You are still arguing utility. That is fine as far as it goes, but I suspect we are at cross-purposes at this point.
You had enough to identify Fleming's breakthru as specificially biological, rather than mathematical.
Molecular structure is mathematical,
I don't think this statement means much of anything concrete. Do you mean to decline Fleming his credit because some aspects of molecular structure are mathematically tractable?
as to specific credit, I believe that has been lost in the tide.
I think it's pretty clear to most people who should get the lion's share of credit for the breakthroughs of Fleming, Pauling, and Pasteur.
You are still arguing utility. That is fine as far as it goes,
Well, I suppose you will never fail, if you never test. I could equally assume tree sprites are the basis of "higher thinking", if I never have to actually test my thesis where the rubber hits the road.
but I suspect we are at cross-purposes at this point.
We were at cross-purposes from the very beginning, when you launched on the doubtful, but, somewhat original and entertaining tactic of denegrated evolutionary theory by mass-insulting non-mathematicians in the sciences.