Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Yep, right up there with "the UCA has no application in applied biology".Earth-shattering stuff.

And?Is it a surprise to you that a robust theory relevant to a large number of science fields might mean different things to different people?Do you think it is uncommon for a given word or idea to have more than one meaning?Do you think that gravity means the same thing for a hydraulic engineer as it does to a theoretical physicist?As usual, it appears that you attempt to sow doubt where there really is none. Or is this just a semantic game that allows you a false feeling of superiority, when really it's just another straw-man argument?

It's pretty clear that the anti-science crowd mistakes their opinions for facts, and that contrary opinions can be dismissed for no other reason. If I find the theory of evolution useful in explaining the data that I see in the geological record, that means exactly nothing to Dredge. Therefor, he can invoke denial as an argument when really, it's just another blinded opinion from someone who cannot fathom the fact that someone might have an alternative opinion. It becomes an article of faith, a way to shut down dialog. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

AFAICS, you are the only one quoting Dawkins around here. Why do you find him to be such an authority?

Except that they didn't 'appear out of nowhere'. They had precursors. We have been over this a few times now ... Heh, heh .... Thank you for the humor break. I just love it when a YEC tells me what evolution is supposed to do or not do. Of course not and I didn't say that there was. And your evidence is that it 'looks like an orchard'? Wow! Powerful stuff! The only sweeping away done around here is your dismissal of all the evidence that there was no 'explosion' in the sense of an instantaneous expansion. Ah, another gap in your knowledge. Think of 'artillery'. And no, the point is that tens of millions of years is not an explosive event.Well, except to a YEC, I suppose. Did you miss the part where he said "geological moment" and "geological abruptness"?Do you understand the ramifications of that phrase? Particularly when is arguing for PE? Why is it irrelevant? Because you don't want it to be?The record shows that there was metazoan life prior to the Cambrian and there was probably a lot more considering the sparsity of fossils from that period. And there were millions of years to evolve the basic Phyla that were preserved in the Cambrian System. So, explain it. You are the one who implied that all major 'phyla' (your understanding) appeared in the Cambrian and I'm saying 'So what?"

My post was not addressed to you.And if you can't accurately quote me, I guess I'm not surprised since you manage to misrepresent most of the scientists that you quote also. Your opinion is noted. And your next revelation will be that water is wet. The fact that some scientists find evolutionary concepts useful in both theoretical and applied science.And if you have 'forgotten', that just makes it easier to deny, yes?

Ahhh, so then you claim to be making progress. Can we assume that you will be taking some remedial science courses soon?

Does this mean that you are going to give us a precise date for your explosion? Great! Then you can give us the diagnostic evidence that support your PC model over the evolution model.After that, maybe you can give us some of the possible applications of your PC to practical science.

Good point, Faith.But you have answered your own question. As Herbie said earlier, analogies don't work with YECs. Literalists are way tooooo literal. Oh, we're way beyond that.

Okay, so you're an anti-scientist. People who refer to the Cambrian explosion as a real explosion.And yet there are a number of radiations in the fossil record. How many 'explosions' can you handle? Tell that to the scientists who think the phrase is a regrettable misconception. That would be pretty much a unanimous agreement among those who actually work in related fields. Do you also believe that the sun actual rises and sets?"Cambrian Explosion" is simply a historical, descriptive precedence, used only for convenience. I know, it's complicated for anti-scientists. Please explain. More likely, Gould was providing an evolutionary explanation for the 'Cambrian Explosion' in a way that actually fits the data. Kind of like the statement that evolution had no application in practical science, yes? My theory relies on the copious data that do exist.Perhaps you are confusing that with your theory that relies on a 'designer' that is not known to exist. Being a proponent of 'progressive creation' then, you should have no problem with the progression from Ediacaran Phyla life to Cambrian Phyla.And yet you reject that progression, insisting that Cambrian life forms just poofed into existence without precursors. Is this just a manifestation of your trollish nature?

Herbie states: Dredge replies:It's simple logic. Creationists have never been able to state a theory or to provide scientific evidence for creationism. They have only been able to attack evolution with denial, emotional assertions and logical fallacies.Just as you are doing here.For instance, asserting that evolution has no practical application in the applied sciences is an asserted opinion of no consequences and of no effect except to troll real scientists. One could say that this is dishonest.

Heh, heh ...Time to trot out one of the old, time-tested YEC tools: semantic ambiguity. Go ahead and keep making up your own definitions, and keep us entertained. I remember when, for a time, I had to refer to 'organic evolution' or 'biological evolution' because some YEC confused 'evolution' with such processes as rusting iron.Really ... I think that most of us know what we are talking about here.

So does magic. All of which exist only in your imagination. And? That is exactly what I've thought through.So what is the point of this thread? You have expended thirty some pages on a point of exactly no consequence.

Okay, then you agree that the theory of evolution is useful, yes?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So, no real point to this thread then.UCA is not useful to you so it is not useful to you. That makes sense.What will be your next revelation? Edited by edge, : No reason given.