Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

More desperation ... and sorry, you're wrong. It's the same thing. If any the practical uses mentioned in the post 104 "depend on" the concept of UCA, then those uses are a practical use for the concept of UCA. Come on, it ain't rocket science.Unfortunately for the poster involved (LNA), there is no connection between the practical uses he mentioned and the concept of UCA. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

In that case, what was the point of you telling me this (from #131)?:"You may not like it and you may not believe it but we are working out the evolutionary history and relatedness of many groups of insects. We are figuring out recent common ancestors and working our way back. We talk about evolution continuously and it allows us to start making predictions about different possible management strategies. Knowing what evolutionary processes and mechanisms have been important in a species history gives us valuable clues to possible parisitoid controls we could employ." Did you know that there exist professors of biology who are YECs? So much for the importance of evolutionary theory in biology! W..Wh..What? You're a professional biologist and you think the theory of evolution is no more than a collection of observable facts and principles? Wow.
Look, this is how it works: Scientists took certain observable facts and principles of biology and formed the theory of evolution based on them. So obviously, ToE is more than just a collection of observable facts and principles. 1. As explained above, the observable facts and principles of biology are not the theory of evolution, but only part of it.2. I'm curious - what is your definition of "the theory of evolution"?3. So which evolutionary theory have you found a practical use for in your work?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I see, so all this huffing and puffing about UCA is utterly irrelevant as the actual problem you have is your inability to accept the established scientific theory that predicts it (or something like it).Let me guess, it contradicts your religious beliefs?I see you've now changed from requiring a use for the UCA (dumb) to practical uses for evolutionary theory as a whole - better but still dumb, as it need have no practical value at all to be never-the-less true. Knowledge has no obligation to be practiical.As it happens a 5 second google and google scholar search produces thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution. Here's the first that popped up

quote:

---

Abstract

​

Evolutionary principles are now routinely incorporated into medicine and agriculture. Examples include the design of treatments that slow the evolution of resistance by weeds, pests, and pathogens, and the design of breeding programs that maximize crop yield or quality.

​

Evolutionary principles are also increasingly incorporated into conservation biology, natural resource management, and environmental science. Examples include the protection of small and isolated populations from inbreeding depression, the identification of key traits involved in adaptation to climate change, the design of harvesting regimes that minimize unwanted life-history evolution, and the setting of conservation priorities based on populations, species, or communities that harbor the greatest evolutionary diversity and potential.

​

The adoption of evolutionary principles has proceeded somewhat independently in these different fields, even though the underlying fundamental concepts are the same. We explore these fundamental concepts under four main themes: variation, selection, connectivity, and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Within each theme, we present several key evolutionary principles and illustrate their use in addressing applied problems.

---

Evolutionary principles and their practical application - PMCEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Really? Haven't you ever heard rhis: "Evolution is the unifying theory of biology"! Where have you been? So most biologist believe biology can do without the theory of evolution? Ya coulda fooled me! LIttle do they know that ToE is just a useless story and that biologists really can do without it.Biologists haven't been brainwashed by ToE ... that's so funny! Okay, so when you said "Someone sees value in what we are learning", you were referring to discoveries in genetics? Golly gee, no kidding? It is really? In that case, please explain which observable fact or principle of biology would not exist without the theory of evolution?

No.Therefore I know you are a troll whose claims are not worth debating.You spout nothing but typical creationist BS deserving of nothing but anti-theist rants.And if I hadn't emphasized the point enough to get it through your typical creationist BS brain, your worthless claim is nothing but a desperate attempt to attack evolution in a vain attempt to emotionally shore-up your errant beliefs in religious majik at which you fail miserably.To your credit you did get something right. I am not just atheist. I am quite firmly anti-theist. And I rant. Congratulations, you have uncovered another great truth in the universe.

Nice try, but no cigar - evolution doesn't rule out the existence of God.

Fascinating, but what does this have to do with the thread?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Deary, deary me ... YET ANOTHER God-phobic, mouth-foaming rant ... after which I think I can safely assume that you can't provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. Furthermore, it sounds like this fact is a bitter pill for you to swallow.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Of course it doesn't! It never has! Yet virtually every creationist I've encountered over the past three decades have held staunchly to the belief that evolution does rule out the existence of God. They insist upon that belief so strongly, that it has defined the discussion with non-creationists who end up accepting those creationists' claim at face value. So the only people who belief that evolution rules out the existence of God are the vast majority of creationists and those non-creationists who have been fooled into accepting the creationists' false premises.Does this mean that you have broken ranks with your fellow creationists? That you have realized the basic fact that there is no conflict between evolution and divine creation? The simple fact is that the only thing that evolution conflicts with is specific religious beliefs that it does conflict with God.So if you are not deluded by the fundamental creationist false premise, then what's your beef?

As far as I'm aware, absolutely nothing rules out the possible existence of god. There's nothing special about the ToE in that regard.The hoohah is only about the fact that the ToE contradicts the Christian bible - if taken literally. Millions of Catholics and Anglicans don't seem to mind, it's only the weirdos that do.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Bitter pill? Every pamphlet with antibiotics warns you to finish the whole series. That is evolutionary theory in action.

Gosh, your reading comprehension needs a boost.UCA is not the theory of evolution, no matter how many times you repeat your mistaken assertion that it is. Can you name any? And where do they teach?Like I said, there are not many. I feel sorry for their students if they try to work in any biological fields. Like you, they will have real scientists doubting their competence their whole career. Wow indeed. I realize you didn't know this, but a scientific theory is based on the facts we know, not speculations, wishes, or beliefs. Nope. This is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution includes all known facts and observations of biology. It is not obvious at all that it includes more. When new discoveries in biology are made, the theory is modified to include them. That's how science works. I am unsurprised you didn't know that. Explained? You made some erroneous assertions. What do you think is the other part?

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.