Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Yeah but, in Message 954 he said:

quote:

---

I know next to nothing about genetic engineering.

---

So that means he can make up any fantasy that pops into his noggin.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking here.I will ask again, which novel phyla are you talking about?

And that does not contradict what the fossils DO tell us.I know you are unaware of this, but science makes no claim to having ALL knowledge. Scientists are adding knowledge all the time.That's why there is science and scientists, because there are still questions to answer.

And they certainly don't refute that evolution is responsible for that progression. Science has moved well beyond Darwinian evolution and I am unaware of anyone bothering to "confirm Darwinian evolution" today. Well, it is not evidence of anything, because insects DO NOT appear out of nowhere.But they DO NOT contradict evolution.

I don't know what puff is, but it is an accurate description. Every new fossil discovery makes the record a little less incomplete, so science seems to be working properly. Do you have a reference for where he says this?I assume he is talking about discovered fossils when he refers to the fossil record, so obviously we have we have the fossils we have discovered so far.Also obviously, the complete fossil record includes all the discovered fossils and all the undiscovered fossils and all the gaps.The only way Bechly can support his quack theory is by intentionally ignoring evidence. They are predicted by paleontological and geological theory. The ToE explains them.You are correct, the Theory of Evolution, cherry picks ALL the evidence, that's the point, to explain ALL the evidence.This may be end up being true for some, but as discoveries are made some gaps disappear and sudden appearances turn out not to be sudden after all.

And amazingly they are still unidentified. Well, except for all the scientists who have documented speciation occurring, which is how science defines macroevolution. Maybe not, but evidence from other branches of science do tell us how evolution occurs, so as more evidence is discovered we we can understand more and more about how it occurred in the past. Our evolutionary theory is the only one that explains all the evidence in a scientifically consistent way.And while you may not accept that the conclusion that life may have descended from one or more common ancestors has a practical use in "applied science" it turns out, as is often the case, that technologies and techniques developed from one field find useful applications in many other fields.

I guess since YOU don't know, there must not be an answer. You must be thinking of someone else. I don't have any evidence of Darwinian evolution. I'll take your word for it, since you seem to be a great believer in superstition.

Yep, well typing a bunch of of repeating HAs may be a coherent argument if you're 12.So, just where and by what biology do you think evolution happens?Biological evolution in multicellular organisms only happens during a reproductive event between a male and female of the same species.Do you think there is some organism that is not an individual member of a species, but it is a genus and that it is some how performing macroevolution? Are you daft? No he didn't. No more, huh? Are you sure? Nope, I'm just reading reports of interesting new fossil finds all the time. I'm not familiar with that theory, so I don't care.

Thanks for the reference.That's why I was unaware of him saying this, it was not in a published scientific paper, just his BS opinion at DI, no evidence to back it up.

Well, your sense of smell is world renowned.What claim specifically are you talking about? World-renowned? Right. Appeal to authority. With all due respect, you have absolutely no way of knowing my level of knowledge. Curiously, I have never found what you believe is useless or irrelevant, to be a barrier to gaining knowledge. Nope, based on knowledge that evidence exists.

So what? We already know how macroevolution occurs, you just keep ignoring it, probably because you cannot bare to admit that your knowledge of macroevolution is incorrect. Oh no, not Neo-Darwinism, next it will be the New-Synthesis.

The only time I tried reading their stuff, hot coffee came out of my nose and shorted out my keyboard.

Nope, it's more like, So what? If we don't have answers to all the questions that's a good thing, because it means we have lots of things to challenge us, new discoveries to find, it makes life interesting.You're never going to understand.

I'm not familiar with that scale. Wait, was that a trick question?

I knew you did. The truth is, you only THINK you know what I think I know about how macroevolution occurs. You're mixing personal belief and bullshit. You don't know how microevolution occurs. You have demonstrated this numerous times. And you can't demonstrate it is not. I don't give a shit about reptiles and mammals, I'm in charge of the important ones, INSECTS.