- No, my point is not whether or not Darwin's tree is "considered essential". I already know that it is "considered essential" by the scientific community, but only in a theoretical sense. In the real world of applied science it appears to be the opposite of "essential" - ie, completely irrelevant and useless.
- Whether I consider Darwin's tree to be "right or wrong" is irrelevant to the OP.
- No, I don't believe it is "INTEGRAL to biology", because biology includes a little ol' thing called applied biology - you know, the stuff that really matters and makes a difference to people's lives ... and Darwin's tree seems to be not at all INTEGRAL to applied biology.
- You obviously haven't noticed that you've been indocrinated, but I suggest you have. Darwin's tree is the Great While Elephant of biology - it seems to me that no biologist working in the field of applied biology has any need of it - at all.
- The jigsaw of EVOLUTIONARY biology considers Darwin's tree to be essential - ie, a form of THEORECTICAL biology. But theorising about the mechanism that allowed the history of life to unfold appears to irrelevant to applied biology - ie, the real world, where biologist actually DO useful stuff, not just TALK aboiut useless theories.
- You "can do SOME sort of biology without it"? That's the understatement of the century - it appears that you can do ALL OF APPLIED BIOLOGY without Darwin's tree!