I thought my point was obvious.
As a reminder, the original commenter stated they felt that research shouldn't be funded if there isn't a clear benefit/application. I.e. a utilitarian argument regarding research funding.
I used the theory of evolution as an example of research that, at the time, had no utilitarian value, but ultimately ended up enormously important.
You then countered that Darwin was, in part, trying to explain how selective breeding worked, and therefore the research had utility at the time.
I countered that no, that's not practical utility because understanding the mechanisms underlying selective breeding isn't necessary to do it; that simply explaining the natural world does not represent practical utility (if it did, we wouldn't be debating whether high energy research, which simply seeks to explain the natural world, is worth funding).
Therefore your comment does not invalidate my example of evolution as research that had no practical value or utility at the time.
My point in all of this is we should engage in research even if it doesn't have immediate, practical value because we can't know what research will or won't be useful in the fullness of time.
And that's ignoring the fact that I, in fact, absolutely agree with you that we should engage in research simply because learning about the natural world is a worthwhile pursuit.
Meanwhile, I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make given the context of the discussion.