Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Perhaps you missed it.
Here it is again: "medicine." Because "the creation of new medicines or any practical application of medical science" is guided by accepting that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.
That is, if one did not accept that all life on earth shares a common ancestor - it wouldn't make any sense to accept that all life is connected, and that life evolves from previous life. Such ideas are fundamentally connected. I'm not conflating them. They are two different ideas.
I am showing you how they are also inextricably linked.
Although they are different, they are also linked in a way where it doesn't make any sense to accept common decent and reject UCA. What would be the reason to do so?Just like "a transistor" is a different idea than "an electronic device."
However, both are inextricably linked.
Although they are different, they are also linked in a way where it doesn't make any sense to accept electronic devices and reject transistors. What would be the reason to do so? I'm saying that if they were any good at it, in the sense of being able to keep up and come out with new ones as required - they would use the ideas of common descent and UCA. If they didn't (if anyone didn't) - then they wouldn't be any good at it - they would be known for being "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines.

Uh - yeah.It's actually the one I keep linking to you: "medicine."And, again, if you don't believe this wiki - you're not going to believe a Scientific paper.
Just as if you don't believe a wiki telling you that transistors are used in electronic devices - you're not going to believe a Scientific paper.Which is why providing a scientific paper to you isn't worth my time - it's unreasonable and silly for you to request it.

The conversion in your mind must be fascinating.

Let me get this straight.You're saying you "don't have to accept that life comes from a common ancestor" by breeding a sheep dog from a wolf - proving that the sheep dog has a wolf as a common ancestor?Sure, buddy - whatever you say.
Keep plugging those ears and screaming you don't believe.
No, really - it's working. Keep it up.

Fifth time: "medicine."

Okay, but I don't see how this correct the silliness of your example.To rephrase my original:

quote:

---

Let me get this straight. You're saying you "don't have to accept that all life is connected" by breeding a sheep dog from a wolf - proving that the sheep dog and a wolf are life that is connected?

---

But, please, keep trying. It's very entertaining.

That's okay, we can continue to go over it again.
It shows everyone how empty your arguments are.
That you have no substance, and can only regurgitate Points Refuted A Thousand Times:From Message 216:There were two of them in the link you just quoted. One of the big, huge ones, and one of the small, specific ones:

quote:

---

Medicine
Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals.
Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.

​

Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[6] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[7] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[8] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.[9]

---

It must be difficult to talk, with all those feet in your mouth.Are there any more of my previous messages you'd like me to post again? Cut and paste is easy.

No need to discuss his IQ.
He's trying.

I thought you were asking about UCA in applied biology?
What part of applied biology involves evolving blind fish?
So - of course I won't answer this question, this question has nothing to do with what we're talking about (UCA and applied biology.)
Unless you're about to share the blind-fish-creation studies in applied biology?However, if you want to get back to the point... about UCA in applied biology... you can review my answers again at any time:

quote:

---

Message 298
Except, of course, that if the understanding of antibiotic resistance was not the way it is - then the concept of UCA would be incorrect - there would be no evidence supporting it. Which, to rational people, implies that such ideas, theories and practical applications are inherently linked and should not be separated in attempts to make a silly fool of yourself. But sure, buddy - you do you.

​

Message 357
It's more linked in the other direction:

​

If anyone could show there is no such thing as evolving from a common ancestor... all our ideas on how to apply biology would be turned on it's head.

​

Message 447
Without the concept of UCA - their would be no point in creating medicine the way we do it.
Since we do have the concept of UCA - it helps guide the creation of new medicines in helpful directions.

​

That is, if UCA was not applicable - those creating medicine would be using some other idea as a guide, or we would not have 'new medicine' at all.

---

Again, what part of evolving blind fish is in applied biology? Is there an example of applied biology you'd like to inform us about?According to me, the applied biology for using UCA is medicine.
Therefore - according to me, any YECs (or any non-YECs, even) developing medicine without the idea of UCA behind them - wouldn't be any good at it - they would be known for being "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines.Proof: You are unable to identify a single YEC who doesn't have the idea of UCA incorporated in their research who is not "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines.But keep trying, you're still funny.

Okay. I will copy and paste my answer for you again:

quote:

---

Message 298
Except, of course, that if the understanding of antibiotic resistance was not the way it is - then the concept of UCA would be incorrect - there would be no evidence supporting it. Which, to rational people, implies that such ideas, theories and practical applications are inherently linked and should not be separated in attempts to make a silly fool of yourself. But sure, buddy - you do you.

​

Message 357
It's more linked in the other direction:

​

If anyone could show there is no such thing as evolving from a common ancestor... all our ideas on how to apply biology would be turned on it's head.

​

Message 447
Without the concept of UCA - their would be no point in creating medicine antibiotic resistance the way we do it.
Since we do have the concept of UCA - it helps guide the creation of new medicines antibiotic resistances in helpful directions.

​

That is, if UCA was not applicable - those creating medicine would be using some other idea as a guide, or we would not have 'new medicine antibiotic resistance' at all.

---

I hope you are able to find it this time. Sane explanation and evidence, again:

quote:

---

Medicine
Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals.
Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.

​

Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[6] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[7] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[8] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.[9]

---

Proof, again:

quote:

---

Proof: You are unable to identify a single YEC who doesn't have the idea of UCA incorporated in their research who is not "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines (medicine and/or antibiotic resistance.)

---

Why do you think asking the same questions over and over should be given different answers?
I will explicitly tell you now: As long as you ask the same question over and over, I only have to answer it in the same way over and over. Cut and pasting is easy.
Using slightly different words to ask the exact same question doesn't change anything.Have fun!

A significant part of it, yes.I'm also thinking along the lines of focusing imagination in attempts to develop new forms of medicine.It's not like the guy looking for new medicine just dumps random chemicals in a vial, drinks it, and says "Nope - still got mono!"
Brute force method, go!No. They look at the issue, they look at what's worked before (if anything) then they make an educated guess (which will always include the idea that life-developed-from-previous-life-back-and-back-and-back-into-history on some level) and they try that.Such things lead to new medicines that work.Other methods (voodoo, brute force as-described-above...) are laughed out of serious trials.Sure - they might work.
But - they don't.It's like looking for oil.Sure - you can imagine a world-wide-flood and God hiding oil deposits and young-earth geology and possibly find oil.
But those who try such methods - don't find oil.Who finds oil?
Those who focus on the ideas that work - geology based on ideas that can all connect back to 'debris settles on previous debris' to some degree or another.It may not be part of the checklist on "how to find oil" - but that checklist wouldn't be what it is without that driving, originating principle.
Applied biology in medicine may not have "consider UCA theory" as part of it's checklist - but that checklist wouldn't be what it is without that driving, originating principle.

Fixed it.
Verification of the conman confirmed.Snake oil! Snake oil, I say!!