# Is An Undersatnding Of Evolution Essential To An Understanding Of Biology? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757 "2005-09-21T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/181 "2005-09-23T07:46:22Z")
Well what if we call it the [neo-Darwinian synthesis](http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Evolution.html)? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/182 "2005-09-23T13:05:39Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > In fact exactly the opposite is true. It doesn’t make any sense outside of an evolutionary framework. The first question I always got when teaching undergrads the basics of muscle physiology is “that’s really dumb”. And they were right, the way muscles metabolise ATP is really dumb. Muscles work backwards, they don’t use ATP to generate force, they use ATP to prevent\* them providing force. It’s like having a car that runs without fuel, but you need to burn 5 gallons an hour to when it’s parked in your garage. The rest snipped for space. You are really stretching, no pun intended. I don’t need the unified field theory to understand gravity. Knowing the unified field theory might deepen my understanding of gravity, but I can get a pretty darn good handle on it without, and adding in a unified field theory (when such is discovered) might just muddy the waters. First you learn how things work. Once you understand the h ow, then you can shoot for the why. Evolution is a ‘why’. It is not basic, it is secondary. To teach it first as a kind of framework is like using your house’s roof for the foundation. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/183 "2005-09-23T13:07:12Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Bouncing Buddha. I won’t apologize for not being aware of your comments in another thread. Which would be understandable, except I already explicitly referenced them in this thread when another fellow of your mindset made the exact same frigging comment about the necessity of literacy as you. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/184 "2005-09-23T13:13:18Z")
> [@Erinaceus europaeus](#): > > I’m glad I made someone happy in this thread 🙂 I would like to also point out that reproduction isn’t intrinsic to life either. It’s just something practically all life does given the chance. But each organism is _Capable_ of reproduction, in theory. Obviously, there are folks who, through birth defect or misadventure, can’t. Of course, they’re still alive despite that lack, so the traditional definition isn’t perfect, but it does give us a good, general framework. > [@](#): > > **However, that’s not all there is to biology.** If you want to understand **why** all kinds of organisms manage these tasks in wildly different or quite similar ways, evolution gives you a good, reasonably simple scientific framework for understanding that. It might not be absolutely essential to understanding how a specific (part of an) organism works, but it _is_ essential in understanding _why_. In that way, evolution is crucial to understanding life on earth and therefore it is essential to an understanding of biology. Emphasis on your first sentence there. Specifically, ‘all there is’. We’re not debating whether or not evolution must be included for a COMPLETE understanding of biology. And as I mentioned previously, ‘why’ is a second-tier topic. ---
**Author:** ![Erinaceus\_europaeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47774/32.png) [@Erinaceus\_europaeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erinaceus_europaeus)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/185 "2005-09-23T13:51:40Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Emphasis on your first sentence there. Specifically, ‘all there is’. We’re not debating whether or not evolution must be included for a COMPLETE understanding of biology. > > And as I mentioned previously, ‘why’ is a second-tier topic. I think your definition of basic biology is too narrow, then. I can hardly imagine discussing reproduction without handling evolution. But I think we’ve made our points. As an aside, I strongly agree with LHoD’s assertion that students are more likely to be curious about “why” than “how”. That’s certainly true for me, and although that doesn’t make knowing evolution essential, it probably makes it a lot more enjoyable and easier to learn about biology. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/186 "2005-09-23T14:02:22Z")
> [@Erinaceus europaeus](#): > > I think your definition of basic biology is too narrow, then. I can hardly imagine discussing reproduction without handling evolution. But I think we’ve made our points. > > As an aside, I strongly agree with LHoD’s assertion that students are more likely to be curious about “why” than “how”. That’s certainly true for me, and although that doesn’t make knowing evolution essential, it probably makes it a lot more enjoyable and easier to learn about biology. While it’s true that very young kids tend to sound like broken records, spouting ‘Why’ all the time, by the time they are old enough to start getting basic science education, they’ve stopped doing it. And honestly, I can’t conceive of going to a biology class and the first session being a lecture on evolution and how it’ll be a central theme of the course. In addition to the blank stares, you’d get a lot of ‘whys’ in that lesson plan as well, and before you’ve even given them anything concrete to latch onto. The educational approach I’ve typically seen in schools is : teach the concrete concepts. Once the students master those basics, fill in the abstracts and the theories. There may be one student in twenty who benefits from getting the abstracts first, but honestly? Most of them don’t care. And the only way to make at least some of them care is by showing them something cool. Something concrete. Once you’ve sparked the interest, then they might feel like digging deeper for that second level. I didn’t foster an interest in programming because of reading a white paper on the Von Neumann architecture. I became interested because of being able to play around with BASIC. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/187 "2005-09-23T14:23:26Z")
What good reason is there to avoid answering the question of how human beings came to exist? What question could be more basic? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/188 "2005-09-23T14:44:31Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > The educational approach I’ve typically seen in schools is : teach the concrete concepts. Once the students master those basics, fill in the abstracts and the theories. But evolution is a very concrete concept, and it isn’t a terribly abstract theory at all. What’s so astonishing about it is its power despite its simplicity, if you ask me. Darwin was able to synthesize a relatively modest knowledge base compared to what the average bio student learns now, and from this was able to discern with impressive accuracy the nuts-and-bolts of heritable change, and use that to extrapolate both forward and backward on the fundamental nature of genes and the origins of all life from a common ancestor (or, at least, a limited number of common ancestors). Darwin’s great achievement of inductive logic and insight, while truly the product of a keen intelligence, is nonetheless not at all an abstruse concept. It is so versitile, and so generalizable, be it real or modeled life under scrutiny, that one really needs to know nothing about what distinguishes a plant from a fungus, a gene from a chromosome, DNA from RNA, or any of these other particulars about life to understand and utilize it to generate testable hypotheses or interpret a host of observations. What could be simpler, and what could be a better teaching approach for producing real thought and understanding of all life, not only on this planet, but quite possibly any where or how conceivable, than to give kids the basics of Darwinian Evolution at the foundation of their life science education? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/189 "2005-09-23T15:18:24Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What good reason is there to avoid answering the question of how human beings came to exist? What question could be more basic? For the same reason a pre-Darwin athiest would avoid the question. Because one believes the prevailing explanation is incorrect. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/190 "2005-09-23T15:46:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What good reason is there to avoid answering the question of how human beings came to exist? What question could be more basic? To answer your second question first ‘What is life?’ As to the first question - when you’re done playing with the strawman, we’ll be over here. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/191 "2005-09-23T15:51:59Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > But evolution is a very concrete concept, and it isn’t a terribly abstract theory at all. It’s not a concrete concept at all. You can’t see something evolve. You can’t do basic science experiments in evolution. You can see chains of organisms that look like one another with small changes over time, and hear the theory, and think ‘Well, it does make a lot of sense - but what has that got to do with me?’ Explaining Gravity is basic. Explaining the Einsteinian underpinnings of Gravity isn’t. You can do experiments at a basic level with Gravity. When you move into Einstein’s territory, though, it’s not easy to set up an experiment for grade-school kids. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/192 "2005-09-23T16:06:29Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > You can’t do basic science experiments in evolution. You can see chains of organisms that look like one another with small changes over time… With a computer and the right software you can do all of these things over and over again, and even “play God” to see what diversity selection can produce given only a finite number of heritable and mutable “genes”. A two-second search on Google yielded [this](http://faculty.washington.edu/~herronjc/SoftwareFolder/software.html) link, just as a ferinstance. Programs like this are not fundamentally different than what modern evolutionary theorists are using to test their own hypotheses, so computational biology is fully consistent with the present standards of experimental science. Playing with programs like these _is_ doing basic science experiments that have the added benefit of yielding a huge variety of results, none of which are “wrong”. Most basic science “experiments” are nothing but obedient exercises in cooking with a strict recipe to produce the same exact cake every time. You don’t even have to think, just mimic and parrot. IOW, most basic science “experiments” in elementary and high school science have nothing to do with the process of scientific inquiry and shouldn’t really be called experiments at all. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/193 "2005-09-23T16:08:43Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > IOW, most basic science “experiments” in elementary and high school science have nothing to do with the process of scientific inquiry and shouldn’t really be called experiments at all. Those are exactly the sort of “experiments” or “exercises” if you prefer that grade-school kids SHOULD be doing. They’re basic. You can’t learn to play jazz until you know the instrument. ---
**Author:** ![Erinaceus\_europaeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47774/32.png) [@Erinaceus\_europaeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erinaceus_europaeus)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/194 "2005-09-23T16:54:44Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > With a computer and the right software you can do all of these things over and over again, and even “play God” to see what diversity selection can produce given only a finite number of heritable and mutable “genes”. In fact, the concept of evolution is generic enough that you can even teach it without refering to biology at all. As long as you have some sort of reproduction, mutation and external pressures on survival evolution applies. Also, **evolution is not a difficult concept**. Any child can see that: a) children inherit traits from their parents b) which traits exactly are inherited is not fully predictable (for various reasons, i.e. dominant genes and mutations) c) some traits are an advantage in life, others might be a disadvantage That’s evolution. The impact of evolution on life over long periods of time is harder to grasp, but that’s what classes are for. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/195 "2005-09-23T16:55:04Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Since I was the one who made that statement, I guess I should define “basic.” I meant in the sense of understanding anything about the most fundamental questions of how life sustains itself, how new speces arise, and how human beings came to exist. As I said in the other thread, the key word is _understanding_. Actually, this is the statement you made in the other thread and I doubt that anyone int this thread who believes a knowledge of evolution is essential to a knowledge of biology would agree with it. > [@Dio](#): > > Because you don’t know anything about biology without it. Of course in this thread, you continue the trend. > [@Dio](#): > > Reproduction is evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Erinaceus\_europaeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47774/32.png) [@Erinaceus\_europaeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erinaceus_europaeus)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/196 "2005-09-23T17:00:20Z")
I hope that also explains why evolution is relevant to children/students. **It applies to them directly**. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/197 "2005-09-23T17:12:44Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Actually, this is the statement you made in the other thread and I doubt that anyone int this thread who believes a knowledge of evolution is essential to a knowledge of biology would agree with it. Actually, the statement with the word “basic” was [directly quoted from me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6605853&postcount=228) in the other thread. You quoted it in your OP. So that was “the” statement in question, not the (admittedly more simplistic) one you’re citing now. > [@](#): > > Of course in this thread, you continue the trend. What “trend?” Do you _disagree_ that reproduction is evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/198 "2005-09-23T17:16:53Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > To answer your second question first ‘What is life?’ > > As to the first question - when you’re done playing with the strawman, we’ll be over here. This is an incredibly stupid answer. That’s like saying it should be necessary to give a technical definition of space-time before teaching history. Kids intuitively understand what “life” is for the purposes of any practical education. They don’t need a technical definition. They _don’t_ intuitively understand where humans came from, and you didn’t really answer the question as to why kids shouldn’t be told that. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/199 "2005-09-23T17:17:48Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What “trend?” > > Do you _disagree_ that reproduction is evolution? The trend of oversimplification. If reproduction is evolution than the problem is solved. We simply teach reproduction. Reproduction is evolution in the same way that a table is furniture. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/200 "2005-09-23T17:18:56Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > For the same reason a pre-Darwin athiest would avoid the question. Because one believes the prevailing explanation is incorrect. > > Enjoy, > Steven Then one has no business teaching science because one doesn’t know a fucking thing about it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757.md?page=11)