Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Sorry; that's not how science works - you made a claim and it's up to you to substantiate it with evidence. It's obvious you don't have any, so that's all I need to know.

Dredge, you are not a regular here, which I hope changes because as comic relief you provide the hilarity of ill-informed creationist argument which we have too little of in this forum, but if you hang around a bit you may realize that Tanypteryx, the author of message 25 ringo referred to, IS one of those scientists from around the world who are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate.He makes pretty pictures of bugs, which are delightful to view, but the object is not the making of pretty pictures but the study of insects and their populations on this planet to a depth of detail and intellect you cannot even conceive.So, yes, ringo provided the evidence in the form of Tanypteryx and colleagues. If you dispute his work and the work of thousands of others in his discipline using the fact of "evolution," in all its facets, as their guide, then you are going to have provide evidence that they are not. You cannot do that.You will also have to provide an alternative to the evolutionary model that has the same efficacy as the TOE. You cannot do that, either.

... except there are many creationists who don't believe that all life on earth was created during the same creative week. Some creationists accept exactly the same billion-of-years time-frame of life on earth and exactly the same fossil record as you do - creationists like me, for example.
Sorry Mr. Dawkins, the Cambrian explosion still represents evidence of creation and evidence against ToE. Yes, the appearance of animals with hard bits was so sudden it is referred to as an "explosion". And another odd thing happened during this "explosion" - virtually all the animal pyhla that have ever existed appeared. Funny that. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Deary, deary me. Please be advised that your entire post represents a complete waste of time - it has no relevance at all to what I was trying to say in post 267, nor to the OP. The OP isn't concerned with evidence for the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. Neither is it concerned with refuting said theory. Rather, it is concerned with a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" - evolution.berkeley.edu ("Understanding 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?"But here is an alterantive point of view:"The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution ... In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality" - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15.Does Futuyma have everything back-to-front? He says, "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution". But "natural selection and the other processes' are not THOUGHT to cause evolution - it is known that they DO cause evolution. So there is no "theory" here - it is a demonstrable fact "natural selection and the other processes" cause evolution.
On the other hand, it is a theory that "natural selection and the other processes" are the means by which all life on earht descended from a common ancestor.Then he claims it is a FACT that "organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors". Is he referring to the fossil record and his belief that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor? If so, that is not a fact, but a theory.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.

In other words, your post Message 267 - that I replied to in Message 283 - was a waste of your time and you recant everything said in it.And here I thought you wanted answers on a related line of reasoning involving your ignorance/denial/misunderstanding of the science of evolution. My bad. The practical use of all science is that it lessens the amount of time people spend (waste) on false or incomplete concepts (like "progressive creation") of how things work in the real world.This has been said before, you have not refuted it, just denied it.Enjoy

It has nothing to do with the actions of antibiotics. That's why it's so strange you brought it up. And "make sure you finish the course" is a practical application of the Theory of Evolution.

If you don't know you shouldn't be here.

Magic is consistent with everything and explains nothing.But your designer must be a pathological liar to make all the evidence point to evolution. Are you comfortable with that?

And still no evidence or argument for that other than your personal incredulity. Translates to "Gosharootie, Buffalo Bob, that tens of millions of years of evolution of hard body parts is too much for my feeble brain."

Without getting into jargon, it is an explanation of all the facts regarding how life diversified through time. In other words, it does exactly what a theory is supposed to do.

Neither do I, however, your opinion is noted.However it its also noted that you have no independent support for your opinion. Hey, you're the one who is trying to make Dawkins look like an anti-evolutionist. Quote mining Dawkins isn't going to get you anywhere.

Even though you can't explain why. It's just your religion. So, since it is "referred to" as an explosion in geological terms, you liken it to modern ordnance. That's silly. I thought you said that you accepted the 'billions of years' concept. Now you want to have it both ways, yes?There were probably billions of years in the history of life prior to the Cambrian Period. Do you have any idea what we mean by 'Phyla'?What about other Orders and Classes, etc.? Where were the mammals for instance?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

If you were a highschool biology teacher and had to explain "the theory of evolution" to your students, what would you say?

How does that work then? There's nothing about the Cambrian explosion - or radiation, as science normally refers to it as - that suggests supernatural sources. Life did not start there nor did is remain static thereafter. The 'explosion' lasted 25 million years - it was not a sudden event. Funnier way for a creator to work it seems to me, he didn't start work in the Cambrian, that was billions of years earlier and he omitted very large animal groups from the Cambrian - insects, fish, lizards, birds and, rather importantly, mammals. Odd that if we were the sole point of the excercise. Also it's not quite what's written in your book is it?