Tanypteryx writes:
I made my living in biology and the first time I ever heard the term "applied biology" was from you right here.
1. What? You're a professional biologist and you've never heard of "applied biology"?!
2. Instead of saying or writing, "practical applications of the observable facts and principles of biology", I simply say "applied biology". Try it - it's 2 words verses 7, or 71 characters verses 15!
their life history ... evolutionary history ... recent common ancestors ... species history
This useful histoical information is confined to no higher than the level of genus - which means, as far as your work is concerned, the concept of UCA is as irrelevant and useless as a fairy tale. A YEC biologist could do the same work you do without being professionally comprised in any way. In fact, a biologist could believe life on earth is only 100 years old and still do the work you do.
We talk about evolution continuously
Whatever practical applications you have for "evolution" are simply practical applications of observable facts and principles of biology - none of which depend on the concept/theory of UCA or indeed any theory of evolution.
Since none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend in any way on the concept of UCA or evolutionary theory, the constant references to "evolution" by biologists may be redundant.
As far as universal common ancestors go it's kind of an obvious conclusion from what we are seeing (to us).
1. Of course you do - biologists are brainwashed to think in terms of the "unifying concept" of UCA, believing UCA is not only a fact, but is essetial scientific information.
2. That's odd - humans had been exploiting the genetic variations in plants and animals and studying the respective common ancestries for thousands of years and no one ever thought UCA was "an obvious conclusion" ... and no one ever thought to call what they observed "evolution". But that's another story.
People talk about it over beers and at meetings and on field trips, but opinions seem to be spread out over several options.
No amount of rabbiting on about Darwinian folklore in bars and around campfires makes it true or practically useful.
There could be one or a few common ancestors and some of them seem to have exchanged genes and organelles. Most biologists are working on more important problems
Hilarious. How do theoretical uncertainties relating to a concept that is totally irrelevant and useless in the real world amount to one of biology's "problems"?
occasionally they run across evidence that gives us clues to understanding deeper ancestry. Tens of thousands of species are having their genomes sequenced and this is data on an unprecedented scale. Someone sees the value in what we are learning.
The concept of UCA has no "value" at all in biology, as none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend on it in any way.
You seem to be giddy that we don't know everything there is to know about a universal common ancestor and that you can't find a practical use for any knowledge we may have learned.
1. I'm "giddy" that any biologist thinks it's important. The bizarre fact is, most biologists are throughly brainwashed to accept the myth that the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life (ie, the concept of UCA) is essential to "understanding" biology. Rare is the biologist who realizes that none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend on this Darwinian folklore.
2. an unverifiable story about what might have happened billions of years ago hardly qualifies as "knowledge".
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)