Surely you've seen this example before:
If a genetic marker (like an ERV or a pseudogene) is found in the same location in the genomes of both a cow and a pig, but is not present in a horse, put these species and genera of animal into classThe question can be answered, but only by using the common descent part of the Theory of Evolution. None of the factions of anti-evolution activism, neither Christian, Islamic, or Hindu creationism, nor ID (except for Behe's version), has the power to answer this question.
a) will have the marker,
b) won't have it,
c) not enough data to tell.aardvark, bear, camel, deer, elephant, fox, giraffe, hippo, llama, panda, person, platypus, rat, rhino, whale, zebra.
(BTW, when the answers are checked against reality, they're right)
Therefore, your claim that evolution does not add to the study of genetics is false.
As for medicine, ...
"(BTW, when the answers are checked against reality, they're right)"
Did you miss the conversation we had before when I pointed to the many instances where this does not pan out?
The fact is that genetic trees actually contradict morphological trees in significant ways. The only way to say one is right and one is wrong is to make an assumption about which one is right and which one is wrong.