What was the most 'revolutionary' scientific theory of all time?

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution does not change the way biology gets done in a biology lab (unless you study evolution, or perhaps if you specifically look at mutation rates of pathogens). On the other hand, quantum mechanics is an absolute requirement in solid state physics, which is directly responsible for the communication/computation revolution. The impact on your life and, in fact, a huge fraction of our modern economy, could not be more direct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you're not as experienced in biology labs as you think. Evolution is a backbone concept used by all biologists except for the tiny minority of IDers. It affects research decisions and impacts all branches of biology. It's the context for all biology. If you don't understand how your work in biology fits into an evolutionary context, you can't really publish. You might not apply evolutionary theory directly if you're experimenting on a giant squid axon, but if you don't understand evolution, you can't apply your findings in a meaningful way toward the molecular neurobiology of other organisms like humans, for instance.

This biological theory has led to biomedical advances that results in disease cures and drugs to treat chronic conditions affecting all people the world over allowing them to lead normal lives. Evolution is used in virology, bacteriology and other fields to better understand disease and its origins.

I could go on, but I think you might be starting to get the point.

The importance of evolutionary theory in modern biology can't really be overstated.

Something tells me you don't work in a biology lab, if such a thing exists any more. I can explain this last comment if you want.

[ QUOTE ]
Something tells me you don't work in a biology lab, if such a thing exists any more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the reason for my statement is that I have worked in a pharmacology and molecular biology lab and have been co-author on several papers -- I have also published papers in physics (my primary field). Quite frankly, there is no comparison of the relative importance, here. Quantum mechanics is used everywhere -- chemistry, nuclear physics, particle physics, solid state physics, cosmology. As mentioned before, a large fraction of the economy is directly tied to its application. Quite honestly, the most distance I ever got out of evolution in pharmacology labs (working directly with the Ph.D.'s) was fodder for lunchtime speculation. I understand it presents a unifying perspective, but in all honesty, how much do you need a unifying perspective to characterize the effects of a particular chemical on cardiac tissue?

The best cross-field analogy I can present (for evolution) is to cosmology. Sure, it's a "framework" in which most physicists think of the natural world, but it has very little impact on how a solid state physicist actually does his job, or on quantum computing researchers, particle physicists, etc. The same can in no way be said for quantum mechanics -- real physics IS quantum physics, in one form or another, and the need for it is everywhere. It is not just a background for speculation or a "unifying perspective." It is not a "context" for organizing thoughts -- if you don't use it (in any of these fields), you quite simply get wrong answers. Solid state engineering, modern chemistry, microprocessors, nuclear physics, NMR, MRI -- all gone.

Another analogy: Think about what biology (and its applications) would be like if no biologist knew any chemistry. This is about what modern physics (and its applications) would be like without QM.