 1162 that "genetic engineering can produce any pattern of similarities and differences" - I presume this includes the same pattern that evolution produces. So it's possible that, what looks to you like the "fingerprint" of evolution in the fossil record, could actually be the fingerprint of genetic engineering.

qs=edgeNo 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 [/qs]Okay, let's simplify things - imagine that I decided to ditch my theory of aliens and like you, accepted Darwinism as the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. Although I accept Darwinism as the best scientific theory, I still wouldn't believe it, because
A. Accepting a scientific explanation as the best available at the time is not contingent on believing that explanation is the truth. For staters, I would be aware that the "best scientific explanation" today may not be the "best scientific explanation" tomorrow.
B. I believe that a certain non-scientific explanation for the fossil record is a better explanation than the scientific one
C. I believe the non-scientific explanation in B is the truth. With respect to evidence of aliens: "Lucy" - for example - might be the remains of one of the very aliens I'm talking about. If you lack the intelligence and imagination and scientific aptitude and humility to accept my teachings, whose fault is that?

Er ... because if animals don't breed, there will be no evolution at all, let alone macroevolution. NO ONE knows anything about macroevolution - including you. You haven't got a bloody clue how you would go about breeding a winged-insect from a non-winged-insect, for example ... you wouldn't even know where to start!Tanypteryx: "We already know how macroevolution occurs". HA HA HA! What a joke!