Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Can anyone explain how he came to this curious conclusion?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The problem is, there are different definitions of the "theory of evolution" and some of them don't include anything about macroevolution or UCA; they merely mention principles of biology that no one disputes.
For example, livescience.com offers this defintion:"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.". In this sense, "the theory of evolution" and "evolution" and "principles of evolution" (and "microevolution") all refer to the same thing.So on second thoughts, I'm probably barking up the wrong tree and should go back to my original "UCA" argument expressed in the OP.As far as I know, googling "practical uses for the theory of evolution" comes up with nothing. But googling "practical uses for evolution/priciples of evolution" produces many such uses. I find that interesting.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.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Sorry, but my fragile, egg-shell mind has no idea what you're talking about.

The "principles of evolution" are the (useful) mechanisms of evolution - mutations and natural selection, for example. Mutations and natural selection are observable, demonstrable facts - ie, they exist regardless of any scientific theory based on them, such as ToE. The (useful) facts came first, then the (useless) theory.Human beings have been making practical use of the "principles of evolution" in animal and plant breeding for thousands of years. They didn't need any "theory of evolution" to do so.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Which "evolutionary theory" might that be? I thought antibiotics worked according to facts, not a theory.

Science implies that the (pre-Adamic) Genesis creation account is not literal.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Yes it does. That's basically what ToE is - all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection.

In other words, you can't back up your claim (that the evolutionary history of the world has proven practically useful in tackling climate change) with any facts.

"none of the progress made in biology DEPENDS even slightly on a theory"Louis Bouroune ( Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, 1957, p. 79. (emphasis mine)Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Can you live with the fact that there are no practical uses for the theory of evolution?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Your arguments in this thread are as devastating as they are deep.But seriously, I'm not "pissed off" at all - I'm quite enjoying the discussions.

Sorry, I'm still not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say, because you make use of "the evolutionary history ... recent common ancestors ... species history" of these insects and because you use "evolutionary processes and mechanisms", this means the theory of evolution has proven useful in your work? If so, you sure suffering a delusion."none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory" - Louis Bouroune (Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, p. 79. As a result of my post (#182), I notice you changed your tune. You've gone from(post 165)"The observable facts and principles of biology are the Theory of Evolution" (which is incorrect - ToE says all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection. To make matters worse, you are implying that a mere collection of facts adds up to a scientific theory, which is nonsense)to"a scientific theory is based on the facts we know" (which is correct).I'm glad I could teach you something. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology,
Lane P. Lester, Professor of Biology.I don't know where they teach. Why? The fact that YECs can become professors of biology proves that the theory of evolution is irrelevant and useless to biology. What is the point of teaching students useless information? 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.

Hang on, let me get this straight ... you believe that a scientific theory - which could be wrong or could be changed at any time - has a higher status than pure facts, which are accepted as universal, demonstrable constants and truths and are often practically useful? And your proffer the completely useless ToE as a prime example of this "higher status"?Please excuse me while I laugh - a lot! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Oh boy, only an evolutionist could come up with something that funny! Thank you! I agree that it is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation of the facts ... for what it's worth ... which is nothing ... mainly because ToE is a very poor explanation of the fossil record.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Yes - ToE cannot account for the fossil record. No, I got it from the opinions of experts. For example,"The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species - from their initial appearance until their extinction - has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin, who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favoured explanation. When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of this 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false." - Wikipedia, "Punctuated Equilibrium""Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually non-existent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species" - Wikipedia, "Punctuated equilibrium"."Darwins argument (of a very incomplete fossil record) still persists as the favoured escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly ... I wish only to point out that (gradualism) was never 'seen' in the rocks.""In the Cambrian explosion, we find segmented worms, velvet worms, starfish ... molluscs (bivalves, snails, squid and their relatives), sponges,brachiopods and other shelled animals appearing all at once, with their basic organisation, organ systems and sensory mechanisms already operational"."The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disapppear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."" - The Panda's Thumb.Dawkins says, "Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" - The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

An explanation for how species changed over time is in itself not a practical use. An explanation is just someone talking.