Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Are you talking about the evidence that you have never presented here?And how would you know scientific evidence anyway? So does magic. Compared to magic, yes. So, a lack of knowledge is your evidence.Somehow, I'm not surprised. I can see that you are easily amused.So, it looks like denial is the rest of your evidence.Thanks for clearing that up. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Yep, right up there with "the UCA has no application in applied biology".Earth-shattering stuff.

Has anything been said claiming the ToE has something useful to offer? I've skimmed the thread and don't see anything. Lots of side issues, lots of "noise," but the ToE remains as useless as ever to science or life.

Yes, the thread is littered with them.
Here's one from Message 171:Just a simple thing called "medicine."

First, the OP is about the UCA, not the ToE. The UCA is a simple and simplistic prediction/conclusion from the principle of common ancestry. Whether it has a use or not is irrelevant. It's scientific knowledge which is useful for it's own sake.Second, of course he's been given uses for the ToE, but he prefers to bugger about with words instead of attempting to understand what it is that he disagrees with.

Oh right, my bad. But there is no usefulness for either the UCA or the ToE. Which you go on to acknowledge without really acknowledging it: But that's an evasion of course because the topic is its practical usefulness. You know, the way the knowledge of gravity and air made flight possible, how the knowledge of bacteria fostered cleanliness in medical interventions saving countless lives. How knowledge of the circulation of the blood fostered knowledge of how the heart works, leading to all kinds of medical interventions saving people from heart attacks etc. Zip zilch nada for anything to do with the UCA or the ToE. There are no practical uses for the ToE so he can't have been given any. Yes, "evolutionary principles" ARE routinely incorporated into all kinds of scientific biological discussions, where they just sit there like barnacles without any usefulness whatever. However, the "evolution of resistance by weeds" is not about the ToE at all, since this sort of genetic effect is on the level of "microevolution" which we would know about without any input from the ToE. We've always known how to breed all kinds of living things for various effects utterly without any input from ToE or UCA. The science of genetics has of course made this much more sophisticated, and that science is utterly independent of the ToE. The habit of thinking in terms of the ToE unfortunately creates the illusion that it is relevant though it is not. Oh dear, the ToE has SO confused things. This again needs no more knowledge than the common understanding of how individual species change from generation to generation, which is microevolution which has zip to do with the ToE or the UCA. We can see the need for onservationi interventions occurring all the time without reference to evolutionary history. If some salmon happen to go up the wrong stream and reproduce away from the main population they will form a very undesirable subpopulation which has to be controlled. Nothing to do with anything but one generation of reproductive error. The ToE is incorporated into such observations without any relevance whatever, where it just sita like a useless third thumb. Microevolution again. What we can observe of biological systems in present time without any reference whatever to the principles of the ToE let alone the UCA. Variation occurs from generation to generation in observable present time. Selection is a common event, such as the salmon type that gets accidentally selected by merely swimming up a tributary and reproducing outside the main population. If a predator killed off the main population it would be the same effect of selection. Same I'm sure with connectivity and eco systems.Science is hampered by this confusion of the ToE with microevolution or simple variation within a species built into every genome.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do not acknowledge that the ToE has no uses. Obviously, as I then go on to demonstrate that it has. Sure, but the topic originator is confused, he does not understand what the UCA or the ToE is, so it's a silly, pointless point. The UCA is a possible conclusion of the ToE not a necessary component of it. Stop conflating the UCA with the ToE, they are not synonyms. Yet despite that, he's been given them. How weird is that, it must mean that you're wrong again. Sorry for the inconvenience. As has been explained multiple times, macroevolution is just microevolution plus time. And of course, microevolution is evolution as described by the ToE. Get you, an ignoramous that thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that the bible is literally true with no scientific training whatsoever at any level explaining to scientists that they're confused. Ah, bless you.

You say dredgie got plenty of examples of the ToE's usefulness but name not one. Besides that empty assertion you make other empty assertions and then resort to ad hominem name calling. Which is probably an excellent example of how this whole thread has gone.Sorry, what I said is true. Oh and I didn't conflate the UCA with the ToE, I kept them separate. It is true however that there is no practical use for either. Of course there is no evidence that microevolution just goes on to be macroevolution, that's just one of those empty assertions of which the ToE is constructed. And I've many times showed that the processes of variation must come to an end before macroevolution could occur.And besides, none of the examples given requires anything but common garden variety microevolution.Cheers.

I don't know. Please explain.

Really? You really have no clue how "super bugs" evolve? Really?You have patients who follow the entire course of antibiotics as prescribed. You start with a population of bacteria. Some of them may have some low level of resistance to an antibiotic, but when that antibiotic is applied properly (ie, the entire course is followed), then that entire population of bacteria gets eradicated, so we have no problem. As a result, there is no antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria left for us to have to deal with.Now you have patients who do not follow the entire course of antibiotics as prescribed. You start with a population of bacteria. Some of them may have some low level of resistance to an antibiotic, but when that antibiotic is applied improperly (ie, the entire course is not followed in order to totally eradicate them), then that population of bacteria is not eradicated, but rather those bacteria with some level of resistance survive to propagate -- please note that it is the bacteria who are most resistant who are also most likely to be present to propagate, according to evolutionary theory. The next time that population of bacteria is exposed to that antibiotic and proper protocol is not followed (ie, the total eradication of that bacterial population) then the surviving bacteria are even more resistant to that antibiotic.In the end, you have super-bugs who are resistant to all antibiotics you could ever throw at them.And you are just yet another fucking creationist idiot.Edited by dwise1, : Added "creationist" to the last sentence

He did get plenty of examples and I showed you them, he also got a link to a science paper (which he didn't read) and to the wiki page full of applications of the ToE. The first set of examples in that link referred to this note containing more references. It is not hard to find this sort of information.

quote:

---

Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.

​

This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.

​

Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

​

Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.

​

Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

​

Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
enzymes (Arnold 2001)
pigments (Arnold 2001)
antibiotics
flavors
biopolymers
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).

​

The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).

​

Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:
Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.
The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).

​

Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.

​

Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.

​

Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application.
References:

​

Arnold, Frances H. 2001. Combinatorial and computational challenges for biocatalyst design. Nature 409: 253-257.
Barbrook, Adrian C., Christopher J. Howe, Norman Blake, and Peter Robinson, 1998. The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature 394: 839.
Benner, Steven A. 2001. Natural progression. Nature 409: 459.
Branca, Malorye. 2002. Sorting the microbes from the trees. Bio-IT Bulletin, Apr. 07. http://www.bio-itworld.com/news/040702_report186.html
Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217.
Cherry, J. R., and A. L. Fidantsef. 2003. Directed evolution of industrial enzymes: an update. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14: 438-443.
Conover, D. O. and S. B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297: 94-96. See also pp. 31-32.
Cummings, C. A. and D. A. Relman. 2002. Microbial forensics-- "cross-examining pathogens". Science 296: 1976-1979.
Dunn, M., A. Terrill, G. Reesink, R. A. Foley and S. C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309: 2072-2075. See also: Gray, Russell. 2005. Pushing the time barrier in the quest for language roots. Science 309: 2007-2008.
Eisen, J. and M. Wu. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology 61: 481-487.
Futuyma, D. J. 1995. The uses of evolutionary biology. Science 267: 41-42.
Galvani, Alison P. 2003. Epidemiology meets evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(3): 132-139.
Gaschen, B. et al.. 2002. Diversity considerations in HIV-1 vaccine selection. Science 296: 2354-2360.
Howe, Christopher J. et al. 2001. Manuscript evolution. Trends in Genetics 17: 147-152.
Marczyk, Adam. 2004. Genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation. Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation
Nesse, Randolph M. and George C. Williams. 1994. Why We Get Sick. New York: Times Books.
Relman, David A. 1999. The search for unrecognized pathogens. Science 284: 1308-1310.
Searls, D., 2003. Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 613-623. Nature - Not Found
Sutherland, William J., 2002. Science, sex and the kakapo. Nature 419: 265-266.
Taylor, Sean V., Peter Kast, and Donald Hilvert. 2001. Investigating and engineering enzymes by genetic selection. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 40: 3310-3335.
Vogel, Gretchen. 1998. HIV strain analysis debuts in murder trial. Science 282: 851-852.

---

CA215: Practical uses of evolution. Clearly not.

... just a matter of nomenclature. Nope.The P. ralstoni clade includes Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus ... and all of their descendants ... it's like a kind reproducing after it's kind, where all descendants are members of the original kind.That's why I said "All the species above Pelycodus ralstoni in the chart are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade" ... ALL the species descendant from Pelycodus ralstoni are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade. Yes ... it is a simple concept ... and if you want to learn how to discuss science scientifically then learn the science and the terminology used in the science.Enjoy

That's because it is not necessary for evolution to be a valid explanation of the history of life. All that is necessary is that there is a pattern of descent of daughter species from parent species, resulting in the formation of nested hierarchies of these patterns that is observed in the fossil record and the DNA data. The logical conclusion is that there is a single ancestral parent population ... and that is also what the evidence from fossils and from DNA show ... but it is not necessary. And yet that is not part of their definition of the Theory of Evolution, it is part of their discussion, the Explanation of the theory. Under the Definition it says:

quote:

---

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene ” or more precisely and technically, allele ” frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

That doesn't mention LUCA either, just the pattern of descent of daughter species from parent species.Note that "small-scale evolution" is micro-evolution and "large-scale evolution" is macro-evolution as those terms are used in evolution science.Enjoy

Great! Present some and let's discuss them!Where do you want to start?

• The "shrinking sun"?
• The claim that at the rate that the sun is losing its mass would mean that an ancient sun would have been so huge and massive as to have "sucked the earth in" and incinerated it?
• The "leap second" claim (ie, at the rate that the earth's rotation is slowing down then mere millions of years ago it would have been spinning impossibly fast)?
• The "moon dust" claim (ie, if the moon were truly ancient, then it should be covered by a layer of meteoric dust over 200 feet thick)?
• Human population growth?
• Radio-carbon dating?

So many PRATTs, so little time, and practically no creationists willing to discuss them. I have no doubt that you will also do everything you possibly can to avoid rising to the occasion.