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.
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.
Well, within evolutionary theory, it would be a pretty cool thing to narrow down and figure out. Like within electronics, it was pretty cool to find out that electricity could be created without requiring a lightning storm.
The progress of science and the building of knowledge moves on... unconcerned with your strange personal attachment to ignorance.
Unlike useless stories about UCA, transistors are eminently useful in a practical sense and also have also proven useful in applied science.
Transistors are only "eminently useful in a practical sense and have also proven useful in applied science" within the realm of electronic devices.
Go ahead, try it. Can you think of any usefulness of a transistor at all outside of electronics?
That's what you're doing with "useless stories of UCA."
Sure - they may very well be useless "outside the realm of evolutionary theory." But, who cares? That's not where UCA is supposed to be useful.
UCA is supposed to be useful within the realm of evolutionary theory. And it is. Very useful. Just as transistors are only useful within the realm of electronic devices. Very useful.
The point is that your limit of "outside the realm of evolutionary theory" is a silly, ridiculous limit - and it only makes you look foolish. As foolish as someone running around saying "Hey! Transistors are USELESS outside electronic devices! Why are you all using transistors!?? They're USELESS!!!"
Which is why your "transistor" analogy is lame - a transistor has a practical use; UCA has no practical use ... anywhere.
Well, except for making sense of evolution, within evolutionary theory - for biologists to do all the practical work they do in all of biology. Sort of how transistors are used in all of electronic devices.
But, if you want to call that "none" that's up to you and voices in your head.
None of the practical work biologist's do depends on, as you claim, "making sense of evolution, within evolutionary theory", because "evolutionary theory" has no practical application. However, the practical work of biologists depends a great deal on "making sense" of the facts and principles of "evolution", which are simply facts and principles of biology, that require no knowledge or even awareness of UCA.
Pray tell ... how has evolutionary theory proven useful in medicine? Please provide a specific example.
You're hilarious. "Pray tell... how have transistors proven useful in electronic devices? Please provide a specific example."
Oh my, the difficulty... however will I find one?
There were two of them in the link you just quoted. One of the big, huge ones, and one of the small, specific ones:
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. 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. This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor. 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.
It must be difficult to talk, with all those feet in your mouth.
Dredge, with clarifying bracket added by me writes:
All these items involve no more (than?) observable, demonstrable FACTS. Please point out the evolutionary theory you are claiming, as I can't see any.
As the quote states, the theory is "Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection." Followed by the facts that support this explanation.
That's what theories are - explanations of "demonstrable FACTS," so of course the facts are involved.
Btw, what I mean by "evolutionary theory" is what I consider macroevolution* or the theory of evolution - ie, that all life on earth evolved from LUCA via a process of natural selection.
* My definition of macroevolution is genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.
This is like saying:
"Btw, what I mean by "electronics" is what I consider macroelectronics* or the theory of electronics - ie, that all electronic devices use transistors. * My definition of macroelectronics is Best Buy-Amazon crossovers or electronics above the level of multi-companies."
It's silly and makes you look a fool. You can have your hilarious definition all you'd like. Those of us who actually understand what evolution is will simply sit back and laugh as you dance around.
Perhaps you have a point. But the quote doesn't say it presents a "schematic representation of the THEORY of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection", nor does it anywhere use the word "theory". So what is this theory that you claim it explains?
Again, the theory is "Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection." Followed by the facts that support this explanation.
Of course the word "theory" doesn't exist in the description of the theory. To describe something by using the word you're describing is to make a circular description.
When describing a car, you don't say "it's a car with an engine." When describing a theory, you don't say "it's a THEORY of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection."
Neither actually describes what "car" or "theory" is because they use the same word.
You can, however, describe an example of a car as "a 4 wheeled vehicle with an engine." Just as you can, also, describe an example of a theory as "a schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection."
(... not that it has anything to do with the OP - understanding antibiotic resistance doesn't require any knowledge of the concept of UCA.)
(Except, of course, that if the understanding of antibiotic resistance was not the way it is - then the concept of UCA would be incorrect - there would be no evidence supporting it. Which, to rational people, implies that such ideas, theories and practical applications are inherently linked and should not be separated in attempts to make a silly fool of yourself. But sure, buddy - you do you.)
It's pretty clear that the anti-science crowd mistakes their opinions for facts, and that contrary opinions can be dismissed for no other reason.
Absolutely. It's the difference between arguing with "identifying what is true" as your priority vs. "having people agree with me" as your priority. Therefore - I think they "mistake their opinions for facts" more because they don't care about identifying the truth. They are more concerned with getting agreement on their idea - which is more of a mental tug-of-war than a search for accuracy.
One side will discuss facts and be open to their review, criticism and understanding. The other side will say "anything and everything" that they think will sway opinions to "their side." Which is embarrassingly useless when attempting to discuss whether or not something is factually true in reality. It doesn't fool children - let alone anyone actually working in a field focused on searching-for-accurate-reality.
It makes for a few fun moments throughout the work-day, though
Please cite a scientific paper or article that specifically describes a practical use for "the theory of evolution".
No, that's unreasonable. Don't be silly. That's like asking for a scientific paper that specifically describes the practical use of transistors in electronics.
If you don't believe the in-your-face electronics that use transistors everyday - you're not going to believe a scientific paper. If you don't believe the in-your-face practical uses for the theory of evolution everyday (like medicine) - you're not going to believe a scientific paper.
But keep up your song and dance, it's still entertaining to my childish nature to watch you embarrassingly squirm so much.