Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

The only pain I'm aware of is from dying brain cells absorbing effluent emitted by anti-evolution posts.

In retrospect, I should have asked for practical uses in applied science for the Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) theory/explanation for the history of life on earth (as opposed to the theory of common descent).(Someone (Stile, I think) implied that there might be such uses in "medicine" but I (my research team is on holidays at the moment) lost track of this part of the thread.)P.S. Everyone who knows me says my whole life has been pointless from the very beginning, so I guess it's hardly surprising that I came up with what you perceive to be a "pointless" thread.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Well, you have a nice avatar.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

Conservation and overall evolution of gene sequences between species is being leveraged to study human genetic diseases:

quote:

---

Data on replacement mutations in genes of disease patients exist in a variety of online resources. In addition, genome sequencing projects and individual gene sequencing efforts have led to the identification of disease gene homologs in diverse metazoan species. The availability of these two types of information provides unique opportunities to investigate factors that are important in the development of genetically based disease by contrasting long and short-term molecular evolutionary patterns. Therefore, we conducted an analysis of disease-associated human genetic variation for seven disease genes: the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, the neural cell adhesion molecule L1, phenylalanine hydroxylase, paired box 6, the X-linked retinoschisis gene and TSC2/tuberin. Our analyses indicate that disease mutations show definite patterns when examined from an evolutionary perspective. Human replacement mutations resulting in disease are overabundant at amino acid positions most conserved throughout the long-term history of metazoans. In contrast, human polymorphic replacement mutations and silent mutations are randomly distributed across sites with respect to the level of conservation of amino acid sites within genes. Furthermore, disease-causing amino acid changes are of types usually not observed among species. Using Grantham’s chemical difference matrix, we find that amino acid changes observed in disease patients are far more radical than the variation found among species and in non-diseased humans. Overall, our results demonstrate the usefulness of evolutionary analyses for understanding patterns of human disease mutations and underscore the biomedical significance of sequence data currently being generated from various model organism genome sequencing projects.
Understanding human disease mutations through the use of interspecific genetic variation | Human Molecular Genetics | Oxford Academic

---

Merci beaucoup. Your kind words are appreciated. Dredges (the machines) are truly lovely things.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

That's all fine and dandy, but I fail to see how it demonstrates that accepting the Darwinian explanation is necessary to utilize knowledge of genetics in a practical sense. Are you saying a YEC biologist couldn't understand the genetics of extant organisms?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

If the concept of a common ancestor is used by just one scientists to make sense of life on earth, then it is useful. Period.I don't care that it is necessary or not, nor if YECs might understand genetics. This entire thread has been a specious argument based on one person's rather limited opinion.

Then why did you ask for practical uses for UCA? Can you show me a YEC biologists who can predict which regions in a genome have function by using comparative genomics?

Irrelevant to the OP

In other words, you can't provide a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian explanation for the fossil record.

I can. The very idea of it pisses creationists off. That's more than enough practical use for me!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I didn't say that the OP took the attitude that "practical" is the only measure of the need for knowledge. But the OP does begin with "I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information..." And you, of course, just wrote, "...no practical yet..."The idea of a universal common ancestor is a concept in a branch of science with enormous practical applications. If you look it up, you'll find applications to patterns of disease mutation, relative virulence of parasites, handling drug or pesticide resistance, selective breeding ("artificial" selection finds knowledge of "natural" selection useful!), evaluation of possible hazards from genetically modified crops, preservation of endangered species, understanding of gene function (if you know the pattern of descent it helps in learning about genes with still-unknown function), development of biological strains to decompose hazardous materials, genetic algorithms . . .

I already supplied that practical use.

The practical use you supplied involves information relating to extant organisms - in other words, a biologist could believe the world is a hundred years old and still gain and use that information. So the "information" that life on earth is the result of Darwinian evolution is completely irrelevant to gaining and using the genetic information you mentioned.

. all this information would have be gained and these uses would have been developed if everyone believed life on earth was 100 years old - which means the Darwinian explanation for the history of life on earth is completely irrelevant to them.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.