What has macro evolution done for medical science?

Answer 1

Without macro evolution there would be no scientists.

Answer 2

Very Little or perhaps too much....

It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is thought to be the only mode of evolution (i.e. what is sometimes thought of as "macroevolution" actually consists of the compounded effects of microevolution - the only difference between them is one of time and scale).
A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

Answer 3

The same things as micro. There is no difference between the two. Both are a change in a gene pool over time. But people claim that if a new species is made, it is macro, and if not it is micro. But scientifically, they are the same. Also, it is much harder to differentiate between species then people think. A ring species is a good example.

Answer 4

Embryology.

In order to understand anatomy, you need to know how structures are related to each other through development. The arches between the gill slits of the jawless fishes are the basis for understanding where a number of structures of the head neck and thorax lie. We can relate the arches in human embryos to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th arches in the jawless fish (we have one less). A number of diseases and anatomic variations are only explained by the developmental process. You really want your surgeon to understand what might be in there before he cuts.

Of course, that's just one example of many.

Answer 5

Same thing micro-evolution did, since they are the same thing.

Answer 6

Allowed us to test all our great meds on the "lesser" animals

Answer 7

I like the first answer.