Darwin's Tree of Common Descent is Useless to Applied Science

[Edgar]

@T_aquaticus

The theory of evolution does have practical use in explaining why species look the way they do, why fossils look the way they do, and why genomes look the way they do. The theory of evolution has endless practical use in explaining natural history.

Sorry, but you are still missing the point: Mere explanations for natural history do not amount to a practical use; explanations are just theories - ie, talk. For example, the explanation of how whale (supposedly) evolved is as useless as a fairy tale. Applied science relies on facts, not useless stories about what might have happened in the deep past. Moreover, evolutionary explanations for natural history are almost always untestable, making them doubly useless.

It may not be important to you, but it is very important to biologists

I’m not arguing about what’s “important to biologists” - I’m arguing about what’s practically useful to biologists.

You see, biologists are curious. You may not be curious, but scientists are.

Applied science relies on facts. Curiosity is not facts.

Are you really saying that knowledge isn’t worth pursuing unless it has immediate practical use?

No, I’m not - not even close (nice straw man, btw).
Are you saying Darwin’s tree of common descent is knowledge?