Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Tangle writes:The principles of evolution are derived from the theory of evolution; they're not some seperate thing dissociated from it.

And of course, there are thousands of result for practical uses of evolution.

"Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications. Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists."

AZPaul3 writes:Understanding the internet and google, how they work, from where their data flows, this is not at all surprising. There are a lot of useless uninformed treatments in such a list of results.

I get the impression you don't even look at the results. You scan the titles, scan a few words looking for a bone to pick, but eschew the scholastic rigor of understanding the data and the concepts the various sources, in concert, seek to convey.

Stile writes:You're hilarious ... here were two of them in the link you just quoted. One of the big, huge ones, and one of the small, specific ones:
"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.

Tanypteryx writes:no one is convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA

You have no credibility.

edge writes:But the theory explains those facts.

ringo writes:No. The common ancestor is based on observation.

The observations happen to lead back to one root but that is not a requirement of the evolutionary process.

On the contrary, if scientists do use it, it is useful.

RAZD writes:nything we learn through science that is them used for some purpose would be applied science. This includes DNA matching used in forensics or ancestry studies. This DNA sequencing has been used to develop a genetic 'tree of life' - identifying common ancestors or their most probable common breeding ancestral populations.

This leads to the concept of universal common ancestor

This is like asking for a practical application to the scientific knowledge that the sky appears to be blue.

You could say that (L)UCA is a practical application of the scientific knowledge of common ancestry via evolution and the occurrence of divergent speciation (which is a process that has been observed, and thus a fact known to occur)

dwise1 writes:So the basic goal in those laws is not to teach creationism, but rather to prevent the teaching of evolution.

ProtoTypical writes: A bit of an odd semantic victory that you are claiming here. Consider what the differences are between the principles of a process and the theory of a process. Take flight for example. The principles have always been there and exist independently of any explanation of them. We can shoot an arrow or throw a rock without having the slightest notion about why they follow the trajectory that they do. However, with the development of a theory of flight that explains and defines the principles involved we are able to predict what might happen if you strap an engine to a pair of wings.
So using only the principles of biology we could continue probing around in the dark to see what works and what doesn't. Essentially just try everything until something works for you. Similar to the way that a child approaches the world. Now then if you accumulate the observations and filter them through a non eggshell like mind you have a chance of producing a theory that can bring some direction to your studies.
An even better analogy might be that principles are like the roads and a theory is like the map. Can you think of any practical use for a map?

Tanypteryx writes:The effects of climate change on natural populations and our domesticated organisms can often be predicted using knowledge of their evolutionary history. Despite denials by some ignorant creationists, scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate.

PaulK writes: Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do.

If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear.

Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one.

Faith writes:I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already

Tangle writes:I see I'm talking to a child.