A “practical use for common descent in science” is not something separate to “applied science” - it IS applied science.
I think you need to reconsider your interpretation of the word “practical”.
From a dictionary:
“practical” = of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas; likely to succeed or to be effective in real circumstances.
Some more definitions:
“Applied science is the application of existing scientific knowledge to practical applications, like technology and inventions…engineering…medicine.”
“Applied science, such as in the medical field, is the application of basic scientific knowledge to solve practical problems.”
“applied = a subject of study put to practical use, as opposed to being theoretical”
In that case, it’s irrelevant to the OP. Furthermore, I didn’t know Broad was involved in “not applied science”.
What is the difference between “not applied science” and theoretical science?
Granted, but it implies applied science. What I meant by “scientific results” in the bet post (#46) was scientific results with respect to applied science (as per the theme of the OP). In other words, you have not found a practical use for Darwin’s tree in applied science - hence the reference to a “YEC biologist”.
Okay, but whether they’re theories or conclusions is irrelevant. The point is, neither of them have any practical use in applied science, which is what the thread is all about.