[blowfish]

Evo is not remotely important to real science. The science that gives us new medicines, treatments--the science that holds the bridges up as we drive over them--the science that flicks a comet going 100K miles/hr with a craft going 18K miles/hr--the science that is accountable--the science that provides.

What you're describing is technology, which is driven off of scientific discovery. There is no such distinction between 'real' science and (presumably) 'unreal' science. We have 'science that has resulted in technological applications' and 'that has not yet resulted in technological applications'. As we invest more and more research into studying the genetic makeup of organisms (man in particular) we will certainly get more and more technical applications. Some of this research is motivated by understanding the evolutionary history on man, some isn't.

[Thatcherite]

Michael Faraday said something apposite on the matter.

But technological usefulness aside, would Mamzelle genuinely prefer us to remain ignorant of the natural world except where it gives her convenient gadgets to play with? Isn't study of the natural world a noble calling? Understanding God's creation?

[wintertime]

Some of this research is motivated by understanding the evolutionary history on man, some isn't.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Almost all of it isn't.