Did the belief in evolution ever accomplish good?

I may be corrected but I think that plant and animal breeding have benefited from the construction of (micro)evolution that may have been supported at least in some humanistic sense by long period of time uniformally thinking^NEON infrastruture if approved to the 100million level $ will surely change the way even the history of this is discussed.

I wonder if techristian has really thought the he has much relation to rats. That may have been the ones in NJ or Zaiire but I would guess is in a NATURAL HISTORY mag on animal paintings. I could be wrong. Another contributing factor may however be in the use of object oriented programming that does little to bioloigcal clear the relation of descent and parent-child links when hierarchy or encapulsation is being designed. Of couse for analytic purposes one could maintain as I have elsewhere that a cloud and a cell can not acutally be told apart (any more than a frog and an iguanna). TE-this is a third party comment still.

gene90, that may be true but I think the phrase that "heritability" would not exist to be a much more dangerous claim. I had thought for a long time that one could think in Christianity that body, temple, cornerstone could be linked in the mind and I did so for years that I was speculating on how to make a black bird from a veal cutlet. I found that Galelio was already trying to disabuse people of this error. I do not deny that Von Weiskaker's use of "transformation" might not mean that for artistic reasons one can avery that any inheritance does not ipso facto exist but for me this expression so phrased would require a perception of Greek tradition we appear to be lacking and looking at the present changes we do not seem to be gaining.Again, you may be right to so reason but it seems that the idea can be refined. Thanks for the input.