Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Dredge writes: It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.

Perhaps it is, but so what? Is your concen that in unearthing this knowledge it will further undermine a few fundamentalists' beliefs?

Or are you generally against the persuit of knowledge for its own sake?

Faith writes: Name one use.

Knowledge.

Faith writes: But it isn't even knowledge,

We can decide that if and when we know.

And knowledge isn't a "use" anyway, as we are using that term here.

Who cares and why?

I ask why because I suspect the agenda. I have a friend that has spent the last 5 years researching the use of music in Jane Austin novels, is the OP equally interested in the study of 18th century literature or is it just this one tiny branch off a sub branch attached to a main branch off the trunk of biology? If so why?

You see, it's what we do, gather knowledge. We can't help it. Darwin spent years studying bloody barnacles. My tutor spent his whole life with ants. They don't do that because they think that one day it'll be useful, they do it because they just can't help themselves. And quite often it turns out to be useful and probably more often it isn't.

There's two parts to R&D; the D bit the practical bit, the R bit is sometimes useful sometimes not but always interesting for itself. And the result of endless search for stuff that interests us has built what we are today.

Faith writes: But it's been claimed the ToE is useful and I'm saying no it isn't.

Well that's just silly. Of course the ToE is useful, it explains how life on earth developed. What could be more useful?

I'm also saying it isn't even useful as knowledge.

Well it very obviously is useful but why would anyone care if it wasn't?

Darwin's pigeon breeding is very interesting too but it doesn't prove the ToE it only proves built-in variability. When the pigeons are released from controlled reproductive isolation they revert to pretty much their original form. They obviously have pigeon genetics and only pigeon genetics and all the variations lead nowhere except to different varieties of pigeons. When you select a trait and isolate your breeders to emphasize that trait, that trait will become elaborate in the offspring. It's a pigeon trait, it goes nowhere except to a variety of pigeon. Lenski's endless experiments never produced anything but e coli. There is absolutely NO evidence for the ToE AT ALL, NONE!!!!

All of that is knowledge, even if you're right.

So we don't even get knowledge,

What do you think knowledge is? I think it's factual information that can be demonstrated to be true. You don't ever see a qualifyer that it also has to be useful. My neighbour's PhD showed that nothing he was researching was correct. That's also knowledge.

It's false but it keeps on being believed against the utter absense of any corroborating evidence.

That's just your religeous bias and has nothing to do with knowledge.

Faith writes: Lots of myths explain how life on earth developed.

They sure do. And, as you say, they're myths.

The only way an explanation is real knowledge is if it's true and the ToE is not, it's just another myth.

The difference betwen myth and fact is that fact can be demonstrated objectively to be true. For example your belief that the world is 6,000 years old is a myth proven wrong by objective evidence. The ToE is the most empirically supported theory in science. Your religious beliefs can have no baring on objective facts - ie knowledge.

Of course it's knowledge, it just isn't knowledge due to the ToE. It COULD be knowledge that verifies creationism, and I believe it does.

So publish and show us all wrong. Collect you $1m pize and go down in history forever.

Yes but I'm not the one claiming the ToE is useful. The OP says it is not and I agree, but others here have disagreed and I'm answering them.

You're making a right mess of it too. The OP is asking about the usefulness of finding the common ancestor, not the usefulness of the ToE. The finding of a common ancestor would be knowledge and knowledge is useful for its own sake.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Dredge writes: Knowledge" is not the same as a practical use in applied science.

Knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't need a practical use. Why do you care about this particular piece of knowledge and not others?

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.

Sorry Chuck, religiously motivated people don't get to decide what is or isn't knowledge in science.

Dredge writes: I agree.

So what's your beef?

UCA is simply a derived conclusion of the ToE, it's just an interesting spin-off of the theory, it doesn't need a practical use and it's not something anybody spends any time on.

And, by-the-way, it has nothing at all to do with atheism.

Dredge writes: Common descent is useful in theoretical science, yes,

Thank you, that's the end of the discussion then.

but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.

Don't be silly.

RAZD writes: Except the argument shifts to whether theoretical science has a practical use ...

Yeh, well, as you know, there are very good answers to that but I really don't give a poo, if things had to have direct practical value to be valuable, we'd have no art, no music and, ironically enough, no religion.

Creationists don’t like new information that disrupts their fragile thinking.

Yes, it must be very irritating for them. They'd better get used to it, it ain't going away and it's going to get worse (for them).

Dredge writes: You seem confused. The OP is not concerned with utility within theoretical science.

So I'll repeat my first reply to you.

quote:

---

Perhaps it is, but so what? Is your concen that in unearthing this knowledge it will further undermine a few fundamentalists' beliefs?

Or are you generally against the persuit of knowledge for its own sake?

---

It seems that you think that not having a use (it does, but never mind) is important. Why? What are you suggesting should be done about this fact (that you agree is a fact) that you say has no practical value and why?

Dredge writes: I accept the same age of life on earth and the same fossil record as you do.

And do also you accept the theory of evolution that explains those fossils?

It's the 150 year anniversary of the discovery of the relatedness of chemical elements that allow them to be organised into categories and create predictions for missing elements.

http://tass.com/science/1047675

This reminds me a little of how organisms can be organised into taxonomies both living and historic. Also allowing predictions to be made about 'missing links'. The UCA is a conclusion based on tracing these taxonomic groups back in time.

Dredge writes: The "theory of evolution that explains those fossils"? There is no such thing as science is incapable of explaining the fossil record.

I see, so all this huffing and puffing about UCA is utterly irrelevant as the actual problem you have is your inability to accept the established scientific theory that predicts it (or something like it).

Let me guess, it contradicts your religious beliefs?

I see you've now changed from requiring a use for the UCA (dumb) to practical uses for evolutionary theory as a whole - better but still dumb, as it need have no practical value at all to be never-the-less true. Knowledge has no obligation to be practiical.

As it happens a 5 second google and google scholar search produces thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution. Here's the first that popped up

quote:

---

Abstract

Evolutionary principles are now routinely incorporated into medicine and agriculture. Examples include the design of treatments that slow the evolution of resistance by weeds, pests, and pathogens, and the design of breeding programs that maximize crop yield or quality.

Evolutionary principles are also increasingly incorporated into conservation biology, natural resource management, and environmental science. Examples include the protection of small and isolated populations from inbreeding depression, the identification of key traits involved in adaptation to climate change, the design of harvesting regimes that minimize unwanted life-history evolution, and the setting of conservation priorities based on populations, species, or communities that harbor the greatest evolutionary diversity and potential.

The adoption of evolutionary principles has proceeded somewhat independently in these different fields, even though the underlying fundamental concepts are the same. We explore these fundamental concepts under four main themes: variation, selection, connectivity, and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Within each theme, we present several key evolutionary principles and illustrate their use in addressing applied problems.

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352551/

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Dredge writes: evolution doesn't rule out the existence of God.

As far as I'm aware, absolutely nothing rules out the possible existence of god. There's nothing special about the ToE in that regard.

The hoohah is only about the fact that the ToE contradicts the Christian bible - if taken literally. Millions of Catholics and Anglicans don't seem to mind, it's only the weirdos that do.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Dredge writes: Evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God

As I said, nothing contradicts the possible existence of god. But that wasn't the question I asked. This was what I asked. Why are you evading the question?

“Let me guess, it contradicts your religious beliefs?“

But knowledge is obliged to be demonstrably factual. Therefore a mere theory is not knowledge, as scientific theories come and go, as you well know.

This is a demonstration of total ignorance about what a scientific theory is and does. A scientific theory is not an idea, a hunch and an hoc explanation, it's a expanation of all known facts. As such, it's status is higher than pure facts. The ToE has stood for 150 years. Not only is it the best explanation of the facts, it's the only naturalistic explanation of them. I have also given you practical uses for it. Which, of course, you've also ducked.

The fossil record is knowledge, but the theory of evolution that attempts to explain the fossil record is not knowledge.

Liar, liar pants on fire!

And a belief, no matter how strongly held, is not necessarily knowledge.

For once you got something right.

You may be 110% convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, but that doesn't qualify it as knowledge, as no one can demonstrate that it is the truth.

What's really, really odd is that as far as I know, no-one believes 100% that all life on earth evolved from a UCA nor cares much. It's simply one possible prediction of the ToE. It could have done; equally life could have evolved from more than a single source and/or merged, interbred, gone exinct etc etc. We don't know and probably will never know. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.

You've built a straw man that no one gives a damn about anyway. Your beef is with the ToE itself and it's only for religious reasons isn't it?