Well here's the thing I don't understand..lots of people are making a big deal out of this and some even say it will be the find of the century. In my opinion find of the century means something revolutionary not evolutionary. I just don't see anything revolutionary coming out of this unless we do find something like a miniature black hole, zero-point energy source, anti-matter, gravitons etc. Have we learned anything useful from previous colliders? If so what have we learned?
Let's step back for a second, and let's ask ourselves how to define "revolutionary". If I understand what you're trying to say, then the following items are also true:
Sailing west until finding the Americas was not a
revolutionary step -- the technology for sailing long distances already existed. It was an
evolutionary step, as in someone took the time and the risk to take it that much further.
Horseless carriages were not a
revolutionary step -- the technology for steam propulsion already existed (boiling water, pressure cylinders, etc) however it just wasn't big enough. Someone just needed to put the two together and make it reliable.
Electric lighting was not a
revolutionary step -- electricity was around in two distinct flavors, and the obvious heat = light emission hypothesis had existed for millenia. We needed someone to figure out which metal to use that would stand getting hot enough to glow without breaking.
Nuclear fission was not a
revolutionary step -- people had already hypothesized that atoms were made of smaller pieces. The science behind figuring out the basics of radiation and unstable atomic masses had already taken place... Someone just needed to smash two very unstable atoms together using some explosives to make them go bonkers.
No single person invented these things in their entirety; in each and every case, a person (or group of people) stood on top of previous invention(s) and science and carried it to the next step. That's how these things work. You don't go from a blank slate to a flying car -- you figure out how to make a car, you then figure out how to make things fly, and then you figure out how to mix the two into something usable. Each one of those "big" items breaks down into smaller items -- making a car could consist of making tires, making wheels, making bearings, making gauges and dials, ensuring structural rigidity while keeping low weight. Making things fly could consist of finding a source of rotational power, propeller blade selection, angle of attack of the individual blades, quantity of blades, structural rigidity of these blades, determing a way to steer, etc.
People love to hear "ZOMG revolutionary!!!" but the reality is quite far from that. Steam power revolutionized transportation, but mass-capacity steam-driven power was an
evolutionary step from something smaller, which was again an evolutionary step from something smaller, which again and again and again was yet another step from something even smaller.
Perhaps you need to consider your frame of reference before decrying "revolutionary versus evolutionary"
