Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Hello Faith. Some definitions of ToE include no more than principles of microevolution - ie, factual stuff that science has found many practical uses for. On the other hand, other definitions of ToE add the theory/conclusion that life evolved from UCA. The stuff about evolving from UCA is what I contend is useless to applied science.Furthermore, a story about life on earth evolving from UCA doesn't qualify as knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable facts - not theories or conclusions or opinions or beliefs or atheist folklore.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

"Knowledge" is not the same as a practical use in applied science. I know that the sky is blue, but I can't think of a practical use in applied science for that knowledge.Furthermore, a story about life on earth evolving from UCA doesn't qualify as knowledge. Only demonstrable facts qualify as knowledge - this precludes theories, opinions, conclusions, beliefs and atheist folklore.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Research in evolutionary biology is not a practical use in applied science. S. J. Gould, for example, devoted his career to research in evolutionary biology and he contributed absolutely nothing of any practical use to science.Research may led to a practical use, but research per se is not a practical use.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Sorry, but this is irrelevant to the OP. The uses you cite are not dependent in any way of believing/accepting that life on earth evolved from UCA

UCA is irrelevant to practical uses of microevolution.

Assumptions are the cornerstone of Evolutionism

How is UCA relevant to protein folding?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Do you know why it's blue? Understanding how light and elements in the atmosphere interact might have practical applications in spectrographic chemical analysis, but you are a purist and the sole arbiter of what is practical in applied science, or any science it seems.I'm just thankful I don't have to bother trying to teach you anything, because you already know everything you want to.

Speaking of which, geologists make use of the fossil record in oil and gas exploration. However, this use doesn't require accepting the evolutionary interpretation of said fossil record. A progressive creationist like me could use the fossil record just as proficiently. In fact, no explanation for the fossil record is required in order to make use of it in this way.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't need a practical use. Why do you care about this particular piece of knowledge and not others? Sorry Chuck, religiously motivated people don't get to decide what is or isn't knowledge in science.

So, ok, no one here can meet your unreasonable requirements of an example.So what?Do we have to care about your errant opinions?

That's what I said. But it doesn't need a practical use to be true.

That bans all of science from the discussion.

Sorry, but your analogy makes no sense at all to my fragile, eggshell mind. Unlike useless stories about UCA, transistors are eminently useful in a practical sense and also have also proven useful in applied science. Er, try reading the OP again. Which part of it asks for uses "within evolutionary theory"? I'm almost certain the OP is confined to only practical uses in applied science.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

G'day to my fellow Australian!My experience is that most evolutionists are very allergic to the idea that their beloved all-seeing, all-knowing, all-doing beliefs about UCA appear to be completely useless in any practical sense and really amount to a scientific irrelevance. The only "use" said beliefs have is to make all those atheists out there feel more secure about their materialistic philosophy. Tales about UCA are like cozy bedtime stories for the godless.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.