# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/21 "2005-09-21T20:19:42Z")
The pillers of biology include DNA & Evolution. I can teach that a heart pumps blood throughout the circulatory system without ever mentioning either. But I also don’t need to teach the mechanics of how a pump works. I would not say that knowing the circulatory system gives you an Understanding of Biology, it gives you a glossy overview of gross operation. To not learn at least the basics of Evolution, genetics and DNA leaves you without an understanding of Biology. Which definition are we using: un·der·stand·ing (ŭn’dər-stăn’dĭng) n. The quality or condition of one who understands; comprehension. The faculty by which one understands; intelligence. See synonyms at reason. Individual or specified judgment or outlook; opinion. A compact implicit between two or more people or groups. The matter implicit in such a compact. A reconciliation of differences; a state of agreement: They finally reached an understanding. A disposition to appreciate or share the feelings and thoughts of others; sympathy. This may be semantics: I have met people who think Dinosaurs are either a hoax or must of lived within the last 6000 years. One was a nurse. I do not believe she understands biology even though she can function as a nurse. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/22 "2005-09-21T20:21:56Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If you want students to memorize a bunch of different, unrelated biological processes and categories, then they don’t need to learn about evolution. But if you want them to **understand** , then they need an organizing principle; and evolution is a spectacularly robust organizing principle for biology. I think _far_ too much education is treated as little more than a rote memorization of disconnected facts. LHoD hit the nail on the head with this paragraph. Well said! To make inferences and to draw conclusions requires understanding. Without an understanding of evolution (as a “organizing principle for biology”) students in biology will be remarkably unsuccessful at either. ---
**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 21, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/23 "2005-09-21T20:26:06Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > So your answer is yes? Is it your assertion that biology is the study of “why a creature is”? Some of it is, yes. How can you understand a claw, without understanding it’s use for catching prey, digging, climbing and so on ? Why is an important question in biology. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “Basic”. If you mean “simple”, then no; a simple enough description of biology can leave out just about anything you want; you could leave out any mention of cells as well. It won’t be very useful, and it will a neutered version of biology, but you can do it. If by “basic” you mean "“Teaching the fundamental principles of biology” then no, you can’t leave out evolution. It would be like teaching introductory physics and not mentioning atoms. Not teaching evolution would procuce a large, artificial hole in a student’s understanding of biology. Evolution _is_ a fundamental part of biology. Besides, part of my point is, what do you do when a student brings up a taboo question ? Do you point at them and scream “_That is FORBIDDEN !_” ? Evolution is a basic part of modern biology, and leaving it out will leave holes the students are sure to notice. Like I said, kids tend to ask “why” and “how” a lot, and that leads straight to evolution To sum up my opinion; I feel a a version of “Basic Biology” that doesn’t at least outline evolution is a deliberately crippled version that really doesn’t deserve the name. You might as well be straightforward and call it theobiology. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/24 "2005-09-21T20:33:53Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Define “basic understanding.” > > “This is an animal. It moves. This is a plant. It doesn’t. The animal has a heart. It is a muscle that squeezes blood through its body. The plant moves fluids largely via capillary action. This is a fish stick. It is a fungus.” And so on. It may be basic, but it sure ain’t useful. Wel this is part of the problem, isn’t it? As I said, it has been a long time since I was in public school. I am hoping for a teacher to pop in here with an opinion. For now, I wil define it as whatever is currently being taught in public schools _save_ evolution. What does a required curriculum look like? Do you know? I say required because electives are really a different matter. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Some of it is, yes. How can you understand a claw, without understanding it’s use for catching prey, digging, climbing and so on ? Why is an important question in biology. There is a great deal more to biology than creatures. ---
**Author:** ![Enterprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/76d3ee/32.png) [@Enterprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enterprise)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/25 "2005-09-21T20:35:58Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > I think _far_ too much education is treated as little more than a rote memorization of disconnected facts. LHoD hit the nail on the head with this paragraph. Well said! > > To make inferences and to draw conclusions requires understanding. Without an understanding of evolution (as a “organizing principle for biology”) students in biology will be remarkably unsuccessful at either. This seems like an assertion that begs for an example. Tell me what kind of inferences that a student should need to draw in biology class (or at any point thereafter) absolutely requires an understanding of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/26 "2005-09-21T20:46:25Z")
> [@Enterprise](#): > > This seems like an assertion that begs for an example. Tell me what kind of inferences that a student should need to draw in biology class (or at any point thereafter) absolutely requires an understanding of evolution. I’m not an expert in biology, by any means, so I’ll live detailed examples to experts, some of whom can be found on this message board and hopefully will provide some choice examples. I will however offer the following, from [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html:](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html:) > [@Chris Colby](#): > > Details of the past also hold explanatory power in biology. Plants obtain their carbon by joining carbon dioxide gas to an organic molecule within their cells. This is called carbon fixation. The enzyme that fixes carbon is RuBP carboxlyase. Plants using C3 photosynthesis lose 1/3 to 1/2 of the carbon dioxide they originally fix. RuBP carboxlyase works well in the absence of oxygen, but poorly in its presence. This is because photosynthesis evolved when there was little gaseous oxygen present. Later, when oxygen became more abundant, the efficiency of photosynthesis decreased. Photosynthetic organisms compensated by making more of the enzyme. RuBP carboxylase is the most abundant protein on the planet partially because it is one of the least efficient. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/27 "2005-09-21T20:49:38Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Define “basic understanding.” > > “This is an animal. It moves. This is a plant. It doesn’t. The animal has a heart. It is a muscle that squeezes blood through its body. The plant moves fluids largely via capillary action. This is a fish stick. It is a fungus.” And so on. It may be basic, but it sure ain’t useful. “useful”, that’s an interesting standard. When was the last time something you learned in a biology class was “useful”, aside from being used in the class or in another class of course? The more specific you can be the better. If the goal of education is to give knowledge which will be “useful” then there’s a lot of neurons I want back from my education. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/28 "2005-09-21T21:17:09Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I think biology can be understood without evolution, but it’s _better_ understood with it. You can learn the similarities between organisms, without knowing why they are similar. But I think knowing “why” helps many a student. Except that evolution isn’t really a “why” in and of itself; it’s more of a “how.” ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/29 "2005-09-21T21:37:40Z")
[Here](http://www.nc.uk.net/webdav/servlet/XRM?Page/@id=6004&Subject/@id=6321&Session/@id=D_5tUMAqvYc22VM76mHQks) is the National Curriculum for the UK for science. Key stages 1-3 are taught to pupils aged 3-14. Form the relevant pages for _Life processes and living things_. > [@](#): > > Key Stage 1. > Variation and classification > 4) Pupils should be taught to: > > 1. recognise similarities and differences between themselves and others, and to treat others with sensitivityClick to view notes > 2. group living things according to observable similarities and differences. > > Key Stage 2. > Variation and classification > 4) Pupils should be taught: > > 1. to make and use keys > 2. how locally occurring animals and plants can be identified and assigned to groups > 3. that the variety of plants and animals makes it important to identify them and assign them to groups. > > Key Stage 3 > Variation, classification and inheritance > 4) Pupils should be taught: > > 1. about environmental and inherited causes of variation within a species > > 2. to classify living things into the major taxonomic groups > > 3. that selective breeding can lead to new varieties. From the age of 14, students can elect which courses they want to study. For the one for Science. > [@](#): > > Key Stage 4. > Variation, inheritance and evolution > 3) Students should be taught: > > 1. how variation arises from genetic causes, environmental causes, and a combination of both > > 2. that sexual reproduction is a source of genetic variation, while asexual reproduction produces clones > > 3. that mutation is a source of genetic variation and has a number of causes > > 4. how sex is determined in humans > > 5. the mechanism of monohybrid inheritance where there are dominant and recessive alleles > > 6. that some diseases are inherited > > 7. the basic principles of cloning, selective breeding and genetic engineeringClick to view notes > > 8. that the fossil record is evidence for evolution > > 9. how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction. Evolution as such is not taught until this stage, but as you can see the basic concepts are taught at an earlier stage and discussions of evolution would no doubt occur. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/30 "2005-09-21T21:52:35Z")
Here’s another thing to consider. Teaching organizing principles is essential…but unless kids have knowlege or experiences to organize, the organizing principles are useless. If you’re teaching young kids kitchen chemistry, it’s tempting to want to explain what chemical reactions are, atoms, etc…but all that will be meaningless unless kids have experienced a broad range of chemical phenomena that they want explanations for. You can’t ask “WHY” something is the way it is until you know THAT it is. Or take history. History is often derided as a meaningless collection of dates and names. But what good is historical analysis if kids don’t have an understanding of what actually happened? In reality you can’t teach the theory and then expose them to the details and watch as the details are inserted into the theoritical framework. The framework is useless unless you’ve got a bunch of unrelated details sitting in your brain screaming out for some theory to explain them. Theory and detail have to go together, one without the other won’t get you far. You can explain evolution to 8th graders in broad strokes in 15 minutes. You can explain natural selection to 8th graders in broad strokes in an hour or two. Is that enough of an organizing principle? As Stranger points out, these are two different things. Look, you can teach kids astronomy without explaining gravity. Teach them the planets, teach them constellations, teach them the nearest and brightest stars, teach them about Galileo, teach them how telescopes work, etc. Anyway, what exactly is the purpose of a general science education? Are we only going to teach kids “useful” information? Are we preparing future scientists? Less than 1% of kids in public school will go on to advanced science degrees. It seems that the purpose is to create a public with a basic level of science literacy. Yeah, evolution is surely a part of that, refusing to teach evolution is a pretty serious dereliction of duty on the part of science educators. But exactly how would kids be materially harmed if they don’t understand evolution? Well, their understanding of the world would be seriously impoverished. But how many kids graduate from high school with a rich understanding of basic science? Damn few, even kids preparing to go on to college. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/31 "2005-09-21T22:00:57Z")
Absolutely. **Stranger on a Train** put it best: while it’s certainly possible to learn discrete facts, I would say that an understanding of biology as a discipline is based on an understanding of evolution. You can teach the ‘what’ without it, but not the ‘why’ and the ‘how’. And if you’re going for plain usefulness, how about understanding why taking antibiotics for a cold is bad? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/32 "2005-09-21T22:29:49Z")
> [@LaurAnge](#): > > Absolutely. **Stranger on a Train** I would say that an understanding of biology as a discipline is based on an understanding of evolution. I am looking for the nuts and bolts about just this. What specifically in basic biology is based on evolution? ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/33 "2005-09-21T22:37:35Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Hell, no. > > You cover anatomy, you cover cell life cycles, respiration, reproduction, et cetera. > > Not necessary at all. > > To argue by analogy, as I am so fond - If I am teaching a course on a particular piece of software, I need to make sure the students know how to install it, know about all its features, know about any quirks, possibly teach them about similar, competitive products - what I don’t need to do (but can, if I like) is go into a section about the Waterfall Software Design methodology used to write it, as it has absolutely no bearing on their use of the software. > > They will still understand the software. They’ll be able to use it well. If one of them happens to be a future programmer, then and only then would the design methodology become truly relevant. You seem to make no distinction between “understanding” and “knowledge.” You transmit knowledge to your students, and they may or may not retain it. If they actually understand the software, as opposed to knowing it, it’s no thanks to their time with you. Understanding how software works – as opposed to memorizing tasks in this software or that – makes new systems more learnable and less intimidating. I believe strongly that a basic understanding of how sofware works would make users far more self-reliant and independent. The analogy goes as well for biology. There are many biological facts students can learn, but without a context of how life evolves they are lacking understanding of how all that knowledge fits together. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/34 "2005-09-21T22:40:46Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > The analogy goes as well for biology. There are many biological facts students can learn, but without a context of how life evolves they are lacking understanding of how all that knowledge fits together. The question at hand, specifically, is what those facts are and whether such an understanding is a goal of public school education. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/35 "2005-09-21T22:43:31Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I am looking for the nuts and bolts about just this. What specifically in basic biology is based on evolution? Would we say that animals just appeared and disappeared at different times, or would we decide that biological history isn’t essential to understanding biology either? One wonders what you mean by “essential,” since apparently it isn’t self evident that context isn’t essential. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/36 "2005-09-21T22:44:46Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > The question at hand, specifically, is what those facts are and whether such an understanding is a goal of public school education. The goals of public education are not mutually agreed upon, but I’m all for “fighting ignorance.” ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/37 "2005-09-21T22:50:28Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Would we say that animals just appeared and disappeared at different times, or would we decide that biological history isn’t essential to understanding biology either? One wonders what you mean by “essential,” since apparently it isn’t self evident that context isn’t essential. So you have no answer to my question about specific facts that require knowledge of the theory of evolution? What I am looking for is something along the lines of, say, cell divsion. Or photosynthesis. What exactly is “biological history”? Is it part of a current curriculum of which you are aware? > [@cricetus](#): > > The goals of public education are not mutually agreed upon, but I’m all for “fighting ignorance.” If this a serious response it seems a bit too broad. Under that banner any _fact at all_ would have equal claim to exposure. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/38 "2005-09-21T22:54:31Z")
I’m afraid that too many posters in this thread are either unable or unwilling to differentiate between nice to know and need to know. The OP is not trying to make a political statement. The simple fact is that almost all of biology (except how populations change over time) can be taught w/o every referring to evolutionary theory. No one has yet to bring up any significant part of biology (except population change) that requires evolution to be taught first (or concurrently). ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/39 "2005-09-21T22:56:11Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I am looking for the nuts and bolts about just this. What specifically in basic biology is based on evolution? Realistically just about everything. Evolution in the broadest sense underpins all biology just as atomic theory underpins all of chemistry. Some examples. Cladistics. You can teach someone that a animals have characteristics X, Y and Z, but without any knowledge of evolution the characteristics you use will be perceived as arbitrary. We might just as well decide to group snakes with eels, lizards with salamanders and whales with tuna because they are approximately the same visually. Without being able to say that salamanders are more closely related to frogs or whales more closely related to cows you are just making arbitrary distinctions. The entire basis of cladistics is evolution. Ecology. Why did Dutch Elm disease cause such problems? Why are marsupials only found in South America and Australia (mostly)? Why aren’t there any penguins at the north pole? Why aren’t there any more dinosaurs? These are issues that are only able to be explained with some understanding of evolution. Without invoking that principle we either have to outright lie about the facts or else conclude that “God wanted it that way”. Some people would say there is no difference. Anatomy/physiology. How do you explain why all large animals are mammals? Do you just handwave about ‘warm blooded” and “specialized teeth”? If so then what happens if someone asks why snakes aren’t warm blooded? What about discussions of why humans can’t be as big as elephants or as small as mice? More handwaving, or do you pretend that humans are ‘just meant’ to be this size? Without some understanding of evolution you simply can’t address any issues of comparative anatomy with any honesty. And so on for every field of basic biology. All biology is underpinned by evolutionary theory. Very rapidly every field will be forced to resort to either an evolutionary explanation or else a lie that things are the way they are for arbitrary reasons. You could certainly teach these things with no reference at al to evolution but only if you are prepared to ‘admit’ that they are arbitrary and meaningless distinctions made up by people. That’s not a good way to teach children IMO. Kids are good at seeing patterns, even broad patterns, if they are taught to look for them. Remember most learning takes place outside the classroom. The classroom teaches the basics and life teaches the detail. If a child is taught that living things have no pattern, or the is the work of an unknowable god then they won’t look for the connections. They are forced to simply accept that camels don’t live tat the North Pole and that people are the only animals to walk on two legs without ever being encouraged to explore the “why”. I guess ultimately the real question children ask is “what would happen if this was different”. As in “what would happen if people were as big as elephants”? If they have to be taught that those questions have no real answer then very soon they will stop asking. That is what I see as the problem. It’s not that you can’t drill a lot of biological facts into a child’s head with no reference to evolution, it’s that you will repeatedly be forced to tell the child there is no deeper connection and not to seek any deeper connection. Without any reference to evolution all biological facts exist in isolation. Whales look like fish and people look like gorillas because that’s the way things are, not for any understandable reason. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/40 "2005-09-21T22:57:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m afraid that too many posters in this thread are either unable or unwilling to differentiate between nice to know and need to know. The OP is not trying to make a political statement. The simple fact is that almost all of biology (except how populations change over time) can be taught w/o every referring to evolutionary theory. No one has yet to bring up any significant part of biology (except population change) that requires evolution to be taught first. Thanks for the clarification, **John**. I really thought I had made it clear. Perhaps hearing it from someone else will drive the point home. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757.md?page=3)