Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

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?

It seems you are wrong on two counts:
1. Where did I say I'm dropping the concept of UCA from the discussion?
2. The concept of UCA implies evolutionary theory.

Pray tell ... how has evolutionary theory proven useful in medicine? Please provide a specific example.

1. Straw man.2. When a theoretical biologist comes up with something important to say (as opposed to useless pseudo-scientific stories), wake me up.

What?

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.

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. 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.evolutionary biology = biology + evolutionary theory.The "biology" part is useful; the "evolutionary theory" part is useless.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

More desperation ... and sorry, you're wrong. It's the same thing. If any the practical uses mentioned in the post 104 "depend on" the concept of UCA, then those uses are a practical use for the concept of UCA. Come on, it ain't rocket science.Unfortunately for the poster involved (LNA), there is no connection between the practical uses he mentioned and the concept of UCA. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

In that case, what was the point of you telling me this (from #131)?:"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." Did you know that there exist professors of biology who are YECs? So much for the importance of evolutionary theory in biology! W..Wh..What? You're a professional biologist and you think the theory of evolution is no more than a collection of observable facts and principles? Wow.
Look, this is how it works: Scientists took certain observable facts and principles of biology and formed the theory of evolution based on them. So obviously, ToE is more than just a collection of observable facts and principles. 1. As explained above, the observable facts and principles of biology are not the theory of evolution, but only part of it.2. I'm curious - what is your definition of "the theory of evolution"?3. So which evolutionary theory have you found a practical use for in your work?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Really? Haven't you ever heard rhis: "Evolution is the unifying theory of biology"! Where have you been? So most biologist believe biology can do without the theory of evolution? Ya coulda fooled me! LIttle do they know that ToE is just a useless story and that biologists really can do without it.Biologists haven't been brainwashed by ToE ... that's so funny! Okay, so when you said "Someone sees value in what we are learning", you were referring to discoveries in genetics? Golly gee, no kidding? It is really? In that case, please explain which observable fact or principle of biology would not exist without the theory of evolution?

Nice try, but no cigar - evolution doesn't rule out the existence of God.

Fascinating, but what does this have to do with the thread?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Deary, deary me ... YET ANOTHER God-phobic, mouth-foaming rant ... after which I think I can safely assume that you can't provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. Furthermore, it sounds like this fact is a bitter pill for you to swallow.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.

Evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God. I doubt if ToE reflects reality as, for starters, it does a very poor job of explaining the many gaps, distinct lack of transitiionals and sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms that are evident in the fossil record. I agree. But knowledge is obliged to be demonstrably factual. Therefore a mere theory is not knowledge, as scientific theories come and go, as you well know.
The fossil record is knowledge, but the theory of evolution that attempts to explain the fossil record is not knowledge.And a belief, no matter how strongly held, is not necessarily knowledge. You may be 110% convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, but that doesn't qualify it as knowledge, as no one can demonstrate that it is the truth. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Er, no ... you're wrong - a google search does not produce "thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution." In fact, the number is ZERO. Take the quotes you supplied, for example: NONE of them say they are "practical uses for the theory of evolution" - if you read the text they are referred to as practical uses for "EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES".But like any good brainwashed evolutionist, you probably think "evolutionary principles" and "evolutionary theory" are the same thing. In which case you'd be wrong again, because if you opened your eyes a little and thought about it a little deeper you'd realize that any practically useful "evolutionary principle" exists REGARDLESS of the theory of evolution.For example, consider the following two "evolutionary principles" that have proven useful in applied biology:
1.. Natural selection.
2. Benefical mutations are passed from parent to offspring, which may lead to changes in gene frequency within a population.These two principles describe observable, demonstrable, repeatable facts and therefore the theory of evolution (ie, Darwin's concept of UCA) has contributed absolutely nothing to their existence. These two principles (ie, facts) exist and hold true for everyone - regardless of whether they accept the theory of evolution or not. They hold true and exist even for YECs. These principles would exist if no one had ever heard of the theory of evolution.The moral of the story is, whenever you are reading scientific literature and come across any "evolutionary principle" that has proven useful in applied science, remember that it is simply a principle of biology, and doesn't equate to or owe its existence to "evolutionary theory".These principles of biology have been misleadingly and ubiquitously dubbed "evolutionary principles" by the scientific community because it believes the fantasy that "evolution is the unifying theory of all biology". These deluded Darwinist fanatics actually believe that the principles of biological science need the theory of evolution! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.