This is a partial copy of my previous post #298:
"...I fail to see how evolution is at all "knowable" since the "mechanism of change" is as great and multifaceted as all of existence itself.
Philosophically it seems that we can only know/understand evolution when we are able to know/understand the universe. Why not just eliminate the redundant evolution powder keg and set about understanding the existing cosmos - that alone should take an eternity - and I think would yield greater benefits to mankind."
Activities such as observing and comparing genomes seems to be the "stuff of science" and quite worthwhile, but, what on God's green earth (pun intended) does evolution contribute to this study? I don't see why an evolution backdrop is required to do this work. It seems like it's added in to true "scientific method" science just to get a rise out of people. I'm beginning to think it's an unnecessary sideshow to scientific investigation.
Evolution explains why the genomes are different, it also explains the conditions under which those differences are likely to occur. It explains the similarities in the genomes, which organisms are likely to be related.
It helps agriculture decide which plants to combine to improve yields, how to breed animals to reinforce specific traits and which animals to eliminate. Directly, evolution creates changes in organisms that are beneficial to the organisms and to humans that would not have occurred to animal/plant breeders as a goal.
The knowledge that the environment selects and genetic drift happens is important in microbiology and health research.
It gives us an understanding of our role as a selection force.