Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Dredge writes: NO ONE benefits from the concept of UCA ... or any evolutionary theory, for that matter. Its only "benefit" is to make all those atheists out there feel more emotionally secure.

Dredge writes: Whatever useful applications of biology are discovered, you can be 100% certain none of them will depend on accepting UCA.

Dredge writes:However, I remain unconvinced that any evolutionary theory has provided a practical use in applied science.

You can't provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. Thank you, that's all I need to know.

Dredge writes:You can't provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. Thank you, that's all I need to know.

Dredge writes:You can't provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory.

Tangle writes:And do also you accept the theory of evolution that explains those fossils?

AZPaul3 writes:Typical creationist BS.
The point here Drudge, is that your claim is not worth debating. You are a troll ignorant of the science and the particulars of the issues. Your only purpose here is to insult evolution in a vain attempt to emotionally shore-up your errant beliefs in religious majik.
You fail, miserably, in intellect, knowledge, logic and all the other attributes necessary to debate questions with thinking human beings. You are desperate to debunk the tenets of evolution since they destroy your precious god delusions and that scares the hell out of you.
Interesting. It actually scares the hell into you which is why you feel so desperate.
Think about it. You have before you a proven hell-free existence just by embracing reality. You don't really need your gods after all.

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

Stile writes:I can't? What... like medicine?

edge writes:Okay, so we can just do away with basic biological science.

edge writes:Interesting. Then who wrote this:A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to.... if not you?

edge writes:The argument here is an intellectually vacant exercise unless one just wants to stir the pot. Suggesting that a theory does not do something it was never intended to do is just a form of trolling, not to be taken seriously.

ringo writes: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.

Then you're shooting yourself in the foot. If they use it, it's useful.