Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

I wasn't sure how to respond to that post and decided to withhold my reaction. What's really amazing is that this comes from a person who presumes to tell us about how science operates.

I think you are ascribing that comment to the wrong person. But I would love an explanation of what is wrong with my comment.

I sure did. Message 1149

quote:

---

So first you get a population of amniotes which evolve into the synapsids, and the sauropsids.

---

I went further in Message 1172I guess nested hierarchies are too complex for your simple IQ=9 brain to comprehend.Typical YEC.

I'm pretty sure it was Dredge's post that left me speechless. Your response was spot on.

If we limit our analysis to that portion of the female population which knows you, failure to reproduce would actually be a sign of intelligence, rather than stupidity.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that there are not enough people for human civilization to survive? I think you might have counted wrong.

Yes, of course. Giving men and women equal political, economic and social opportunities is such an evil thing since it negates the religious creed that women are inferior beings.Typical YEC.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Property.

Synapsids did evolve from amniotes, and synapsids are still amniotes. It's not that hard to understand. It's the same as chihuahuas evolving from dogs, and still being dogs. You can look at the actual genetic divergence between dogs and wolves which isn't anywhere close to the 2% divergence between species like humans and chimps. This is empirical evidence. So you are saying that dog breeding hasn't even produced enough genetic variation to produce two genera? If not, then dog breeding isn't capable of modeling long term evolution. You have only shown the limits of dog breeding over a very limited time period. Darwinian evolution took place over millions of years.

So, what is your grand plan for breeding insects to radically evolve without reducing genetic diversity? You must have a secret method that defies the knowledge gained from thousands of years of animal and plant breeding - either that or your Darwinist model is divorced from reality. I suspect the latter ...Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Pull your brainwashed head out of the sand and consider what's happening in Japan. It's quickly heading for disaster due to its dangerously low birth-rate. Most of the blame for that can be placed at the feet of feminism.Every nation that has embraced feminsim now has below-replacement birth-rates.
If a cattle breeder discovered more of his herd were dying than being born, he would rightly consider that a dire emergency and a recipe for certain disaster. Think about it.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

And if a side effect of feminism is lower birth rate then let’s hope it takes hold on the Indian sub-continent, China, Africa, hmmm . ok . the whole world. We could use a break on our species resource utilization rates.

Mutations

This diversion is off topic, but it’s tangential to it to demonstrate that, when it comes to being wrong, dredge is a world leader:Birth rate vs. death rate - Our World in Data (Apologies, I tried to embed the image, but it failed)The data are from 2016, but they are the most recent on the Our World in Data website.

First, you suggested that "civilization" wouldn't survive. Did you mean only Japan?Second, have you ever heard of immigration? Maybe Japan will fail due to insufficient immigration.