I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe that existed billions of years ago, but can't find any. It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.
I know ToE has practical uses, but that's not what the thread is about. And a story about what was responsible for the fossil record isn't a practical use. Which use of applied science depends on accepting that life on earth evolved from a microbe or even accepting that humans evolved from some kind of ape? I can't think of any.
Hello Faith. Some definitions of ToE include no more than principles of microevolution - ie, factual stuff that science has found many practical uses for. On the other hand, other definitions of ToE add the theory/conclusion that life evolved from UCA. The stuff about evolving from UCA is what I contend is useless to applied science.
Furthermore, a story about life on earth evolving from UCA doesn't qualify as knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable facts - not theories or conclusions or opinions or beliefs or atheist folklore.
"Knowledge" is not the same as a practical use in applied science. I know that the sky is blue, but I can't think of a practical use in applied science for that knowledge.
Furthermore, a story about life on earth evolving from UCA doesn't qualify as knowledge. Only demonstrable facts qualify as knowledge - this precludes theories, opinions, conclusions, beliefs and atheist folklore.
Research in evolutionary biology is not a practical use in applied science. S. J. Gould, for example, devoted his career to research in evolutionary biology and he contributed absolutely nothing of any practical use to science.
Research may led to a practical use, but research per se is not a practical use.
Speaking of which, geologists make use of the fossil record in oil and gas exploration. However, this use doesn't require accepting the evolutionary interpretation of said fossil record. A progressive creationist like me could use the fossil record just as proficiently. In fact, no explanation for the fossil record is required in order to make use of it in this way.
It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.
I completely agree. Just like how the whole transistor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of electronic devices.
Sorry, but your analogy makes no sense at all to my fragile, eggshell mind. Unlike useless stories about UCA, transistors are eminently useful in a practical sense and also have also proven useful in applied science.
Well, within evolutionary theory, it would be a pretty cool thing to narrow down and figure out.
Er, try reading the OP again. Which part of it asks for uses "within evolutionary theory"? I'm almost certain the OP is confined to only practical uses in applied science.
Hey Dredge. Fellow Aussie here. I know exactly what you are saying mate. Funny thing is no one else does... Hehehe...
G'day to my fellow Australian!
My experience is that most evolutionists are very allergic to the idea that their beloved all-seeing, all-knowing, all-doing beliefs about UCA appear to be completely useless in any practical sense and really amount to a scientific irrelevance. The only "use" said beliefs have is to make all those atheists out there feel more secure about their materialistic philosophy. Tales about UCA are like cozy bedtime stories for the godless.