Has evolution made any contribution to biology apart from evolutionary biology?

The teaching of the evolution myth has not contributed anything positive to any field of learning.

Consider the principle of "reductionism". This is a basis for the concept of evolution: that a complex organism can be the result of cumulative self-modifications by ancestral organisms which are tested by those organisms in the environ and the modifications which are beneficial are passed on through hereditary descent with the result that descendants are literally self designed from the ground up. I believe that Darwin called this "descent with modification".

The counter argument is called "irreducible complexity." The cell itself is the prime example of irreducible complexity, since even in the simplest cell that is no room for further "reduction" at all, much less to the point to where life might have randomly come into existence out of inanimate matter

Another aspect of this subject which argues against evolution is "assigned complexity". It is not enough to have a sufficient degree or amount of complexity to form something which could be called "life": what is also necessary is for the elements making up said complexity to be "assigned" in an extremely specific manner for even the simplest form of life to exist. On the internet, supporters of evolution refer to things like crystals to bolster their argument of a complexity which not only can happen without any outside influence, but which is also inevitable. However this is nothing compared to even the simplest cell. The cell can function only if the complete complements of its components are present at the same time, in their proper and relative position, and only if they begin their respective functions simultaneously. A cell is both a case of "irreducible complexity" (which means that none of the parts could be missing for it to still work). But in addition, a cell is the epitome of "assigned complexity": the complexity is made up of individual components which are unique from each other and in their relationship in regard to one another in order for the entire unit to work. The gulf in complexity between a cell and a snowflake is a chasm greater than the universe in scope. It is not just a question of adding more snowflakes in order to add up to the same degree of complexity since there must be differences between them relating to an assigned function and they must all be synchronized with each other to work together simultaneously and in the correct placements and functions. All the snowflakes on earth, and even of the entire universe, would not equal the complexity of a single cell since the latter works not just because of the number of it's parts but because of the complex design indicating what those parts accomplish when together. We could compare the Taj Mahal with a structure- less pile of sand, (does merely the addition of more sand equal greater complexity, or would the whole ever exceed the average complexity of any one section?) except that the gulf between a cell and anything non-living and not acted on by an intelligence is much, much greater. In this model, again, it would not make a difference if the entire observable, or even the entire theoretical limits of the universe were filled with sand. Without intelligent design or intervention all of the sand can never exceed the complexity of any representative sample. While a universe of sand would not equal the designed architecture of the Taj Mahal , even if an infinite number of universes could not equal the complexity of a living cell. Thus abiogenesis is just as impossible as its' ideological predecessor: spontaneous generation.

People have made the argument that God started life, and then , at some point, life evolved from there. but what point would that be, and what evidence is there to prove it?

Louis Pasteur proved that the spontaneous generation of life is impossible. Hardly more than ten years following Pasteur's experiments Thomas Huxley coined the term abiogenesis. "I shall call the . . . doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the hypothesis of abiogenesis." --Huxley, 1870.

What does that even mean?

I was unaware that the process trough which life adapts to it's environment was under obligation to contribute anything other than, well, just evolving species. Over the past 100 years, nothing big has changed in molecular biology as of 2005. So....?

That's like asking if the sport of Archery has contributed to Basketball.

Modern taxonomy is essentially an attempt to create a phylogenetic tree which shows how organisms evolve. Animal behavior experiments are conducted with the assumption that any observed behavior must be evolutionarily adaptive. Physiological experiments are conducted under the same assumption. In general, you can learn about many things in biology without learning evolution but with evolution they would make much more sense.

That's right, they are separate fields altogether, different specialties. Their results do however unanimously support the tenets of evolutionary biology.

As a matter of fact molecular biology is really all that is needed to confirm evolutionary theory. The presence of the fossil record has become irrelevant.

Evolutionary theory is the basis of DNA profiling, which in turn gives us all modern screening and treatment for cancer.

I don't propose to argue with you. As an opponent of evolutionary thinking, you are obliged to refuse all cancer screening and treatment both for yourself and all members of your family.

Evolution will sort this out.

OK, so let's say, for argument's sake that it hasn't.

What would that mean or prove?

It has of course, ask any biologist trying to breed better crops or more productive animals.

EDIT: @Bambootiger - Are you seriously arguing that irreducible complexity is a valid theory? Seriously? After it's been debunked again and again, over and over by multiple scientists & lay people using multiple examples? Really? This is really the best that creationists can do?

Sheesh, I never realised that we were so close to utter victory. Give it 10 years & creationists will be a speck in the rear view mirror of history.

Germ theory is kind of important. Evolutionary biology is just a teensy bit important to it.

</understatement>

Vaccines, virology

It contributed all of the biologists.

I like where this question was posted

evolution has enough hard evidence to make it a profound religion

nothing more