Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

There has to be enough acidic irony in that quote to start a food chain.Tell me Dredge, is God anything like a theoretical UCA? I mean without any of the supporting evidence.

Can anyone explain how he came to this curious conclusion?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The problem is, there are different definitions of the "theory of evolution" and some of them don't include anything about macroevolution or UCA; they merely mention principles of biology that no one disputes.
For example, livescience.com offers this defintion:"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.". In this sense, "the theory of evolution" and "evolution" and "principles of evolution" (and "microevolution") all refer to the same thing.So on second thoughts, I'm probably barking up the wrong tree and should go back to my original "UCA" argument expressed in the OP.As far as I know, googling "practical uses for the theory of evolution" comes up with nothing. But googling "practical uses for evolution/priciples of evolution" produces many such uses. I find that interesting.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.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The 'problem' is that the ToE can be explained in several ways, which is actually not a problem, but a benefit. You'll find that religionists like you dispute all manner of things about evolutionary theory from nothing evolved at all (YEC biblical literalists) to evolution happened the way science says it happened but at some magical moment god interfered and stuck a pre-frontal cortex and a soul into an ape (Catholics)You might be surprised to hear that I completed two terms of degree level study of evolutionary theory without hearing the term "macroevolution'. It seems to be a distinction that religionists feel may provide them with a loophole while scientists simply say that “Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales”. Yeh, well who would have thought that the principles of evolutary theory come from the theory of evolution? By the number of edits necessary in such a short post I can see you struggled with that, but still, congratulations, your ideas *can* be influenced by facts. That happens rarely with religionists here.As for UCA, that's been answered - the UCA is a prediction/conclusion of a simple interpretaion of the ToE. If you think of an 'imaginary tree of life, you would place the UCA at bottom of the trunk. But equally you could have a root system under it that works in the opposite direction - from many to one - which then forms many again. Other complexities arise with the probability of horizontal gene transfer between micro-organisms. That's why it is usually referred to by scientists as LUCA (Last UCA). And to repeat, it doesn't need a practical use to be true. Knowledge is valuable. And interesting. Period. Having accepted above that the principles of evolution are derived from the theory of evolution, that's a retrograde step.However

quote:

---

No results found for "practical uses for the theory of evolution".

​

Results for practical uses for the theory of evolution (without quotes):

​

Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications. Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.

---

Applications of evolution - WikipediaIs your test for whether evolution is true that google must respond to only the exact word string you enter?And, your are still ducking the question of whether you dispute the ToE for religious reasons.

Understanding the internet and google, how they work, from where their data flows, this is not at all surprising. There are a lot of useless uninformed treatments in such a list of results.The key is swamping through the chaff to find the legitimately knowledgeable works, then, the hard part for religionist creationists, is reading, studying, comprehending that body of knowledge.I get the impression you don't even look at the results. You scan the titles, scan a few words looking for a bone to pick, but eschew the scholastic rigor of understanding the data and the concepts the various sources, in concert, seek to convey.That is being intellectually lazy. As a result you have no actual knowledge of the subject. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You're hilarious.
"Pray tell... how have transistors proven useful in electronic devices? Please provide a specific example."Oh my, the difficulty... however will I find one? There were two of them in the link you just quoted. One of the big, huge ones, and one of the small, specific ones:

quote:

---

Medicine

​

Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals.
Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.

​

Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[6] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[7] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[8] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.[9]

---

It must be difficult to talk, with all those feet in your mouth.

This post of yours completely destroys any credibility you may have had. Good grief. What gaps are you talking about? Be specific.So, you are criticizing the Theory of Evolution because it doesn't explain everything? Really? There is no "distinct lack of transitionals." Museums are packed with transitional fossils hundreds and hundreds of them. Thousands of papers and books are written describing new ones every year.That you would say this shows you have a distinct lack of knowledge on this subject. Do you even think about what you write?In what reality would you expect partly formed organisms to be running around? Are you daft? Right there you demonstrate that you don't know jack shit about any science.There are several different, unrelated ways that "theory" is used today.1. A theory is a wild-assed guess, used by uninformed people like you, who don't know anything about science.2. In science, a theory includes all the evidence, all the observations, all the facts about that field of science. As new things about that subject are learned they are added to the theory. If evidence is discovered that contradicts the theory or part of it, then the theory must be abandoned or corrected. Scientific theories can be used to make predictions.3. In physics, hypotheses are often called theories even though they have not been experimentally confirmed.People who have studied science and understand how it works should know about these different usages of the word theory.The Theory of Evolution has stood for 150 years. There have been numerous modifications and corrections, but anyone who refers to it as a mere theory has no chance of refuting it. No, the fossil record is evidence that life has evolved over the course of history on this planet. This is true. That is why science relies on evidence rather than strongly held beliefs. You have been repeatedly told that no one is convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, because there is not enough evidence to make that conclusion.Why do you keep claiming that's what we think, even after we repeatedly say we don't?I know this is your favorite delusion, but to keep repeating it is just plain stupid.You have no credibility.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Praise the Noodlyness!Ramen.

Sorry, but my fragile, egg-shell mind has no idea what you're talking about.

The "principles of evolution" are the (useful) mechanisms of evolution - mutations and natural selection, for example. Mutations and natural selection are observable, demonstrable facts - ie, they exist regardless of any scientific theory based on them, such as ToE. The (useful) facts came first, then the (useless) theory.Human beings have been making practical use of the "principles of evolution" in animal and plant breeding for thousands of years. They didn't need any "theory of evolution" to do so.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Which "evolutionary theory" might that be? I thought antibiotics worked according to facts, not a theory.

Science implies that the (pre-Adamic) Genesis creation account is not literal.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Yes it does. That's basically what ToE is - all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection.

In other words, you can't back up your claim (that the evolutionary history of the world has proven practically useful in tackling climate change) with any facts.

"none of the progress made in biology DEPENDS even slightly on a theory"Louis Bouroune ( Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, 1957, p. 79. (emphasis mine)Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.