Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

edge writes:Is this another hit-and-run OP? Or are you going to play out this as before?

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.

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.

Tanypteryx writes:Do you know why it's blue?

Understanding how light and elements in the atmosphere interact might have practical applications in spectrographic chemical analysis, but you are a purist and the sole arbiter of what is practical in applied science, or any science it seems.

AZPaul3 writes:So, ok, no one here can meet your unreasonable requirements of an example.

Do we have to care about your errant opinions?

qs writes:Knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't need a practical use.

ringo writes:it doesn't need a practical use to be true

JonF writes:That bans all of science from the discussion.

LarmarkNewAge writes:I think it is obvious that the UCA "macro-evolutionary" theory can easily offer the mice disease research as powerful (?) support for the theory.

I want the creationist argument.

I fully expect some lame, "God was efficient, so he made us mammals with similar DNA", type of response

Stile writes:Transistors are only "eminently useful in a practical sense and have also proven useful in applied science" within the realm of electronic devices.
Go ahead, try it.
Can you think of any usefulness of a transistor at all outside of electronics?
That's what you're doing with "useless stories of UCA."
Sure - they may very well be useless "outside the realm of evolutionary theory."

ringo writes:Then why are you wasting time with this thread?

edge writes:Then you agree that common ancestry is useful in pure science, yes?

edge writes:Then you guess wrongly. I am not a biologist and that is not my first impression of the argument.

LarmarkNewAge writes:The sames creationists say there was divergence and "evolution".
The same creationists accept DNA as real.
Genetic understanding is relevant to deciding which people are more likely to suffer from whatever type of disease.
Genetic understanding is also relevant to getting the best treatment.Now, the question:
The question is whether "macro" evolutionary understanding of DNA comparisons can help clue a scientist in on fruitful areas of disease research, and in a way that creationists might be inclined to avoid.
Look at the issue of using animal research to help find cures to human diseases.
Whales get HIV, I believe. Rats and Chimps have some useful "disease research" functions.
Does the macro-evolutionary understanding cause more and better research to necessarily happen?

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.

Stile writes:Well, except for making sense of evolution, within evolutionary theory - for biologists to do all the practical work they do in all of biology.

JonF writes:Common descent has nothing to do with imaginary beings or alleged aliens.