|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 130 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
We have the ToE which is so much better, so accurate, so successful, so predictive.
Yeah, right ... yet so many palaeontologists point out that there is very little evidence of evolution in the rocks! But hey, who cares what paleontologists think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 130 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
All I need to know is that genetic engineering has the potential to reshape the genome such that massive changes in morphology are possible.
If the genius doesn't know anything about the subject then why is he expounding on it? That's not genius. That's egomaniac delusion.
Believing that your puny mechanisms of evolutionary can turn a rodent into a whale is grand delusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8705 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
No. You supply a scientific article or paper that demonstrates that (no) practical use in any applied science is predicated on the concept of UCA.
You don't understand how crazy both requests are. Not surprised.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8705 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
And fossils confirm nothing at all about what caused these changes. Quite the contrary, Oh Demented One. Fossils give us great big clues to what happened and when. You just have to know how to look, something you with your religious fantasies are especially poor at. Then there is the genetic data, by the dredge-load, that more that very nicely verifies, challenges/changes, and fills in the rest of the gospel according to ToE.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2021 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Yeah, right ... yet so many palaeontologists point out that there is very little evidence of evolution in the rocks!
Please support this assertion.
But hey, who cares what paleontologists think?
From my experience, it is only anti-evolutionists who don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8705 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You might want to try the Fedora style.
If it doesn't improve things, I expect you to pay for the aluminium foil I wasted. Before we get to that level, if you're unhappy with the fedora you need to try the Stetson. After that I got a couple hundred more styles for you to try. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2021 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
All I need to know is that genetic engineering has the potential to reshape the genome such that massive changes in morphology are possible.
Correct. It is all the YOU need to know. And need I add that this bar is not set very high?
Believing that your puny mechanisms of evolutionary can turn a rodent into a whale is grand delusion.
Thank you for your opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2021 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Ever heard of the fossil record?
What are your criteria for determining 'outside tampering'. I mean, as long as you brought it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8705 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
... so many palaeontologists point out that there is very little evidence of evolution in the rocks! So many as in what? Two? We got 10,000+- others who say they are wrong. Ever hear of Project SteveEschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2021 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Curious that you ignore all the evidence that contradicts ToE - where is the evidence for the evolutionary ancestors of trilobites, fish and insects?
The trilobites, fish and insects ARE the evidence and they exhibit a progression of life forms. If you cannot connect the dots, that sounds like a personal problem.
Where are the missing links between the Ediacaran fauna all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion? The evidence for these "ancestors" doesn't exist!
The progression is the evidence that evolution occurred. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8705 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
All I need to know is that genetic engineering has the potential to reshape the genome such that massive changes in morphology are possible. That's grade school. We are talking way beyond that. No wonder you're lost.
Believing that your puny mechanisms of evolutionary can turn a rodent into a whale is grand delusion. A grand delusion of actual fact. And we got pictures. With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one saying what each one was. Yea, Dredge, we know the lineages quite well and with a lot more consensus than you could afford to admit. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8705 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
my understanding is, only ... Do you have any idea how easy it is to research the real number and get it right the first time? How easy it is to verify your own understanding? Do you have any idea the depth of intellectual laziness you have displayed for us yet again? Do you realize just how dumb that is? Creationists. Religionists. How do you people survive to breed?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2021 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
So many as in what? Two?
Actually, it's four. The number had doubled! So there!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10384 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge writes: All I need to know is that genetic engineering has the potential to reshape the genome such that massive changes in morphology are possible. You need to know more than that. You need to explain the following, and this is just a good start: 1. The twin nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics. 2. The difference in divergence between exons and introns. 3. The pattern of transition, transversion, and CpG substitution mutations. 4. Orthologous endogenous retroviruses and transposon insertions, and the pattern of divergence between the LTR's of a single ERV. Those are just a few off the top of my head. There is no reason why we would expect to see genetic engineering produce these patterns.
Believing that your puny mechanisms of evolutionary can turn a rodent into a whale is grand delusion. Only people who lack scientific evidence to support their claims stoop to calling people deluded. If you had evidence you would present it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined:
|
There is no reason why we would expect to see genetic engineering produce these patterns. Yeah but, in Message 954 he said: quote:So that means he can make up any fantasy that pops into his noggin. What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025