# 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:** 13
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/241 "2005-09-24T15:22:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > All they had to do was be born different from their parents. Surviving to reproduce is not a criterion for whether an animal is evolved. An evolutionary chain stops with the last birth, not the last death. Will you please look at the cite I provided and explain why your opinion should be given greater weight than his? Individual animals do not evolve. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/242 "2005-09-24T15:26:27Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > All they had to do was be born different from their parents. Surviving to reproduce is not a criterion for whether an animal is evolved. The problem is that “evolved” is an adjective: “evolve” is a verb. Certainly any creature alive today is evolved, but that doesn’t mean that every creature alive today is evolving. At any rate, I’m pretty convinced that this doesn’t have much to do with the thread topic. Daniel ---
**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 24, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/243 "2005-09-24T15:30:36Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > The problem is that “evolved” is an adjective: “evolve” is a verb. Certainly any creature alive today is evolved, but that doesn’t mean that every creature alive today is evolving. I never said they were. ---
**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 24, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/244 "2005-09-24T15:32:33Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Will you please look at the cite I provided and explain why your opinion should be given greater weight than his? > > Individual animals do not evolve. I never said they did. I’m saying that every act of reproduction is a tiny unit of evolution. Of course individual animals don’t evolve. That’s why it makes no difference if they’re killed in a fire. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/245 "2005-09-24T15:48:50Z")
> [@Me](#): > > Individual animals do not evolve. > [@Dio](#): > > I never said they did. > [@Me](#): > > Exactly how did the kittens evolve? > [@Dio](#): > > By being born slightly different from their parents. Are the kittens not individual animals? Did you not say they evolved by being born slightly different from their parents? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/246 "2005-09-24T15:49:26Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I never said they did. Okay, maybe not–if you didn’t say that, then I’m not clear on what you’re arguing. I’ll let it go, since I don’t think it’s very relevant to the question at hand. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/247 "2005-09-24T15:53:19Z")
> [@Dio](#): > > Reproduction is evolution. > [@Dio](#): > > I’m saying that every act of reproduction is a tiny unit of evolution. A grain of sand is a castle. Actually, what I am saying is that every grain of sand is a tiny unit of a castle. First a thing is a thing, then it is a tiny unit of a thing. Hardly honest debating. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/248 "2005-09-24T16:04:51Z")
_Biological evolution … is **change** in the properties of **populations** of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve._ Two cats and one litter is not a population of organisms. Nothing occurred that transcended the lifetime of the kittens. The act reproduction that resulted in the kittens was not evolutiion. ---
**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 24, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/249 "2005-09-24T17:39:50Z")
There is change in every generation of reproduction. I have not tried to argue that the ontogeny of an individual is relevant so I don’t know why you keep bringing that up. It sounds like you want to define evolution as only referring to adaptation or speciation within whole populations. I think that’s a distinction without a difference since the mechanism is still reproduction. I also think you’re expending way too much energy trying to belabor this point. ---
**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 24, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/250 "2005-09-24T17:42:32Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Are the kittens not individual animals? Did you not say they evolved by being born slightly different from their parents? Ok, Dr. Semantic. Kittens are _evolved_ because they are different from their parents. I am using the word as an adjective, not a verb. The kittens themselves are obviously not actively evolving and I haven’t suggested that they do. ---
**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 24, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/251 "2005-09-24T17:43:51Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > A grain of sand is a castle. > > Actually, what I am saying is that every grain of sand is a tiny unit of a castle. > > First a thing is a thing, then it is a tiny unit of a thing. Hardly honest debating. It’s more akin to saying that sand dunes are sand. ---
**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 24, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/252 "2005-09-24T22:55:06Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > In case it’s unclear to anyone, **Gamera** is dismissing the NAS by alluding to NCLB. In other words, he’s looking at a program of scientific guidelines set up by a board of scientists and science teachers, adopted independently by states across the country on the advice of their education professionals, and pretty much unopposed by any group of education professionals (at least, any group that I’m aware of). And then he’s looking at a program set up by federal politicians, forced on states without their consent, and considered very flawed by most groups of education professionals (including the [AFT](http://www.aft.org/topics/nclb/) and [NEA](http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html)). And he’s suggesting that since the latter is problematic, the former must be problematic. > > The whole comparison is ridiculous. Almost, but not quite. Translated, I’m saying ‘Appeal to authority ain’t gonna cut it.’ ---
**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 24, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/253 "2005-09-24T23:01:26Z")
> [@Erinaceus europaeus](#): > > OK. You’ve never said that evolution should be skipped in biological education. In fact, you’ve asserted that evolution should be part of any course in biology. > > I still don’t see how that can be reconciled with your statement that evolution isn’t essential to understanding biology. Especially since the only reason you can give (as far as I can see) is that evolution is such a difficult or “higher level” part of biology that it doesn’t matter. > > I’ll leave this thread. It’s making my head hurt. I think the confusion on your side of the debate seems to be “Complete understanding” vs. “Basic understanding”. One can understand things at different levels. And to completely understand biology - or at least as completely as possible with current knowledge - evolution is a part of that understanding. However, a basic understanding doesn’t include everything - and those of us on the other side of the debate seem to argue (I am, I think the rest are) that evolution is not an essential component to a basic understanding of biology. If someone teaches me everything about car components and how they work together, I can be said to have at least a basic understanding of cars. Even if I haven’t been given the information on the process behind the design - I may not be able to say ‘They added the third brake light because studies showed an decrease in accidents would result’ - so my understanding is not complete. But it is at least basic. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/254 "2005-09-24T23:12:51Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I think the confusion on your side of the debate seems to be “Complete understanding” vs. “Basic understanding”. > > One can understand things at different levels. And to completely understand biology - or at least as completely as possible with current knowledge - evolution is a part of that understanding. However, a basic understanding doesn’t include everything - and those of us on the other side of the debate seem to argue (I am, I think the rest are) that evolution is not an essential component to a basic understanding of biology. First, like it or not evolution is : A core part of modern biology. Frankly, if you don’t teach evolution, why bother with the rest ? Hard to avoid without crippling the subject. The sole scientific method of explaining things most people actually care about. Second, let’s be realistic. The choice is not to teach evolution or not; it’s between teaching evolution or creationism. The option of leaving the subject alone does not exist; the creationists will see to that. Since the choice is between science and lies, I choose science. ---
**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 24, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/255 "2005-09-24T23:58:33Z")
I know I said I was leaving this thread, but I’m back for now. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > However, a basic understanding doesn’t include everything - and those of us on the other side of the debate seem to argue (I am, I think the rest are) that evolution is not an essential component to a basic understanding of biology. It all depends on your definition of biology. I say biology (even basic biology) is the study of life (and for basic biology I mean life as we know it, here on earth, in all it’s diversity, not in all the details but in a general sense\*). As I understand it, you think (basic) biology is the study of organisms. To understand how an organism works evolution isn’t particulary relevant. To understand how life works it is essential. - I’d be surprised if there are any people who have a **complete** understanding of biology. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/256 "2005-09-25T00:29:40Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Almost, but not quite. Translated, I’m saying ‘Appeal to authority ain’t gonna cut it.’ An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority isn’t an authority on the subject at hand. I’ve made a broad, interconnected appeal to authorities on this subject. Your “I’m an intellectual maverick!” act won’t cut it, either. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/257 "2005-09-25T00:33:45Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > One can understand things at different levels. And to completely understand biology - or at least as completely as possible with current knowledge - evolution is a part of that understanding. However, a basic understanding doesn’t include everything - and those of us on the other side of the debate seem to argue (I am, I think the rest are) that evolution is not an essential component to a basic understanding of biology. Right, but the most your side has going for it is a few poor analogies. Our side has going for it the National Academy of Sciences, and standards for teachers at federal and state levels, and science curricula from around the developed world. If you’d like to show us a few respected non-Creationist biologists who deny that understanding evolution is an essential part of understanding biology at a basic level, feel free to do so. If you’re unable to do so, you should at least question why it is that nobody knowledgeable in the field agrees with you. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/258 "2005-09-25T13:22:08Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is change in every generation of reproduction. I have not tried to argue that the ontogeny of an individual is relevant so I don’t know why you keep bringing that up. It sounds like you want to define evolution as only referring to adaptation or speciation within whole populations. I think that’s a distinction without a difference since the mechanism is still reproduction. You did not say that the mechanism of evolution was reproduction. You said that reproduction was evolution. Hardly the same thing at all. Do you truly not see the distinction? The mechanism is not the result. Every change that occurs is not evolution; only the changes that are passed on to entire populations have evolutionary significance. > [@Dio](#): > > I also think you’re expending way too much energy trying to belabor this point. Surely no more than you? Reproduction is not evolution. Evolution has not occurred until there has been a change in the properties of a population of organisms. > [@Dio](#): > > It’s more akin to saying that sand dunes are sand. You used the phrase “tiny unit.” If a grain of sand is a sand dune you have made your point. ---
**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 25, 2005, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/259 "2005-09-25T14:52:28Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Every change that occurs is not evolution; only the changes that are passed on to entire populations have evolutionary significance. Isn’t it just as significant that certain changes are **not** passed on? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/260 "2005-09-25T14:59:37Z")
> [@Erinaceus europaeus](#): > > Isn’t it just as significant that certain changes are **not** passed on? While it’s equally significant in a way, the overwhelming majority of changes aren’t passed on. The ones that are become more significant because they’re remarkably rare. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757.md?page=14)