Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Is this another hit-and-run OP? Or are you going to play out this as before? I'm sure you have. I'm shocked. It would.You are not going to gain any more traction here than in the other forums you post.First of all, you are under the mistaken notion that all science must be directly applicable to whatever subset of applied science you care to abuse.Then you assume that you can make demands of us that we satisfy YOUR personal criteria for usefulness. You are going to ignore anything we post, right?Then you require us to play in your sandbox only, and ignore the fact that YEC/ID has no such application in applied sciences.No one really cares what your opinion is. You are trolling.

So, Faith, tell us about the what species represented giraffe kind in Cambrian times, or even in the Jurassic? After all, modern giraffes must have adapted from a precursor giraffe, yes?

So, something value may be of no use? Okay, then, what is your point? Then you agree that common ancestry is useful in pure science, yes?Again, I don't see the reason for you to make this point. Once again, in this case, I see no reason for you to make the point in the OP. You are welcome to your opinion but it is without effect. Then you guess wrongly. I am not a biologist and that is not my first impression of the argument.To compound that, it is not MY belief, nor do I cherish it.Your insinuations tell me that you have a motive for your OP. Why not just come out and say it? What is there to accept? Your statement is so watered down that anyone could agree with it.It is your opinion that common ancestry has no direct practical application in "applied science".So what?

Then you are not talking about me. I have no such mantra. And? Maybe you are deluded and wrong in trying to apply Dobzhansky's statement to applied science. AFAIK, Dobzhansky said nothing about 'applied biology'.Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Then what is your point? Who says that a theory must have direct application to 'applied science'. Maybe a theory should have an application in 'science'. AFAICS, you are just trying to create a false predicament.

Try telling biologist who doesn't work in applied biology...You are the one who wanted to confine the discussion to 'applied biology' but now you want to extend it to be the same as all of biology including theoretical biology. Why not just say to 'all of science and engineering' and be done with it.Again, what is your actual point. Saying that a concept is useless in applied science is about as insipid as you can get.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So, you really don't have a point other than saying the equivalent of 'grass is green'.

Okay, so we can just do away with basic biological science. Got it... What? Thank you for confirming that you have no real point. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Interesting. Then who wrote this: ... if not you? No doubt someone is hacking your account, yes? You should report it to the management. I'm sure that science would be pleased to take the recommendations of scientifically illiterate anti-science laymen. We'll get to work on that tomorrow.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The argument here is an intellectually vacant exercise unless one just wants to stir the pot. Suggesting that a theory does not do something it was never intended to do is just a form of trolling, not to be taken seriously.

This question goes straight to the heart of the matter. I think I know how Dredge will answer, but will wait and see...

Just following your line of reasoning. Important to you? You jest.

That was a question.

So, I have nothing to offer regarding your pointless question. Sue me.

The fossil record, yes. According to whom?And if you are talking about explaining the fossil record to you ... well, that would be hopeless in any case. Edited by edge, : No reason given.