Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

OK...but you conclude the message with this: In between is a bunch of googling which I wager none of us bothered to really read.Any of us can go to google to find an answer we wish to look up. It appears that you simply wanted to stir up a topic with creationists. If so, you yourself need to use your own thoughts rather than pave the way to discussion with google.
Forum Guidelines clearly state: Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.Comments?

im bad with abbreviations. What do FTL and UCA mean? Oh, wait...UCA is universal common ancestor. But what is FTL?

Conservatives think that fire is Bernie Bernie. It is hard to believe that Trump and Bernie Sanders shared a UCA.

I had to look up "religionist". It isnt even in google dictionary, though I found it at urban dictionary and at free dictionary online. When I look through the microscope I see that I have a rational mind and also a animal brain....known in Rational Recovery as AVRT or The Beast. I wonder if the animal brain rules the thinking in addicted religionists?

It reminds me of Ronald Reagan."Well...."...
Deep Subject

It provides fodder for classroom discussion in Academia. What else would we teach?*Looks up something*... What is Applied Science?
*scratches head*... Now...if I were a teacher, what alternative lessons could I teach?

This is factually true and makes a lot of sense. My question to Dredge, if I had any, would be this:

If we were to throw out the basic theories of evolution...among which you assume is a "Universal Common Ancestor" hypothesis...praytell what would you replace these theories with??!!

Dredge, replying to Stile writes:

​

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.

OK...lets limit my question to applied science. What specifically would we use as the basis for our new hypothesis as to how applied science works and what commonality, if any...humans specifically have that supplants the UCA?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

OK I'm about to investigate! It seems to have been defined online:
Pure and Applied Biology...inestigating further, I visited this website: PAB. Still puzzled as to how Dredge actually got this term right, I delved a bit into just what research these folks profess...
Table Of Contents and it looks as if most of these scholars are Islamic.The Free Dictionary Online redirects the term "applied Biology" to Applied Science.
Applied ScienceNow its Tanypteryx turn.

I can say with authority that he (Dredge)makes it up to suit his belief. I have been known to do the same thing in regards to NT Theology, but I never mess with Biblical Creationism. I will challenge him one on one in regards to Biblical meaning any day, but I care little about Creationism...if God did indeed do it that way He is fooling everyone. Now, why would an omnipotent Being need to do a silly thing like that?

That would be funnier if I were laughing at *them* instead of examining myself. For the record, I consider myself only as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence. Beyond that I have no belief. Biblical creationism never made much logical sense to me, but I dont reject it 100% due to the fact that so many people whom I otherwise respect DO in fact believe it.

I always enjoy reading these arguments, assertions, and litany of facts presented here at EvC by our science-qualified members. Just as I don't reject Biblical Creationism wholesale only because I know quite a few who believe it.By the same standard, I respect the contrarian views of the educated members here at EvC and thank them for their patience, humility, and willingness to share what they know with many of us who don't.Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time.