Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Oxymoron. It's easier to believe that Trump shares a UCA with parasitic worms - with apologies to the parasitic worms; they can't help it.

I presume by looking at how climate change may have affected evolution in the past. But this is a classic case of goalpost-shifting. You asked for examples of uses for the UCA. There's an example. Now you're demanding that I justify the usefulness of the example? As I said earlier in the thread, it's up to scientists to decide what's useful to them. Nobody cares whether you agree. Then you're shooting yourself in the foot. If they use it, it's useful.

That's odd. I've used it often enough before. According to Wikipedia:

quote:

---

The amygdala appears to play a role in binge drinking, being damaged by repeated episodes of intoxication and withdrawal.[75] Alcoholism is associated with dampened activation in brain networks responsible for emotional processing[clarification needed], including the amygdala.[76] Protein kinase C-epsilon in the amygdala is important for regulating behavioral responses to morphine, ethanol, and controlling anxiety-like behavior. The protein is involved in controlling the function of other proteins and plays a role in development of the ability to consume a large amount of ethanol.

---

See also Agression, Fear, Anxiety, etc. in the same article.

The topic is "practical use", not "depend on".

You're being dishonest. You've moved the goalposts from UCA to evolutionary theory.

I didn't say you dropped anything. I said you changed the question from the one that people have been answering. But evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily imply UCA. Even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no use for UCA, that would not falsify UCA. And even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no UCA, that would not negate evolutionary theory.

Climate change is a specific example. I know. You said the opposite. I'm pointing out that that's nonsense.Scientists do use evolutionary theory and UCA. If they use it, it's useful to THEM whether you think it's useful or not. If somebody thinks tobacco is useful in his work and he uses it, your opinion on its usefulness is worthless.

Don't be silly. I can think of a practical use for potato chips. That doesn't mean I depend on them.

No it doesn't. Life could have evolved separately - on each continent, for example. The process of evolution would be the same. No. The common ancestor is based on observation. The observations happen to lead back to one root but that is not a requirement of the evolutionary process.

On the contrary, if scientists do use it, it is useful. Maybe it isn't necessary, like oxygen, but it is useful. Do you understand the difference?

Yes, Professor Bouroune is saying the same thing as I am - there is no dependency. We don't have to be dependent on something for it to be useful. What part of that do you not understand?

That would be some orgy.

I said that the common ancestor is "based on observation", not that it has been observed. Similarly, the electron is based on observation, even if there are no fossils of it. No. The ToE is about how one species evolves into another. The common ancestor is not a necessary part of the ToE.

"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." Message 25If you dispute that statement, it's up to you to show that it's wrong.

Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud by the very science that you scoff at.