# 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:** 7
**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 22, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/121 "2005-09-22T18:52:09Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Reproduction _is_ evolution. Could I get one of those kooky dictionaries as a souvenir from Dio-Land? Or are we playing ‘1984-Style Slogans Game’? Freedom is Slavery! You’ll have to do a little better than a bold, unsupported assertion that two not-synonyms are, in fact, synonyms. ---
**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 22, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/122 "2005-09-22T18:52:49Z")
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_. ---
**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 22, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/123 "2005-09-22T18:54:39Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Could I get one of those kooky dictionaries as a souvenir from Dio-Land? > > Or are we playing ‘1984-Style Slogans Game’? Freedom is Slavery! > > You’ll have to do a little better than a bold, unsupported assertion that two not-synonyms are, in fact, synonyms. Reproduction is the fundamental mechanism by which evolution occurs. Every incident of reproduction is a tiny incident of 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 22, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/124 "2005-09-22T19:07:09Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I submit based on the answers from the “yes” camp that we cannot ever know if we have an understanding of biology, then, whether we know of evolution or not. There may be some similarly revolutionary concept introduced twenty years from now that will cause the intellectuals of that time to look back on us as completely naive in the subject. It’s the best theory we have at the moment. Ofcourse its possible that we get a better theory. That’s true of _any_ scientific theory - are you suggesting we shouldn’t teach any theory at all? > [@CandidGamera](#): > > However. My point of view is that biology is the study of life. To be defined as alive, a thing must possess certain properties. There is, as I recall, a traditional list. While reproduction is on that list, evolution is not. Evolution, then, is secondary to the study of life. It is possible for something to be alive and not evolve. I’m alive, and I don’t evolve in Darwins sense of the word. Evolution is about how groups of organisms change over time. Seems pretty essential to me. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/125 "2005-09-22T19:13:01Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > It seems to me that the debate is being skewed the wrong way round. As many have said, **Darwin’s Finch** most recently above, it is possible to learn a few general principles about biological functions in order to “get by” in the real world, and that there’s no real practical reason evolution has to be part of it. I agree that I was off the center point, but your entire post is likewise off the point, talking about what we should and shouldn’t do for science education. You make reference to a car analogy - do I need to know Ford’s assembly line process to fully understand how my car works? Do I need to know that process to fully understand how to repair my car? I only care about Ford’s process if I go into the field of car manufacturing. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/126 "2005-09-22T19:19:37Z")
> [@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_. And the key words in how you’ve just defined basic are ‘circular argument’. “To have an understanding of how life evolved on this planet, we must learn evolution.” Well, duh. And to understand how a Ford car is assembled, I need to learn about Ford’s assembly process. But that’s entirely tangential to my understanding of cars. > [@](#): > > Reproduction is the fundamental mechanism by which evolution occurs. Every incident of reproduction is a tiny incident of evolution. Good first sentence, but then you lost it with the second. Reproduction = breeding; a subset of breeding is selective breeding (used here broadly - any selective force acting on the population) - and selective breeding is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. However - things can reproduce without selective force. Some creatures reproduce again and again, asexually, without changing to adapt to their environment. All evolution requires reproduction, but the reverse isn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/127 "2005-09-22T19:19:46Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > So, everyone on the ‘yes’ side of this question would assert that no one understood biology before Darwin formulated his theory? You are assuming that before Darwin there was no guiding principal behind the study of biology, this is not true. It was usually some form of ‘God did it’, but it was always there until the theory of evolution removed God from the picture. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/128 "2005-09-22T19:20:43Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > 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? Wel, I learned how to kill a man with my thumb. Admittedly, I’ve not (yet) applied this knowledge. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/129 "2005-09-22T19:23:12Z")
> [@Erinaceus europaeus](#): > > It’s the best theory we have at the moment. Ofcourse its possible that we get a better theory. That’s true of _any_ scientific theory - are you suggesting we shouldn’t teach any theory at all? Nope. You missed the point. If one considers the pre-Darwin biology specialists completely lacking in understanding of biology, simply because “we know better” - then one must allow for the possibility that we don’t understand biology at all, and thus this entire argument is moot. That is not my position, that is a consequence of the opposition’s position. > [@](#): > > **It is possible for something to be alive and not evolve.** I’m alive, and I don’t evolve in Darwins sense of the word. Evolution is about how groups of organisms change over time. Seems pretty essential to me. Did I not just say that bolded part? I could’ve sworn I did. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/130 "2005-09-22T19:24:25Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > You are assuming that before Darwin there was no guiding principal behind the study of biology, this is not true. It was usually some form of ‘God did it’, but it was always there until the theory of evolution removed God from the picture. Wait… you’re saying you consider the ‘God did it’ guys to have an understanding of biology? ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/131 "2005-09-22T19:26:21Z")
I think he was saying that they had a _bogus_ understanding of biology. “A wizard did it” is not an understanding. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/132 "2005-09-22T19:28:44Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Good first sentence, but then you lost it with the second. Reproduction = breeding; a subset of breeding is selective breeding (used here broadly - any selective force acting on the population) - and selective breeding is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. > > However - things can reproduce without selective force. Some creatures reproduce again and again, asexually, without changing to adapt to their environment. All evolution requires reproduction, but the reverse isn’t true. Sexual selection is only one of the guiding mechanisms in evolution. Simply being more adept at some crucial task (i.e. having a slightly better eye-sight or being stronger) also enhances the potential for successful reproduction. Even for asexually reproducing organisms. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/133 "2005-09-22T19:31:20Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Wait… you’re saying you consider the ‘God did it’ guys to have an understanding of biology? Evolution is the guiding principal behind biology. I have inferred from what you have said that you belive before the theory of evolution you could teach biology without a guiding principal behind it. I am pointing out that there has always been some underlying theory behind biology, that theory may have been wrong, but it has been there. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/134 "2005-09-22T19:44:55Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Good first sentence, but then you lost it with the second. Reproduction = breeding; a subset of breeding is selective breeding (used here broadly - any selective force acting on the population) - and selective breeding is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. > > However - things can reproduce without selective force. Some creatures reproduce again and again, asexually, without changing to adapt to their environment. All evolution requires reproduction, but the reverse isn’t true. Even asexual creatures undergo genetic variation via mutation, among other things. You are confusing reproduction with replication. Replication is what copying a file on a computer does; there is no change, therefore there is no evolution. Living things reproduce themselves; they create imperfect copies of themselves at most. When variation occurs, evolution is inevitable. Even if a creature is perfectly adapted to the environment, it will evolve to outcompete/outbreed it’s own kind. _All_ living things either evolve or are descended from something that evolved. That’s the way life works. I’ll say it again; evolution is _basic_ to the understanding of life; not mentioning it in a biology class renders the class a poor imitation of the real thing. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/135 "2005-09-22T19:45:54Z")
To use an analolgy: the people that plotted the movements of the heavenly bodies based on Ptolemy’s circles within circles did have an “understanding” of astronomy. They could make predictions about where the planets would be at some time in the future with a fair degree of accuracy. Was that “understanding” correct? We would say no, based on the subsequent work of Kepler and Newton. We now understand celestial mechanics at a deeper level. The same is true of biology. Before Darwin we hand an “understanding” of biology, but since we have a deeper understanding. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/136 "2005-09-22T19:47:53Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Nope. You missed the point. If one considers the pre-Darwin biology specialists completely lacking in understanding of biology, simply because “we know better” - then one must allow for the possibility that we don’t understand biology at all, and thus this entire argument is moot. That is not my position, that is a consequence of the opposition’s position. Right. It’s just that they had no understanding of the most fundamental mechanism in biology. It’s nice to look at animals and see they’re all different, but understanding why does make a huge difference. > [@](#): > > Did I not just say that bolded part? I could’ve sworn I did. That was me pointing out that biology is more than “studing things that are alive”. Biology is about how life works. Evolution is crucial to that. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/137 "2005-09-22T19:48:42Z")
Just in reference to how evolution is taught in CA schools, here’s the [CA Dept of Education’s web page for Science academic standards.](http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/scmain.asp) Some very limited evolutionary concepts are introduced in the lower grades, although it’s not really until the 7th grade that evolution itself is actually taught (sneaky, huh? :)): > [@](#): > > Evolution > > 1. Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations. As a basis for understanding this concept: > [ul]1. Students know both genetic variation and environmental factors are causes of evolution and diversity of organisms. > 2. Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. > 3. Students know how independent lines of evidence from geology, fossils, and comparative anatomy provide the bases for the theory of evolution. > 4. Students know how to construct a simple branching diagram to classify living groups of organisms by shared derived characteristics and how to expand the diagram to include fossil organisms. > 5. Students know that extinction of a species occurs when the environment changes and the adaptive characteristics of a species are insufficient for its survival.[/ul] It looks like middle school science classes focus on different subjects at different grade levels, and Grade 7 is where Life Science (Biology) gets a focus. In High School, the req’t is 2 years of science, but you could conceivably take chemestry and physics if you wanted to avoid the dreaded evolution part of H.S. Biology. So there you have it. Note that the curriculum does NOT cover human evolution, although there doesn’t appear to be any restriction \*\*against \*\*teaching 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 22, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/138 "2005-09-22T19:50:20Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Even asexual creatures undergo genetic variation via mutation, among other things. You are confusing reproduction with replication. Replication is what copying a file on a computer does; there is no change, therefore there is no evolution. Living things reproduce themselves; they create imperfect copies of themselves at most. When variation occurs, evolution is inevitable. Even if a creature is perfectly adapted to the environment, it will evolve to outcompete/outbreed it’s own kind. Yes, asexual reproducers change via mutation. But not with every reproduction. _All_ living things either evolve or are descended from something that evolved. That’s the way life works. I’ll say it again; evolution is _basic_ to the understanding of life; not mentioning it in a biology class renders the class a poor imitation of the real thing. [/QUOTE] Not quite. There’s a two-way dichotomy - adapt or die. Some living things at the beginning of the chain did not evolve. They died. ---
**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 22, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/139 "2005-09-22T19:51:54Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > To use an analolgy: the people that plotted the movements of the heavenly bodies based on Ptolemy’s circles within circles did have an “understanding” of astronomy. They could make predictions about where the planets would be at some time in the future with a fair degree of accuracy. Was that “understanding” correct? We would say no, based on the subsequent work of Kepler and Newton. We now understand celestial mechanics at a deeper level. The same is true of biology. Before Darwin we hand an “understanding” of biology, but since we have a deeper understanding. So we do achieve an understanding of biology without teaching evolution, we just have a deeper understanding when we do teach it. Thank you, you’ve conceded the point. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757/140 "2005-09-22T19:52:07Z")
I would like to propose a change from referring to evolution as the “guiding principle of biology” to it being the “unifying principle of biology.” “Guiding” anthropomorpises the topic too much IMHO. Darwin himself stressed that we should not apply any sense of active “guidance” to the force of evolution. If we agree that no one had a “understanding of biology” without the unifying principle of evolution, then what impact does this have for other sciences? Physicists still don’t have a unifying theory for their field. Does this mean no one has a “understanding of physics”? Stephen Hawking doesn’t have “an understanding of physics”? Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-an-undersatnding-of-evolution-essential-to-an-understanding-of-biology/322757.md?page=8)