Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Really? You continue to mistakenly think UCA and the Theory of Evolution are the same thing. No matter how many time you try this you are wrong. You really are confused. We agree. I also think it's funny that biologists haven't been brainwashed by the ToE. Yep. What? You are so confused.Observable facts and principals of biology is what the Theory of Evolution is based on.

And there we have it, the only reason for your pathetic attempt here is because you clearly believe it really does rule out the existence of your god.Your insecurity is showing.I think I'm done. Your redundancy is pointless.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Just following your line of reasoning. Important to you? You jest.

That was a question.

So, I have nothing to offer regarding your pointless question. Sue me.

The fossil record, yes. According to whom?And if you are talking about explaining the fossil record to you ... well, that would be hopeless in any case. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I hope you weren't expecting otherwise. I recall Tanypteryx saying something nice I would like to mimic.The best use of the Theory of Evolution is seeing how pissed off you get. Yes, it is, realizing so many people can be so intellectually challenged as to believe the crazy carpola you spout.I was hoping for better from my species.Bitter pill, indeed.

Evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God. I doubt if ToE reflects reality as, for starters, it does a very poor job of explaining the many gaps, distinct lack of transitiionals and sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms that are evident in the fossil record. I agree. But knowledge is obliged to be demonstrably factual. Therefore a mere theory is not knowledge, as scientific theories come and go, as you well know.
The fossil record is knowledge, but the theory of evolution that attempts to explain the fossil record is not knowledge.And a belief, no matter how strongly held, is not necessarily knowledge. You may be 110% convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, but that doesn't qualify it as knowledge, as no one can demonstrate that it is the truth. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

As I said, nothing contradicts the possible existence of god. But that wasn't the question I asked. This was what I asked. Why are you evading the question?“Let me guess, it contradicts your religious beliefs?“ This is a demonstration of total ignorance about what a scientific theory is and does. A scientific theory is not an idea, a hunch and an hoc explanation, it's a expanation of all known facts. As such, it's status is higher than pure facts. The ToE has stood for 150 years. Not only is it the best explanation of the facts, it's the only naturalistic explanation of them. I have also given you practical uses for it. Which, of course, you've also ducked. Liar, liar pants on fire! For once you got something right. What's really, really odd is that as far as I know, no-one believes 100% that all life on earth evolved from a UCA nor cares much. It's simply one possible prediction of the ToE. It could have done; equally life could have evolved from more than a single source and/or merged, interbred, gone exinct etc etc. We don't know and probably will never know. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.You've built a straw man that no one gives a damn about anyway. Your beef is with the ToE itself and it's only for religious reasons isn't it?

Er, no ... you're wrong - a google search does not produce "thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution." In fact, the number is ZERO. Take the quotes you supplied, for example: NONE of them say they are "practical uses for the theory of evolution" - if you read the text they are referred to as practical uses for "EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES".But like any good brainwashed evolutionist, you probably think "evolutionary principles" and "evolutionary theory" are the same thing. In which case you'd be wrong again, because if you opened your eyes a little and thought about it a little deeper you'd realize that any practically useful "evolutionary principle" exists REGARDLESS of the theory of evolution.For example, consider the following two "evolutionary principles" that have proven useful in applied biology:
1.. Natural selection.
2. Benefical mutations are passed from parent to offspring, which may lead to changes in gene frequency within a population.These two principles describe observable, demonstrable, repeatable facts and therefore the theory of evolution (ie, Darwin's concept of UCA) has contributed absolutely nothing to their existence. These two principles (ie, facts) exist and hold true for everyone - regardless of whether they accept the theory of evolution or not. They hold true and exist even for YECs. These principles would exist if no one had ever heard of the theory of evolution.The moral of the story is, whenever you are reading scientific literature and come across any "evolutionary principle" that has proven useful in applied science, remember that it is simply a principle of biology, and doesn't equate to or owe its existence to "evolutionary theory".These principles of biology have been misleadingly and ubiquitously dubbed "evolutionary principles" by the scientific community because it believes the fantasy that "evolution is the unifying theory of all biology". These deluded Darwinist fanatics actually believe that the principles of biological science need the theory of evolution! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

My word you're getting desperate.The principles of evolution are derived from the theory of evolution; they're not some seperate thing dissociated from it.And of course, there are thousands of result for practical uses of evolution. For god's sake this is not an obscure area of work.Applications of evolution - WikipediaEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

So, let me get this straight.You don't think that the theory of evolution was useful in developing various 'principles of evolution', which ARE useful.Is that correct?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I think you've repeated this a few times now. You doubt the ToE?Well, that changes everything! Why didn't you say so in the first place? Where do I sign up?What was all this nonsense about 'no practical purpose in practical biology for the UCA'? Why the smokescreen? You got this straight from your favorite YEC websites, yes? Despite the documentation of hundreds of transitional fossils... Only to a YEC can millions of years be 'sudden'.So, it all comes back to the tired old YEC mantras despite your pseudo-intellectual argument about usefulness and practicality of the UCA. Nothing new under the YEC sun. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I had a friend at UT Austin, geology prof, has what he calls his "geologist's watch" on his desk.It's one of those snow-globe-type things filled with sand, mud and a goodly amount of small green plastic pieces of fern leafs. The trick is the stuff is all weighted to fall into layers with the green stuff in the middle.So he shakes it up sets it down and announces that when the layer of green turns into oil it's time for lunch. Geologist can't tell time either.That is his explanation for why he and others in the field consider the Cambrian explosion as a mere 10-30 million year "overnight" event. That's where Dredge, or rather as you point out, his favorite YEC websites, get this "sudden appearances" tripe.Yep. It's all the geologists' fault.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The practical use for the theory of evolution is in explaining how species changed over time.