The existence, preponderance, and stability of misconceptions related to evolution continue as foci of research in science education. In their 2006 study, Geraedts and Boersma question the existence of stable Lamarckian misconceptions in students, challenging the utility of Conceptual Change theory in addressing any such misconceptions. To support their challenge, they describe the study of a particular pedagogical strategy (which they describe as being influenced by dynamic systems theory) and report the results supporting its effectiveness in enhancing students' understanding of evolutionary theory. However, we argue that the description offered by Geraedts and Boersma demonstrates several flaws, both in its theoretical assertions and methodological decisions. In response, we reject the disavowal of Conceptual Change theory argued for by these authors due to several theoretical misinterpretations. As well, we question the validity of the data presented and assertions generated based on the methodological limitations of the study design.