Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

ommon descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.

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.

Dredge writes: I was wondering if anyone could provide an example of use for UCA, but it's becoming increasingly clear there are none.

There are none that you will accept - but your acceptance is irrelevant.

Dredge writes: Which makes the theory of evolution the scientific equivalent of a blank bullet - it makes a lot of noise and smoke and attracts a lot of attention, but it doesn't actually do anything.

On the contrary, UCA is only one small part of ToE. You're saying the equivalent of, "Since there is no concrete use for the manufacturer's badge on a car, cars are useless." That's a very silly conclusion.

Who says that a theory must have direct application to 'applied science'.

I don't know - certainly not me.

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.

1. "all the practical work they (biologists) do in all of biology" - otherwise known as "applied biology", as mentioned in OP.

2. You are partly wrong and partly right. None of the practical work biologist's do depends on, as you claim, "making sense of evolution, within evolutionary theory", because "evolutionary theory" has no practical application. However, the practical work of biologists depends a great deal on "making sense" of the facts and principles of "evolution", which are simply facts and principles of biology, that require no knowledge or even awareness of UCA.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

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

The point is, common descent (as in the concept of UCA) is as practically useless as fairy tales and science-fiction.

ringo writes: There are none that you will accept

Which practical use of UCA in applied science have I not accepted?

On the contrary, UCA is only one small part of ToE

Which evolutionary theory has provided a practical use in applied science?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Tangle writes: Thank you, that's the end of the discussion then.

You seem confused. The OP is not concerned with utility within theoretical science.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

edge writes: Maybe you are deluded and wrong in trying to apply Dobzhansky's statement to applied science. AFAIK, Dobzhansky said nothing about 'applied biology'.

You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!

Faith writes: No it doesn't. Name one useful thing medicine has taken from the ToE.

I'm not aware of any evolutionary theory that has provided a practical use in medicine or in any form of applied science.
However, I can think of many practical uses for "evolution", as that word is used in biological science, since "evolution" includes phenomena such as mutations, natural selection, recombination, drift, changes in gene frequencies within a population.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Dredge writes: You seem confused. The OP is not concerned with utility within theoretical science.

So I'll repeat my first reply to you.

quote:

---

Perhaps it is, but so what? Is your concen that in unearthing this knowledge it will further undermine a few fundamentalists' beliefs?

Or are you generally against the persuit of knowledge for its own sake?

---

It seems that you think that not having a use (it does, but never mind) is important. Why? What are you suggesting should be done about this fact (that you agree is a fact) that you say has no practical value and why?

You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!

You know what? You are full of bullshit.

I made my living in biology and the first time I ever heard the term "applied biology" was from you right here.

I am an entomologist. We put a lot of effort into understanding how some groups of insects are related to each other. What I primarily worked with are wood boring insects. There are tens of thousands of species of just wood boring beetles and they are being spread around the globe by trade and ending up in new habitats with no one but us to figure out their life history and maybe how to keep them from destroying our forests and our orchards and our crops.

You may not like it and you may not believe it but we are working out the evolutionary history and relatedness of many groups of insects. We are figuring out recent common ancestors and working our way back. We talk about evolution continuously and it allows us to start making predictions about different possible management strategies. Knowing what evolutionary processes and mechanisms have been important in a species history gives us valuable clues to possible parisitoid controls we could employ.

As far as universal common ancestors go it's kind of an obvious conclusion from what we are seeing (to us). People talk about it over beers and at meetings and on field trips, but opinions seem to be spread out over several options. There could be one or a few common ancestors and some of them seem to have exchanged genes and organelles. Most biologists are working on more important problems but occasionally they run across evidence that gives us clues to understanding deeper ancestry. Tens of thousands of species are having their genomes sequenced and this is data on an unprecedented scale. Someone sees the value in what we are learning.

You seem to be giddy that we don't know everything there is to know about a universal common ancestor and that you can't find a practical use for any knowledge we may have learned. Oh gosh. We don't give a shit whether you benefit from it or not and we know a hundred ways to kill you with insects.

You have everything ass backwards. We are not applying evolution to what we are discovering, we are learning evolution from what we are discovering.

Dredge writes: None of the practical work biologist's do depends on, as you claim, "making sense of evolution, within evolutionary theory", because "evolutionary theory" has no practical application. However, the practical work of biologists depends a great deal on "making sense" of the facts and principles of "evolution", which are simply facts and principles of biology, that require no knowledge or even awareness of UCA.

Like I said earlier:

"Sure, buddy... whatever you say."

The point is, common descent (as in the concept of UCA) is as practically useless as fairy tales and science-fiction.

I know.

Analogies aren't evidence.

Dredge writes: Which practical use of UCA in applied science have I not accepted?

Message 25 "...scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate."

You responded in Message 79 that, essentially, they could have figured that out anyway. Maybe so, but they DO use evolutionary biology.

Your claim is the same as, "There is no use for a power saw; you can get the same result with a handsaw." That is not proof that power saws are useless.

Edited by ringo, : Sp'ellinge.

You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!

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.