Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Thanks for your opinion.I was pointing out some of the ways we used evolution in our entomology work and that you are mistaken. You seem quite deluded and ignorant about science, and biology, and evolution. Those two statements do not disagree and I have not changed my position. UCA is NOT the Theory of Evolution. No I did not imply anything about a "mere collection of facts." I stated that a scientific theory contains all the facts we know about the subject and it never contains speculations, wishes, or beliefs, so there is nothing "mere" about it.You have implied several times that there is "more" to the Theory of Evolution, but I don't think you said what the "more" is.You seem to be confused that there are multiple definitions of the Theory of Evolution, but that is what happens when someone tries to distill a subject as complex as biological evolution down to a sentence or two. The definition is a brief description of the theory. The theory is all the facts, all the evidence, everything we know on the subject and no speculations, wishes, or beliefs. Well done, you found a bunch.What's your point? Are you saying they didn't teach their students about the Theory of Evolution in their biology classes? Are you saying they taught young earth creationism in their biology classes. Is this supposed to convince me of something?I think my original statement stands, "there is a distinct shortage of YEC biologists." No it doesn't. It is not evidence of any such thing. You are clutching at straws. The goal is teaching them about all the evidence of the subject, in this case, how biology works, which is the Theory of Evolution. If their professors do not strive to do that then they are failing their students. If their professors teach creationist nonsense in biology classes they are betraying science and their students.A scientific theory is not a wild-assed guess, or wishes, or beliefs, or speculations. Using "theory" in this way is leading to your confusion.A scientific theory is supported by all the evidence, all the facts. The Theory of Evolution is everything about how biology works. In order to refute this theory you have to present something that describes the evidence more accurately. So far, you have presented nothing that accomplishes that.In physics, there are scientific theories that explain how the Universe works, and there are also hypotheses that have not been experimentally confirmed that are also called theories. This sometimes confuses people who don't know much about science.Your continued mistaken use the incorrect meaning of "scientific theory" destroys your credibility.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

O good grief, I was talking about the people (I even said "we") involved in this discussion, but beliefs have nothing to do with evidence, no matter how many hold those beliefs.Science is about evidence, not beliefs.Here is what I actually said in Message 217: Proving my point, beliefs are not evidence. You are quite a bullshitter though.I guess you didn't know that honorary doctorates are not awarded for knowledge or accomplishments in a field. You still have no credibility.

This demonstrates your ignorance of anything related to evolution. There is no such thing as genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.Biological evolution is a result of individual members of a species mating and reproducing. Genera do not mate so they cannot evolve.

That would be some orgy.

I can not fathom how you arrived at that conclusion but perhaps as one deserving of an honorary doctorate in biology you could indicate ANY theory that you have found useful. Game theory maybe or Information theory or Statistical mechanics and it's influence on probabalistic math?Is there any such thing as a useful theory? How would you use one?

And you are wrong --- by definition of the terms as used in the science of evolution by the scientists doing the work.(1) A species is defined as a population of organisms capable of interbreeding, while a genera is defined as a group of species that do not interbreed, one species population with another. These species are related by having a common parent population.(2) Evolution only occurs within a breeding population -- a species, or a part (subset) of a species that may be isolated from the rest of the species population/s.This is how science defines the terms, and your misuse of the terms is wrong and only demonstrates ignorance and unwillingness to learn the topic you think you are discussing. This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.Again, this is how the terms are used in the science of evolution by the scientists doing the work.If you want to discuss any field of science, you need to learn the definitions of the terminology as used in the field and then use them correctly.Enjoy

As the quote states, the theory is "Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection."
Followed by the facts that support this explanation.That's what theories are - explanations of "demonstrable FACTS," so of course the facts are involved. This is like saying:"Btw, what I mean by "electronics" is what I consider macroelectronics* or the theory of electronics - ie, that all electronic devices use transistors.
* My definition of macroelectronics is Best Buy-Amazon crossovers or electronics above the level of multi-companies."It's silly and makes you look a fool.
You can have your hilarious definition all you'd like. Those of us who actually understand what evolution is will simply sit back and laugh as you dance around.

The theory of evolution says nothing at all about weather all life evolved from a single thread of descent.The theory is identical if there is just one line of descent or a dozen.The only reason that the existence of a LUCA is accepted is that we haven't found any reason to think there is another line of descent evolving in parallel with the one we see. That is, there is ample evidence that all know living organisms are related very deeply in time.If under some rock, somewhere an organism was found that was clearly not related to all the rest of us then that interesting new fact would have an impact on our understanding of the history of the evolution of life unfolding on earth but have absolutely no impact on the theory of evolution.If you have trouble understanding that last paragraph then you need to back up a loooong way and learn a lot more.

Really? What evolutionary theory is that?Why is any evolutionary theory needed to explain the facts pertaining to the action of antibiotics? One ingests a toxin (antibiotic) that kills certain bacteria in one's body - what's that got to do with the theory of evolution?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

If so, where was this common ancestor observed and what name did they give it? And please provide an photo of its fossil remains. I agree with you here. But the "evolutionary process" is not the same as "the theory of evolution" - the "evolutionary process" is one part of "the theory of evolution".ToE has two parts:
1. All organisms on earth are connected and related to each other, since they all descended from a common ancestor.
2. All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection (and other mechanisms, which could collectively be called, "the evolutionary process").

Well of course, but there's a big difference between "if" and "do". What is your evidence that they "do use it"? Let me guess ... you have none.

This DNA "tree of life" sounds like it might involve Darwin's "tree of life" and his theory of evolution - but it doesn't; in fact, no knowledge of the theory of evoluiton is needed in order to trace and construct a useful phylogentic tree of DNA common ancestry.
Such "trees" are confined to the level of genus and are really not much different to a family tree that humans use to trace their ancestors.
Believe it or not, there are many such family trees of life recorded in the Bible and none of the authors knew about the theory of evolution!There is no reason why a YEC biologist (ie, someone who denies the theory of evolution and the concept LUCA) could not trace and contruct a DNA 'tree of life'. Wow, that's quite a leap of faith ... from "variations within a genus" to "all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor"! 1. It is like asking if there are any practical uses for the theory of evolution - the answer appears to be "NO".
2. ... except the theory of evolution isn't "knowledge". I dare say no theory qualifies as knowledge. You could, but that would be nonsense, as there's nothing remotely "practical" about a mere idea.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Oh, nooooo!! Imagine what would happen if no one was taught the theory of evolution! Biologists would be rendered completely useless and have to drive taxis! All crops would fail and no one could breed farm animals! No drugs could be developed! Immunization would become just a memory! No one would know that their ancestors were jelly fish!

Excellent rhetoric! All you need to do is now is back it up by suppling an example of how the concept of LUCA or the theory of evolution has provided a practical use in applied science.

... none of which requires any knowledge of the theory of evolution."their evolutionary history" and "the science of evolutionary biology" have proven useful but neither of these or even both of them add up to the theory of evolution.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.