Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Actually, the use of "UCA" or "LUCA" is irrelevant as far as the OP is concerned - I could have avoid referring to either of them by simply asking for practical uses in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from microbes. That depends on one's definition of ToE. For example, according to the following definition, UCA is not a conclusion of ToE, but is an integral part of it:"The theory (of evolution) has two main points, says Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "all life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection"
- livescience.com, "What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?".What is your definition of ToE?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I take your point. I could have reduced that quote to "The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record - from their initial appearance to their extinction - has long been noted". But I left the reference to Darwin in there in the hope that the reader might put one and one together and realize that Darwin believed in evolution despite knowing how poorly the fossil record supported his theory. Oh, so you disgree with this part of the quote: "The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record - from their initial appearance to their extinction - has long been noted"? If so, I suggest you take that up with Wikipedia. Probably because the fossil record reveals an overall pattern of evolution.A likely explanation would be that they had a priori belief that evolution is true (probably due to some personal philosophical conviction)- regardless of the inconventient truths the fossil record presents to that belief. Evolution is also the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. Please explain. Gould considered the fossil record an "embarrassment" to Darwin's theory of gradualism, but I think the fossil record is an embarrassement to evolution. No, it shows that many highly-intelligent folks are willing to believe in evolution despite the serious problems the fossil record presents to this belief. There's no getting around the fact that finding organisms "already in an advanced state of evolution ... without any evolutionary history" (Dawkins) doesn't represent evidence of ToE; on the contrary, it represents evidence that ToE is false. I presume you mean that the fossil record is hitherto complete. So the ToE is based on fossil evidence that is merely hoped for, and doesn't actually exist. Got it. Despite the problems that the fossil record presents to ToE, ToE it is still the best scientific explanation of the fossil record ... not that means anything to me, as I believe science is incapable of explaining the fossil record. Translation: "Evolution ATTEMPTS to explain all this."Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

That quote is from p.182 of Gould's book, The Panda's Thumb. At least, that what my copy says.

In that case, it is YOU who is mistaken - twice:1. Read the OP: It doesn't ask for practical uses for "evolution" - it asks for practical uses for the concept of UCA.2. In order to establish that I am "mistaken", you need to provide a practical use in applied science for the concept of UCA - which you have hitherto failed to do. I already knew that there are many practical uses for "evolution", because "evolution" can simply refer to the mechanisms of evolution, which are also fundamental and useful mechanisms of biology - which exist independent of ToE, btw. Show me where I ever said "UCA is the theory of evolution". You could have fooled me. You stated that "The observed facts and principles of biology ARE the theory of evolution" - this implies that facts alone add up to a sceintific theory. Which contradicts "The observed facts and principles of biology are the theory of evolution." "The theory (of evolution) has two main points, says Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "All life on earth is connected and related to each other", and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection" - livescience.com, "What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?"
Clearly, according to this definition, there is "more" to ToE than just facts and principles of biology. Oh yes, ToE is so important and essential to understanding "how biology works" that one can totally reject and ignore it and stilll become a professor of biology!! So funny!! Yep ... so much so that not a single practical application of applied biology owes its existence to ToE!! More funny!! That's odd; I didn't realize the aim of the OP was to refute the theory of evolution. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

How did birds evolve from dinosaurs, for example, if a species from one genus didn't evolve into a species from another genus (ie, without genus-genus evolution)?

You have clearly misinterpreted my terms "genus-genus evolution" and "evolution above the level of species".By "genus-genus evolution" I mean an interval of evolution that begins with a species within one genus and ends with a species within another genus. For example, a fish to an amphibian, an ape to a human being, or a whale to a submarine.By "evolution above the level of species" is perhaps a clumsy way of saying the same thing: evolution above a species evolving into another species within the same genus - ie, a species from one genus evolving into a species of a different genus - ie, genus-genus evolution.

Perhaps you have a point. But the quote doesn't say it presents a "schematic representation of the THEORY of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection", nor does it anywhere use the word "theory". So what is this theory that you claim it explains?(... not that is has anything to do with the OP - understanding antibiotic resistance doesn't require any knowledge of the concept of UCA.)

That depends on one's definition of ToE. What's yours?

Without the Theory of Evolution there can be no principles of evolution. Do you intend to continue playing your word games indefinitely or have you anything of substance to add?

And you would have got the same answers. Scientific knowledge has no requirement to be of practical value. But you still don't understand the difference between UCA and LUCA. The former implies a single source from which all life evolved (which may or not be true but we almost certainly will never know), the latter is the last we can go back to, it's predecessors being extinct. No it doesn't, it depends on understanding the theory of evolution. That requires you study it rather than attempt to twist words into shapes that their originators didn't intend. The principle of common descent is the integral part of the theory of evolution not the UCA. UCA is a conclusion/prediction derived from the principle of common descent.

Oh good ! We get to invent our own definitions.Let's see how that works.One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that on 27 March 2019, a race of blue leprechauns with pink spots will rise up and occupy Jerusalem. I know this because I have studied the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and that is what it says. All of the experts are wrong and I am right. Since Jersualem is still unoccupied by blue leprechauns with pink spots, the whole basis of Christianity is undermined.Now, is that a legitimate argument against Christianity, or does it just make me look like a pillock ? Edited by vimesey, : Typo

Come on man, everybody knows that leprechauns are green.

Again, the theory is "Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection." Followed by the facts that support this explanation.Of course the word "theory" doesn't exist in the description of the theory.
To describe something by using the word you're describing is to make a circular description.When describing a car, you don't say "it's a car with an engine."
When describing a theory, you don't say "it's a THEORY of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection."Neither actually describes what "car" or "theory" is because they use the same word.You can, however, describe an example of a car as "a 4 wheeled vehicle with an engine."
Just as you can, also, describe an example of a theory as "a schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection." (Except, of course, that if the understanding of antibiotic resistance was not the way it is - then the concept of UCA would be incorrect - there would be no evidence supporting it. Which, to rational people, implies that such ideas, theories and practical applications are inherently linked and should not be separated in attempts to make a silly fool of yourself. But sure, buddy - you do you.)

Birds ARE dinosaurs, the last remaining branch.Enjoy

Mine is simple: This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.If a species is observed to change over generations (anagenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) changes in the expressed hereditary traits (genes, morphology, development), (b) that the changes were either neutral or improved the survival and reproductive success of individuals in response to their ecological challenges and opportunities and (c) that if they improved the fitness of the carriers that it will spread within the breeding population in following generations.If a clade is observed to form (cladogenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) reproductive isolation between daughter populations and (b) independent evolution (anagenesis) within each daughter population. We can also predict the formation of the clade will fall within a nested hierarchy pattern.These predictions can be tested against the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record, and the everyday record of life we observe in the world all around us. Biologists have been testing this theory for 150 plus years, and thus far they have confirmed that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.You will note that all evolution takes place at the species level within breeding populations: No mention of LUCA.EnjoyGeneral references and further study resources

1. Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide
   
2. U of Michigan on-line course material
   
3. Talk Origins Introduction to Evolutionary Biology