Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Okay, so you're an anti-scientist. People who refer to the Cambrian explosion as a real explosion.And yet there are a number of radiations in the fossil record. How many 'explosions' can you handle? Tell that to the scientists who think the phrase is a regrettable misconception. That would be pretty much a unanimous agreement among those who actually work in related fields. Do you also believe that the sun actual rises and sets?"Cambrian Explosion" is simply a historical, descriptive precedence, used only for convenience. I know, it's complicated for anti-scientists. Please explain. More likely, Gould was providing an evolutionary explanation for the 'Cambrian Explosion' in a way that actually fits the data. Kind of like the statement that evolution had no application in practical science, yes? My theory relies on the copious data that do exist.Perhaps you are confusing that with your theory that relies on a 'designer' that is not known to exist. Being a proponent of 'progressive creation' then, you should have no problem with the progression from Ediacaran Phyla life to Cambrian Phyla.And yet you reject that progression, insisting that Cambrian life forms just poofed into existence without precursors. Is this just a manifestation of your trollish nature?

Herbie states: Dredge replies:It's simple logic. Creationists have never been able to state a theory or to provide scientific evidence for creationism. They have only been able to attack evolution with denial, emotional assertions and logical fallacies.Just as you are doing here.For instance, asserting that evolution has no practical application in the applied sciences is an asserted opinion of no consequences and of no effect except to troll real scientists. One could say that this is dishonest.

Heh, heh ...Time to trot out one of the old, time-tested YEC tools: semantic ambiguity. Go ahead and keep making up your own definitions, and keep us entertained. I remember when, for a time, I had to refer to 'organic evolution' or 'biological evolution' because some YEC confused 'evolution' with such processes as rusting iron.Really ... I think that most of us know what we are talking about here.

Well, you certainly have an interesting style of debate... reducing my responses to simple sound bites - quoting half sentences, taking statements out of context etc... I don't know where you quoted this sound bite from, but I have Futuyma's textbook 'Evolution' and he devotes an entire chapter to defining evolution - the chapter is called "What is Evolution?" So your quote can hardly capture what Futuyma thinks evolution is. As for me, I would essentially agree with Futuyma's statement but would add that these processes of evolution are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth. It seems to me this is the part of the concept of evolution you disagree with. It would be much better if you would just argue against that concept rather than arguing about definitions. You "once encountered"??? And he speaks for all of us? It wasn't a biology lesson, it was an example - an example that I thought was non-controversial. It appears to me that you are not clear how biologists use a theory, since you have stated that theories are useless to applied biology. It seems to me you think theories are just ponderings that we don't really use. So I thought a simple example would make clear how we use theories. Everyone above the age of three except you. You have made it clear that you don't think common descent is sufficient to explain the diversity of life and that some diversity events require special creation. A creature that comes into existence by special creation does not have an ancestral population. If you are presenting this as a personal philosophy, then I have no problem with that. I pretty much agree. I believe that God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen. I also except evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Hardly. Since we have begun to use molecular methods for determining relatedness, traditional classifications are being reexamined. The problem is we don't always know what traits are important to classification. What is important is evolutionary history - that is, what traits have been inherited from an ancestor and what traits are derived.Evolutionary history is an integral part of any study of populations and is usually where a researcher will start - that is develop a phylogenetic hypothesis. This provides that framework for studying local adaptation, life history traits, development, community assemblage, etc.Even when studying a genus where we would all agree the members all share a common ancestor, you need a way to anchor, or root the tree. Unrooted trees do serve some purpose, but without an ancestral character state, you can't tell what traits have changed. Determining the appropriate choice of outgroup - that is, the ancestral character state, is dependent on common ancestry between groups. Do you work in the biological sciences? Wrong. It is not my "belief." There is no evidence or even any convincing arguments that there are gaps between species that cannot be explained by the processes of evolution. There is also no need to add unsubstantiated and untestable factors to explain diversity. In fact, those factors, such as special creation, add unnecessary complications to scientific studies.Pick any creature... was it specially created or did it evolve from a common ancestor? How would you know? Use your magpie example... you find a new species of magpie, did it evolve from a common ancestor or was it specially created? How would you know? How could that be tested? If it was specially created, how would that change how it fit into the tree of life?All unnecessary and unanswerable questions.The theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth. It provides us with a useful framework with which to study biodiversity, evolutionary forces, and classification.None of this precludes God intervening in the history of life.HBD

I have been wondering who 'Herbie' was... now I realize it's me HBD (correct signature)

Nope.HGT. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yeah, you have no clue about set theory or logic.Say set A has subsets B and C. Subset B has no practical use, subset C does. One subset of A does not have practical use, but A has practical use.You should have said "In that case, if all subsets of the theory do not have a practical use, that means the theory does not have practical use." Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This again shows that when creos have no argument they resort to manipulating words and language. Their dishonesty is shown by how they think they have a valid argument when all they do is twist, manipulate and equivocate words and terms. Equivocation is the hallmark of almost all creo arguments.

This reinforces my statement in Message 473Edited by Theodoric, : forgot my

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.

Are you saying YEC scientists used YEC beliefs to create drugs and vaccines?

Why would they? Why not just pray to God for healing?

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.

As for my YEC beliefs since that's all that can really be done in the name of the ToE of course YEC beliefs are the basis for all science. You just call it the ToE although it's nothing but microevolution or variation built into a given species or Kind. Two populations of crows? You call that macroevolution? Evos are really self deceived.

Soooo confused.