This reminds me a little of how organisms can be organised into taxonomies both living and historic. Also allowing predictions to be made about 'missing links'. The UCA is a conclusion based on tracing these taxonomic groups back in time.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Typical creationist BS. The point here Drudge, is that your claim is not worth debating. You are a troll ignorant of the science and the particulars of the issues. Your only purpose here is to insult evolution in a vain attempt to emotionally shore-up your errant beliefs in religious majik. You fail, miserably, in intellect, knowledge, logic and all the other attributes necessary to debate questions with thinking human beings. You are desperate to debunk the tenets of evolution since they destroy your precious god delusions and that scares the hell out of you. Interesting. It actually scares the hell into you which is why you feel so desperate. Think about it. You have before you a proven hell-free existence just by embracing reality. You don't really need your gods after all.
It's got nothing to do with "Typicial creationist BS". I simply asked you to provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory, but you repllied with a completely irrelevant, anti-theist rant. In other words, you've got nothing. Therefore you would agree with me that evolutionary theory has provided no practical uses at all in applied science ... no?
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.
I'm simply asking if anyone can give me an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. It looks like you've got nothing to offer.
I presume by looking at how climate change may have affected evolution in the past. But this is a classic case of goalpost-shifting. You asked for examples of uses for the UCA. There's an example. Now you're demanding that I justify the usefulness of the example? As I said earlier in the thread, it's up to scientists to decide what's useful to them.
How has "looking at how climate change may have affected evolution in the past" provided a practical use today? You made the claim, now you need to back it up with supporting evidence - to wit: a specific example.
Then you're shooting yourself in the foot. If they use it, it's useful.
You're really getting desperate now. You're implying that I said ALL evolutionary biology is useful, which is not what I said at all.