My comment was a play on Theodore Dobzhansky's line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which has become a kind of mantra in biological science and is the title of his famous essay.
Then you are not talking about me. I have no such mantra.
Upon reading said essay, one realizes that what Dobzhansky meant by "evolution" was the Darwinian interpretation of the fossil record, which of course includes the concept of UCA.
But Dobzhansky was deluded and wrong, for there is nothing in all of applied biology (ie, the only form of biology that matters) that depends on the concept/theory/conclusion of UCA or even human evolution.
Maybe you are deluded and wrong in trying to apply Dobzhansky's statement to applied science. AFAIK, Dobzhansky said nothing about 'applied biology'.
ommon descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.
Then what is your point? Who says that a theory must have direct application to 'applied science'. Maybe a theory should have an application in 'science'. AFAICS, you are just trying to create a false predicament.
You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!
Try telling biologist who doesn't work in applied biology...
You are the one who wanted to confine the discussion to 'applied biology' but now you want to extend it to be the same as all of biology including theoretical biology. Why not just say to 'all of science and engineering' and be done with it.
Again, what is your actual point. Saying that a concept is useless in applied science is about as insipid as you can get.
A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to....
Interesting. Then who wrote this:
A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to.
... if not you?
You must be confusing me with someone else.
No doubt someone is hacking your account, yes? You should report it to the management.
My "rules" (whatever that means) would not detract from the efficacy of the biological sciences and would in fact improve it, as no biologist would waste time on useless stories about ancient history, thinking such yarns are scientifically essential to his work.
I'm sure that science would be pleased to take the recommendations of scientifically illiterate anti-science laymen. We'll get to work on that tomorrow.
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.
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.