Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Knowledge.

Obviously there simply is no objective usefulness to the ToE since all I'm getting is weird evasions.

But it isn't even knowledge, it's just an elaborate cogitation.And knowledge isn't a "use" anyway, as we are using that term here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Deny, deny, deny. You're the one who's evading the objective examples that you've been given. You can deny the truth until the cows come home. Your evasion won't have one iota of effect on the usefulness of the Universal Common Ancestor.

Do you have your right hand over your heart as you intone that credo?

We can decide that if and when we know. Who cares and why?I ask why because I suspect the agenda. I have a friend that has spent the last 5 years researching the use of music in Jane Austin novels, is the OP equally interested in the study of 18th century literature or is it just this one tiny branch off a sub branch attached to a main branch off the trunk of biology? If so why?You see, it's what we do, gather knowledge. We can't help it. Darwin spent years studying bloody barnacles. My tutor spent his whole life with ants. They don't do that because they think that one day it'll be useful, they do it because they just can't help themselves. And quite often it turns out to be useful and probably more often it isn't.There's two parts to R&D; the D bit the practical bit, the R bit is sometimes useful sometimes not but always interesting for itself. And the result of endless search for stuff that interests us has built what we are today.

This simple answer sums up the reason research in all aspects of evolutionary biology continues at an accelerating pace.In entomology, the evolutionary history of species is under intense scrutiny now that rapid, cheap genetic sequencing is widely available. The knowledge gained from these studies have wide applications in agriculture, forestry, conservation and other human activities like global trade and the spread invasive species. Huge numbers of scientific papers are published dealing with these subjects and many more in entomological journals.Knowledge of the adaptive and geographical spread of species in the past give us predictive power with regards to modern invasives. New genetic tools will allow us to manipulate the future evolution of many organisms for better or worse.

Do you have your fingers in your ears as you adjust your blindfold?

I understand and I love that sort of stuff myself, reading about it I mean. But it's been claimed the ToE is useful and I'm saying no it isn't. I'm also saying it isn't even useful as knowledge. Darwin's pigeon breeding is very interesting too but it doesn't prove the ToE it only proves built-in variability. When the pigeons are released from controlled reproductive isolation they revert to pretty much their original form. They obviously have pigeon genetics and only pigeon genetics and all the variations lead nowhere except to different varieties of pigeons. When you select a trait and isolate your breeders to emphasize that trait, that trait will become elaborate in the offspring. It's a pigeon trait, it goes nowhere except to a variety of pigeon. Lenski's endless experiments never produced anything but e coli. There is absolutely NO evidence for the ToE AT ALL, NONE!!!!So we don't even get knowledge, it remains this mental construction and nothing else. It's false but it keeps on being believed against the utter absense of any corroborating evidence. You'll never get anything but a pigeon from breeding pigeons but the varieties may be interesting science in themselves -- I'd expect them to show the limits of the pigeon genome myself but as long as the ToE is believed that is not likely to be noticed. This is how the theory can interfere with actual scientific knowledge. Likewise, the assumption that mutations are the source of healthy alleles, which is necessary to the ToE, is only going to mislead scientists into false expectations that cover up the fact that mutations are destructive events that should be the basis for aggressive methods of slowing down the disease processes that are the consequence of the Fall. Dangerous mistake. But nothing you've said has anything to do with the ToE though it may be interesting science in itself, and again the challenge here is to the idea that the ToE is useful. In fact it is neither useful nor genuine scientific knowledge.

The effects of climate change on natural populations and our domesticated organisms can often be predicted using knowledge of their evolutionary history. Despite denials by some ignorant creationists, scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate.

That'd be a lousy answer from Faith to any question and it seems a lousy answer to me here. I can't think of anything for chemistry myself.

None of that has anything to do with the ToE, it's about variation within the Kind which is absolutely limited to the Kind. And all the observed effects you are tlaking about are amply explained by that fact. You are talking about microevolution.

To the extent that this is going on it is about microevolution, period. You are assuming the Toe, but there isn't one iota of evidence for evolution beyond the Kind. As I said above, this claim that the ToE is useful to the sciences will turn out to be the result of confusion with variation within the Kind or Species, otherwise known as "microevolution," or confusion with the actual results of the separate sciences without any input from the ToE whatever. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

gto the extent that this is going on it is about microevolution, period

---

Microevolution is still evolution.

quote:

---

. There isn't one iota of evidence for evolution beyond the Kind

---

I really don’t know why you tell these lies. The nested hierarchy of Linnaean taxonomy, the genetic evidence of distant relationships, the many transitional fossils are all evidence of common ancestry well beyond the limits creationists would accept. There is not one iota of evidence that many unrelated kinds exist.

Read the OP: "I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe that existed billions of years ago...." It clearly is NOT about "microevolution of kinds", as you would call it.