Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

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.

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?

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.

How do you falsify ToE?

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.

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.

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.