Understanding Natural Selection Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions Evolution Education

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolution, and is a process that evolves adaptive characteristics. Without knowledge of natural selection, it is impossible to understand how living things have, or why they have shown their diversity and complexity. Understanding natural selection is becoming increasingly important in practical situations such as medicine, agriculture, and resource management. Unfortunately, even for those who have completed the secondary education in biology, understanding natural selection is generally inadequate. In this paper, the most common is that the basic process of natural selection must be summarized, discussing the cause of the misunderstanding of the process of natural selection, and fixing it before functionally understanding natural selection and adaptation evolution. Introducing a review of a misunderstanding.

"Mechanical explanation of Darwin's adaptation is more creative, complicated, and bold concepts probably don't exist in thought.

Ernst Meyer (1982, p. 481)

Introduction

Natural selection is a no n-random difference in the reproductive power between the duplicated individuals, and is often indirectly due to the difference in the survival rate in a specific environment. This process is compiled in just one sentence (certainly a long), and does not reduce its depth and strength evaluation. This is one of the mechanisms that is the core of evolutionary change, and is the main cause of the complexity and adaptive complexity of the biological world. According to philosopher Daniel Denet (1995), the evolution of natural selection is the "best idea so far." Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolution, and is a process that evolves adaptive characteristics. Without knowledge of natural selection, it is impossible to understand how living things have, or why they have shown their diversity and complexity. Understanding natural selection is becoming increasingly important in practical situations such as medicine, agriculture, and resource management. Unfortunately, even for those who have completed the secondary education in biology, understanding natural selection is generally inadequate. In this paper, the most common is that the basic process of natural selection must be summarized, discussing the cause of the misunderstanding of the process of natural selection, and fixing it before functionally understanding natural selection and adaptation evolution. Introducing a review of a misunderstanding.

"Mechanical explanation of Darwin's adaptation is more creative, complicated, and bold concepts probably don't exist in thought.

Ernst Meyer (1982, p. 481)

Natural selection is a no n-random difference in the reproductive power between the duplicated individuals, and is often indirectly due to the difference in the survival rate in a specific environment. This process is compiled in just one sentence (certainly a long), and does not reduce its depth and strength evaluation. This is one of the mechanisms that is the core of evolutionary change, and is the main cause of the complexity and adaptive complexity of the biological world. According to philosopher Daniel Denet (1995), the evolution of natural selection is the "best idea so far." Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolution, and is a process that evolves adaptive characteristics. Without knowledge of natural selection, it is impossible to understand how living things have, or why they have shown their diversity and complexity. Understanding natural selection is becoming increasingly important in practical situations such as medicine, agriculture, and resource management. Unfortunately, even for those who have completed the secondary education in biology, understanding natural selection is generally inadequate. In this paper, the most common is that the basic process of natural selection must be summarized, discussing the cause of the misunderstanding of the process of natural selection, and fixing it before functionally understanding natural selection and adaptation evolution. Introducing a review of a misunderstanding.

The Basis and Basics of Natural Selection

"Mechanical explanation of Darwin's adaptation is more creative, complicated, and bold concepts probably don't exist in thought.

Ernst Meyer (1982, p. 481)

Natural selection occurs from the union of a small basic condition of ecology and genetics. The situation in which these conditions are applied, such as the evolution of antibiotics and insecticid e-resistant resistance and the intense predation of human beings, often have a direct meaning to human health and happiness (Palumbi). 2001; Jørgensen et al.) Thus, understanding this process is very important in terms of academic and in fact. Unfortunately, many studies have revealed that natural selection is generally not understood not only for young students and ordinary people, but also among those who have completed biology secondary education. I am.

Overproduction, Limited Population Growth, and the “Struggle for Existence”

As with many other problems, just because you don't understand natural selection doesn't mean you are not confident in your understanding. Unfortunately, it may be due to the perception that it is unfortunately enhanced by many biologists, natural selection is logically convincing, so if you convey the basic principles, it is sel f-evident. You can do it. Therefore, many professional biologists show that they have been here through a biological process that can easily grasp everything, from frogs to fleas. " (COYNE 2006; emphasis) may agree. As Bishops and Anderson (1990) pointed out nearly 20 years ago, unfortunately, "the concept of evolution through nature selection is much more difficult for students than most biologists imagined." That is. It is clear that both students and leaders are commonplace, despite the fact that they are the opposite of it. Natural selection occurs from the basic conditions of a small number of ecology and genetics. The situation in which these conditions are applied, such as the evolution of antibiotics and insecticid e-resistant resistance and the intense predation of human beings, often have a direct meaning to human health and happiness (Palumbi). 2001; Jørgensen et al.) Thus, understanding this process is very important in terms of academic and in fact. Unfortunately, many studies have revealed that natural selection is generally not understood not only for young students and ordinary people, but also among those who have completed biology secondary education. I am.

As with many other problems, just because you don't understand natural selection doesn't mean you are not confident in your understanding. Unfortunately, it may be due to the perception that it is unfortunately enhanced by many biologists, natural selection is logically convincing, so if you convey the basic principles, it is sel f-evident. You can do it. Therefore, many professional biologists show that they have been here through a biological process that can easily grasp everything, from frogs to fleas. " (COYNE 2006; emphasis) may agree. As Bishops and Anderson (1990) pointed out nearly 20 years ago, unfortunately, "the concept of evolution of natural selection is much more difficult for students than most biologists imagined." That is. It is clear that both students and leaders are commonplace, despite the fact that they are the opposite of it. Natural selection occurs from the union of a small basic condition of ecology and genetics. The situation in which these conditions are applied, such as the evolution of antibiotics and insecticid e-resistant resistance and the intense predation of human beings, often have a direct meaning to human health and happiness (Palumbi). 2001; Jørgensen et al.) Thus, understanding this process is very important in terms of academic and in fact. Unfortunately, many studies have revealed that natural selection is generally not understood not only for young students and ordinary people, but also among those who have completed biology secondary education. I am.

Variation and Inheritance

The purpose of this paper is to deepen (in some cases) the basic understanding of readers regarding natural selection. To do so, the footnotes 1, which needs to explain the basics of natural selections and (general) results that are understood by evolutionary biologists. Next, we briefly discuss the causes of the concept of natural selection and the fact that it is difficult to fully understand the results. Finally, we will overview the misunderstanding that is most widely permeated natural selection. It is important to note that there is no specific guidance method to deepen the understanding of students. Rather, this article is intended for readers who want to confront the misunderstanding that they may have and want to correct them, or want to recognize the misunderstandings that most students and other no n-experts have.

However, Darwin (1859) explained the process of natural selection and its meaning in detail in the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. According to Mayr (1982, 2001), Darwin's extensive discussions on natural selection can be consolidated into five "facts" (that is, direct observations) and three associations. These are drawn in Fig. 1.

Figure 1

Non-random Differences in Survival and Reproduction

The basics of natural selection presented by Darwin (1859) based on the summary of Mayr (1982).

Some elements of the natural selection process, especially the cause of mutation and the mechanism of hereditary, were vague or wrong in his first formula because the information available was limited in the Darwin era. did. Since then, the core of the mechanism of natural selection has been elucidated and wel l-documented, and the theory of modern natural selection (footnote 3) is much more than at the time, which was proposed 150 years ago. It has been detailed and strongly supported. The latest understanding of natural selection consists of an outline of the following sections. The purpose of this paper is to deepen (in some cases) the basic understanding of readers regarding natural selection. To do so, the footnotes 1, which needs to explain the basics of natural selections and (general) results that are understood by evolutionary biologists. Next, we briefly discuss the causes of the concept of natural selection and the fact that it is difficult to fully understand the results. Finally, we will overview the misunderstanding that is most widely permeated natural selection. It is important to note that there is no specific guidance method to deepen the understanding of students. Rather, this article is intended for readers who want to confront the misunderstanding that they may have and want to correct them, or want to recognize the misunderstandings that most students and other no n-experts have.

Darwinian Fitness

The Meaning of Fitness in Evolutionary Biology

Figure 1

“Survival of the Fittest” is Misleading

The basics of natural selection presented by Darwin (1859) based on the summary of Mayr (1982).

Which Traits Are the Most Fit?

Some elements of the natural selection process, especially the cause of mutation and the mechanism of hereditary, were vague or wrong in his first formula because the information available was limited in the Darwin era. did. Since then, the core of the mechanism of natural selection has been elucidated and wel l-documented, and the theory of modern natural selection (footnote 3) is much more than at the time, which was proposed 150 years ago. It has been detailed and strongly supported. The latest understanding of natural selection consists of an outline of the following sections. The purpose of this paper is to deepen (in some cases) the basic understanding of readers regarding natural selection. To do so, the footnotes 1, which needs to explain the basics of natural selections and (general) results that are understood by evolutionary biologists. Next, we briefly discuss the causes of the concept of natural selection and the fact that it is difficult to fully understand the results. Finally, we will overview the misunderstanding that is most widely permeated natural selection. It is important to note that there is no specific guidance method to deepen the understanding of students. Rather, this article is intended for readers who want to confront the misunderstanding that they may have and want to correct them, or want to recognize the misunderstandings that most students and other no n-experts have.

Natural Selection and Adaptive Evolution

Natural Selection and the Evolution of Populations

Figure 1

Adaptation

The basics of natural selection presented by Darwin (1859) based on the summary of Mayr (1982).

An important observation under the natural selection is that groups have the ability to increase the number in exponential (or "geometric"). This is a simple function of mathematics: One creature leaves two offspring, and the descendants leave two offspring ... The total number increases steadily (1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 32 → 64.

It is difficult to understand the huge possibility of this exponential growth. For example, assuming that it starts with one Escherichia coli and a cell division occurs every 30 minutes, think that it takes less than a week for the descendants of this cell to exceed the mass of the earth. Of course, the exponential population expansion is not limited to bacteria. Just as the Nobel Prize winner's Jack Mono once said, "The fact that applies to Escherichia coli also applies to elephants," in fact, Darwin (1859) uses an elephant as an example of explaining the principle of rapid population growth. Note 4, which calculated that the number of descendants of one pair would swell to more than 19, 000, 000 in just 750 years. Keown (1988) has given examples of oysters that may produce 114, 000, 000 eggs in one spawning. If all of these eggs grow into oysters, lay such a number of eggs, and the eggs survive and breed, there are more oysters than the number of electrons that are known in the known universe within five generations. It will be. Important observation at the root of natural selection is that groups have the ability to increase the number in exponential (or "geometric"). This is a simple function of mathematics: One creature leaves two offspring, and the descendants leave two offspring ... The total number increases steadily (1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 32 → 64.

It is difficult to understand the huge possibility of this exponential growth. For example, assuming that it starts with one Escherichia coli and a cell division occurs every 30 minutes, think that it takes less than a week for the descendants of this cell to exceed the mass of the earth. Of course, the exponential population expansion is not limited to bacteria. Just as the Nobel Prize winner's Jack Mono once said, "The fact that applies to Escherichia coli also applies to elephants," in fact, Darwin (1859) uses an elephant as an example of explaining the principle of rapid population growth. Note 4, which calculated that the number of descendants of one pair would swell to more than 19, 000, 000 in just 750 years. Keown (1988) has given examples of oysters that may produce 114, 000, 000 eggs in one spawning. If all of these eggs grow into oysters, lay such a number of eggs, and the eggs survive and breed, there are more oysters than the number of electrons that are known in the known universe within five generations. It will be. An important observation under the natural selection is that groups have the ability to increase the number in exponential (or "geometric"). This is a simple function of mathematics: One creature leaves two offspring, and the descendants leave two offspring ... The total number increases steadily (1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 32 → 64.

Obviously, the world is not overflowing with bacteria, elephants and oysters. These species and all other species perform larg e-scale ove r-production (or "super breeding"), so in principle it may expand index function, but that is actually the case. Note 5. The reason is simple: Most of the produced offspring do not survive to leave offspring. In fact, most individuals tend to be relatively stable in the long term. This means that this is inevitably only one oyster leaves only two offspring, and that 1113999998 eggs per females do not survive per female (see RIDLEY 2004). ) Many young oysters are eaten by predators, other oysters are hunger, and other oysters have infectious diseases. As Darwin (1859) realizes, such a major impairment occurs between the number of offspring produced and the number that can be maintained with available resources, causing a "struggle for survival." As he pointed out, this struggle is not only a struggle with other creatures (especially the same species of the same species), but also in an abstract sense and its physical environment. It is also considered a struggle.

Mutations between individuals are basic requirements for evolutionary changes. It is not surprising that Darwin (1859) has made a great deal of effort to prove that mutation actually exists everywhere. Darwin also emphasized the fact that some kinds of living things, the relatives, especially their parents and their descendants, were more similar to each other than the unrelated members of the group. He also understood that this is also important for natural selection. Darwin (1859) said, "Inherited mutations are not important for us." However, Darwin cannot explain why a mutation exists, how a specific characteristic is inherited from the parent to the child, and both the cause of the mutation and the mechanism of hereditary as a "black box". I had to deal with it. Obviously, the world is not overflowing with bacteria, elephants and oysters. These species and all other species perform larg e-scale ove r-production (or "super breeding"), so in principle it may expand index function, but that is actually the case. Note 5. The reason is simple: Most of the produced offspring do not survive to leave offspring. In fact, most individuals tend to be relatively stable in the long term. This means that this is inevitably only one oyster leaves only two offspring, and that 1113999998 eggs per females do not survive per female (see RIDLEY 2004). ) Many young oysters are eaten by predators, other oysters are hungry, and other oysters have infectious diseases. As Darwin (1859) realizes, such a major impairment occurs between the number of offspring produced and the number that can be maintained with available resources, causing a "struggle for survival." As he pointed out, this struggle is not only a struggle with other creatures (especially the same species of the same species), but also in an abstract sense and its physical environment. It is also considered a struggle.
Mutations between individuals are basic requirements for evolutionary changes. It is not surprising that Darwin (1859) has made a great deal of effort to prove that mutation actually exists everywhere. Darwin also emphasized the fact that some kinds of living things, the relatives, especially their parents and their descendants, were more similar to each other than the unrelated members of the group. He also understood that this is also important for natural selection. Darwin (1859) said, "Inherited mutations are not important for us." However, Darwin cannot explain why a mutation exists, how a specific characteristic is inherited from the parent to the child, and both the cause of the mutation and the mechanism of hereditary as a "black box". I had to deal with it. Obviously, the world is not overflowing with bacteria, elephants and oysters. These species and all other species perform larg e-scale ove r-production (or "super breeding"), so in principle it may expand index function, but that is actually the case. Note 5. The reason is simple: Most of the produced offspring do not survive to leave offspring. In fact, most individuals tend to be relatively stable in the long term. This means that this is inevitably only one oyster leaves only two offspring, and that 1113999998 eggs per females do not survive per female (see RIDLEY 2004). ) Many young oysters are eaten by predators, other oysters are hungry, and other oysters have infectious diseases. As Darwin (1859) realizes, such a major impairment occurs between the number of descendants produced and the number that can be maintained with available resources, causing a "struggle for survival." As he pointed out, this struggle is not only a struggle with other creatures (especially the same species of the same species), but also in an abstract sense and its physical environment. It is also considered a struggle.
Mutations between individuals are basic requirements for evolutionary changes. It is not surprising that Darwin (1859) has made a great deal of effort to prove that mutation actually exists everywhere. Darwin also emphasized the fact that some kinds of living things, the relatives, especially their parents and their descendants, were more similar to each other than the unrelated members of the group. He also understood that this is also important for natural selection. Darwin (1859) said, "Inherited mutations are not important for us." However, Darwin cannot explain why a mutation exists, how a specific characteristic is inherited from the parent to the child, and both the cause of the mutation and the mechanism of hereditary as a "black box". I had to deal with it.
The mechanism of genetics is no longer opaque. Today, it is well understood that inheritance is performed through the duplication of the DNA sequence, and that an error (mutation) and an existing mutant in this process can cause new mutations. In particular, it is known that mutations are random (or "no n-oriented") for their effects. Memability is only an accidental error in the genetic system, and its probability is harmful, useful, or (most common) neutral. Not affected.
As Darwin expected, it is now fully proven that there is a wide range of mutations between individuals, physical, physiological and behavioral levels. Thanks to molecular biology, and recently the rise of genomics, many organisms, including humans, have been able to record proteins, genes, and even individual DNA nucleotides.
Darwin believed that excessive production and limited resources would create a survival competition without success, with some organisms succeeded. He also recognized that the creatures in the group were different in terms of many traits that tended to be inherited from parents to children. Darwin's stunning insight is that the combination of these two elements is not a coincidence that the success in survival competition is unbalanced, but that the genetic difference between living things is biased. Specifically, there is a possibility that there is an individual that happens to be a traits that are slightly suitable for a certain environment, and the individual is more likely to survive than an individual that is not suitable. As a result, organisms with such traits will leave more offspring than competitors on average. The mechanism of genetic sciences is no longer opaque. Today, it is well understood that inheritance is performed through the duplication of the DNA sequence, and that an error (mutation) and an existing mutant in this process can cause new mutations. In particular, it is known that mutations are random (or "no n-oriented") for their effects. Memability is only an accidental error in the genetic system, and its probability is harmful, useful, or (most common) neutral. Not affected.
As Darwin expected, it is now fully proven that there is a wide range of mutations between individuals, physical, physiological and behavioral levels. Thanks to molecular biology, and recently the rise of genomics, many organisms, including humans, have been able to record proteins, genes, and even individual DNA nucleotides.
Darwin believed that excessive production and limited resources would create a survival competition without success, with some organisms succeeded. He also recognized that the creatures in the group were different in terms of many traits that tended to be inherited from parents to children. Darwin's stunning insight is that the combination of these two elements is not a coincidence that the success in survival competition is unbalanced, but that the genetic difference between living things is biased. Specifically, there is a possibility that there is an individual that happens to be a traits that are slightly suitable for a certain environment, and the individual is more likely to survive than an individual that is not suitable. As a result, organisms with such traits will leave more offspring than competitors on average. The mechanism of genetics is no longer opaque. Today, it is well understood that inheritance is performed through the duplication of the DNA sequence, and that an error (mutation) and an existing mutant in this process can cause new mutations. In particular, it is known that mutations are random (or "no n-oriented") for their effects. Memability is only an accidental error in the genetic system, and its probability is harmful, useful, or (most common) neutral. Not affected.

As Darwin expected, it is now fully proven that there is a wide range of mutations between individuals, physical, physiological and behavioral levels. Thanks to molecular biology, and recently the rise of genomics, many organisms, including humans, have been able to record proteins, genes, and even individual DNA nucleotides.

Darwin believed that excessive production and limited resources would create a survival competition without success, with some organisms succeeded. He also recognized that the creatures in the group were different in terms of many traits that tended to be inherited from parents to children. Darwin's stunning insight is that the combination of these two elements is not a coincidence that the success in survival competition is unbalanced, but that the genetic difference between living things is biased. Specifically, there is a possibility that there is an individual that happens to be a traits that are slightly suitable for a certain environment, and the individual is more likely to survive than an individual that is not suitable. As a result, organisms with such traits will leave more offspring than competitors on average.

Natural Selection Is Elegant, Logical, and Notoriously Difficult to Grasp

The Extent of the Problem

The occurrence of a new genetic mutation occurs randomly in terms of the effects of living things, but if it is inherited to the next generation, it will definitely affect the survival and breeding capacity of the creature. Random. The important thing is that this is a tw o-step process. First, a no n-random selection of mutations due to survival and the effects on breeding, the occurrence of random mutation, (MAYR 2001). Although there are various ways to define natural selection (Table 1), the core of this process is a no n-random difference in survival and breeding.

Table 1 Terminology of "Nature Selection" and "Fitness" by major evolutionary textbooks

In order to study the actions and effects of nature selection, the means of describing the relationship between genes (gene complementary), expression type (physical and behavioral characteristics), survival, and breeding in a specific environment. It is important to have. In this regard, the concept used by an evolutionary biologist is known as "Darwin Fitness", and the simplest define is that it is a measure of the total reproductive production (or relative production) of organisms with specific genes. Yes (Table 1). The most basic is that the more offspring you leave, the higher the fitness of the individual. The term "fitness" used in evolutionary biology does not refer to physical condition, physical strength, and stamina, so it must be emphasized that it is very different from common use. The occurrence of a new genetic mutation occurs randomly in terms of the effects of living things, but the probability of being inherited to the next generation affects the survival and breeding capabilities of the creature. Absolutely no n-random. The important thing is that this is a tw o-step process. First, a no n-random selection of mutations due to survival and the effects on breeding, the occurrence of random mutation, (MAYR 2001). Although there are various ways to define natural selection (Table 1), the core of this process is a no n-random difference in survival and breeding.

Why is Natural Selection so Difficult to Understand?

Table 1 Terminology of "Nature Selection" and "Fitness" by major evolutionary textbooks

In order to study the actions and effects of nature selection, the means of describing the relationship between genes (gene complementary), expression type (physical and behavioral characteristics), survival, and breeding in a specific environment. It is important to have. In this regard, the concept used by an evolutionary biologist is known as "Darwin Fitness", and the simplest define is that the total reproductive production (or relative production) of organisms with specific gene type. Yes (Table 1). The most basic is that the more offspring you leave, the higher the fitness of the individual. The term "fitness" used in evolutionary biology does not refer to physical condition, physical strength, and stamina, so it must be emphasized that it is very different from common use. The occurrence of a new genetic mutation occurs randomly in terms of the effects of living things, but if it is inherited to the next generation, it will definitely affect the survival and breeding capacity of the creature. Random. The important thing is that this is a tw o-step process. First, a no n-random selection of mutations due to survival and the effects on breeding (MAYR 2001). Although there are various ways to define natural selection (Table 1), the core of this process is a no n-random difference in survival and breeding.

Table 1 Terminology of "Nature Selection" and "Fitness" by major evolutionary textbooks

Conceptual Frameworks Versus Spontaneous Constructions

Darwin is the 5th edition of "Origin" (published in 1869), and several years ago, the word "Survival of the Fittest" was created by British economist Herbert Spencer as an abbreviation for natural selection. I started. There are several reasons why survival is inappropriate as the expression of natural selection. First, in the context of Darwin, "survival of a suitable person" means "most suitable for specific environments" rather than "the most suitable", but the decisive difference is this decisive difference. It is often overlooked in usage other than experts (especially when the only strong person survives). Second, it has excessive emphasis on survival. It is true that dead organisms do not breed, but survival is only for evolving as long as it affects the number of offspring. The traits that make life longer or more difficult are evolved unless they affect reproductive production. In fact, the traits that promote pure breeding may increase the frequency of generations, even if the life of individuals is impaired. Conversely, even if the survival rate is the same among individuals, the difference in fertility may cause a difference in fitness. Third, the traits and their foundation gene can actually identify whether they are higher or lower than other traits, which means excessive focus on living things. 。 Finally, this word is often misunderstood as circulating or the same word (who survives? Survival. What is the survival? Darwin is the 5th edition of the origin (published in 1869). A few years ago, the word "Survival of the Fittest", which was created by the British economist Herbert Spencer, began to be used as a natural selection. First of all, in the context of Darwin, the meaning of "the most suitable for a specific environment" is stronger. However, this decisive difference is often overlooked in no n-experts (especially when only strong people survive). However, it is true that dead creatures do not grow, but the only way to survive is that the life is more difficult or more difficult. Unless it affects the amount, it is unrelated to evolving, and even if the life of individuals is impaired, it may increase the frequency of individuals. Conversely, even if the survival rate is the same, the fertility is actually different, and the basis of the basis. This can be identified as if it is higher or lower than the trait, but this is often a circulating or a repetition of this word. It is misunderstood (who survives? Survival to survive. What is the right to survive? Darwin is the 5th edition of "Origin" (published in 1869), and several years ago by the British economist Herbert Spencer, "Suruous Survival Survival" In the context of Darwin, the first reason for the natural selection is inappropriate to use (Surval of the Fittest). Rather than "the most suitable physical", it has a strong meaning that it is "most suitable for a specific environment", but this decisive difference is often overlooked by no n-experts. There is a fact that it does not breed excessively for survival, especially when "only strong people survive"). Only as long as it affects the number of offspring. The traits that make life longer or more difficult are evolved unless they affect reproductive production. In fact, the traits that promote pure breeding may increase the frequency of generations, even if the life of individuals is impaired. Conversely, even if the survival rate is the same among individuals, the difference in fertility may cause a difference in fitness. Third, the traits and their foundation gene can actually identify whether they are higher or lower than other traits, which means excessive focus on living things. 。 Finally, this word is often misunderstood as circulating or the same word (who survives? Survival survival.

A Catalog of Common Misconceptions

Directional natural selection can be understood as a process in which the proportion of fit traits (or genes) increases in a population over generations. It must be understood that the relative fitness of different traits depends on the current environment. Thus, a trait that is fit today may become unfit if the environment changes. Conversely, a trait that is fit today may have existed long before the current environment arose. A final note: fitness refers to reproductive success for the options available here and now, and natural selection cannot increase the proportion of a trait just because it might be advantageous someday. A careful consideration of how natural selection actually works should make it clear why this is the case.

Although each has been tested and shown to be accurate, none of the observations and inferences that underlie natural selection are individually sufficient to provide a mechanism for evolutionary change. Footnote 6 If all individuals were identical, overproduction alone would have no evolutionary consequences. Differences between organisms are meaningless unless they are heritable. A genetic mutation will not result in natural selection unless it itself has some effect on the survival and reproduction of an organism. However, natural selection will occur if all of Darwin's assumptions are true simultaneously, as they are in most populations. The net result in this case is that a particular trait (or, more precisely, the genetic variants that specify that trait) will be passed on from one generation to the next at a higher rate, on average, than existing alternatives in the population. In other words, if we consider who the parents of the current generation were, we will see that a disproportionate number of them had traits that were beneficial for survival and reproduction in the special environment in which they lived.

Teleology and the “Function Compunction”

The key point is that unequal reproductive success among individuals is a process that occurs in each generation, and its effects are cumulative over many generations. Over time, beneficial traits become more and more prevalent in the offspring population. This is due to the fact that parents with such traits always leave more offspring than individuals without them. If this process occurs in a consistent direction, for example if the largest individuals in each generation tend to leave more offspring than the smallest ones, then the proportion of traits in the population may gradually change from generation to generation. It is this change in proportion that results in a change in the average value of a particular trait in the population, not a change in the organisms themselves. Organisms do not evolve, populations evolve.

The word "adaptation" comes from ad + aptus (literally "towards + to fit"). As the name suggests, it refers to the process by which a population of organisms evolves to become more adapted to their environment as advantageous traits become more dominant. In a broader sense, it is also how physical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics that contribute to survival and reproduction ("adaptations") arise during the process of evolution. This latter topic is particularly difficult for many to understand, but of course an important first step is to understand how natural selection works on smaller scales of time and outcome. (For the evolution of complex organs like the eye, see Gregory 2008b).

Anthropomorphism and Intentionality

At first glance, it may seem unlikely that natural selection could lead to the evolution of new characteristics if its main effect was simply to eliminate unfit traits. In fact, natural selection cannot produce new traits by itself, and in fact (as many readers imagine), most natural selection exhausts genetic variation in a population. So can a selective process like natural selection ever produce creative results?

To answer this question, it must be remembered that the evolution of natural selection is a tw o-stage process. The first stage is a mutation and a new mutation generation, and the second stage determines which of the randomly generated mutations will survive in the next generation. Most mutations are neutral to survival and breeding, and are irrelevant from the viewpoint of natural selection (but must be pointed out that they are unrelated to evolution in a broader sense). Most of the mutations that affect survival and breeding are negative, so the possibility of being passed down to the subsequent generations is lower than the existing mutation. However, only a few new mutations have been found to have beneficial effects in a specific environment, contributing to increase the breeding rate of living organisms. It is sufficient to increase the proportion of new and useful mutations over many generations, with a very small advantage.

Biologists sometimes describe useful mutations as "spread" or "swallow", but this expression is misleading. This is because it contributes to survival and breeding of creatures with mutations. Eventually, all other mutations are not inherited, so only useful mutations will be left. At this point, it is said that its useful gene mutation was "fixed" in the group.

Again, mutation does not happen to improve fitness. In other words, most mutations do not improve fitness: more ways to make things worse than to improve things. Even after the previous useful mutation is fixed, mutations continue to occur. Therefore, if a useful mutation occurs, and fixed by the selection, even more useful mutations can be replenished, which can be used as a ratchet effect that is fixed again. Meanwhile, neutral mutations and dramatic variants occur in groups, and the latter is often inherited at a lower rate than alternative variants, and is often lost before reaching a considerable frequency. To answer this question, you must remember that the evolution of natural selection is a tw o-stage process. The first stage is a mutation and a new mutation generation, and the second stage determines which of the randomly generated mutations will survive in the next generation. Most mutations are neutral to survival and breeding, and are irrelevant from the viewpoint of natural selection (but must be pointed out that they are unrelated to evolution in a broader sense). Most of the mutations that affect survival and breeding are negative, so the possibility of being passed down to the subsequent generations is lower than the existing mutation. However, only a few new mutations have been found to have beneficial effects in a specific environment, contributing to increase the breeding rate of living organisms. It is sufficient to increase the proportion of new and useful mutations over many generations, with a very small advantage.

Again, mutation does not happen to improve fitness. In other words, most mutations do not improve fitness: more ways to make things worse than to improve things. Even after the previous useful mutation is fixed, mutations continue to occur. Therefore, if a useful mutation occurs, and fixed by the selection, even more useful mutations can be replenished, which can be used as a ratchet effect that is fixed again. Meanwhile, neutral mutations and dramatic variants occur in groups, and the latter is often inherited at a lower rate than alternative variants, and is often lost before reaching a considerable frequency. To answer this question, it must be remembered that the evolution of natural selection is a tw o-stage process. The first stage is a mutation and a new mutation generation, and the second stage determines which of the randomly generated mutations will survive in the next generation. Most mutations are neutral to survival and breeding, and are irrelevant from the viewpoint of natural selection (but must be pointed out that they are unrelated to evolution in a broader sense). Most of the mutations that affect survival and breeding are negative, so the possibility of being passed down to the subsequent generations is lower than the existing mutation. However, only a few new mutations have been found to have beneficial effects in a specific environment, contributing to increase the breeding rate of living organisms. It is sufficient to increase the proportion of new and useful mutations over many generations, with a very small advantage.

Use and Disuse

Of course, this is an oversimplification; in sexually reproducing species, multiple beneficial mutations need not come together through recombination, leading to sequential fixation of beneficial genes. Similarly, recombination can place deleterious mutations next to each other, thereby hastening their loss from the population. However, it is useful to imagine the process of adaptation as a process in which beneficial mutations arise constantly (albeit perhaps very rare and with only a small positive effect) and accumulate in the population over many generations.

Soft Inheritance

The process of adaptation in a population is depicted in a very basic form in Figure 2. Even from this oversimplified representation, several important points can be drawn:

1. Mutations are the source of new variation. Natural selection does not itself produce new traits, it only changes the proportion of mutations already present in the population. It is the repeated interaction of these two steps that leads to the evolution of new adaptive features.

2. Mutations are random with respect to fitness. Natural selection is by definition non-random with respect to fitness. This means that, overall, it is a serious misconception to think that adaptation occurs "by chance."

3. Mutations can have three outcomes: neutral, toxic, or beneficial. Beneficial mutations may be rare and confer only a small advantage, but they still increase in proportion in a population over generations through natural selection. Although the occurrence of a particular beneficial mutation may be highly unlikely, natural selection is very effective at accumulating such individually unlikely improvements. Natural selection is a probability concentrator.

Nature as a Selecting Agent

4. No organism changes by population adaptation. Rather, the proportion of beneficial traits changes over multiple generations.

5. The direction in which adaptive change occurs depends on the environment. A previously beneficial trait may become neutral or, conversely, harmful as the environment changes.

6. Adaptation does not result in optimal traits. It is constrained by historical, genetic, and developmental constraints, as well as trade-offs between traits (see Gregory 2008b).

7. It doesn't matter what the ideal "ideal" adaptive feature is. The only relevant factor is that the varieties that bring a higher survival rate and breeding rate are frequently inherited compared to alternative varieties. As Darwin wrote in a letter to Joseph Hooker (September 11, 1857), "I'm just writing a bold essay.

8. The adaptation process by natural selection does not look into the future, and cannot be created in the future because it may be useful in the future. In fact, adaptation is always performed on the conditions experienced by past generations.

Figure 2 7. It doesn't matter what the adaptive feature is. The only relevant factor is that the varieties that bring a higher survival rate and breeding rate are frequently inherited compared to alternative varieties. As Darwin wrote in a letter to Joseph Hooker (September 11, 1857), "I'm just writing a bold essay.

Source Versus Sorting of Variation

Figure 27. It does not matter what the ideal "ideal" adaptive feature is. The only relevant factor is that the varieties that bring a higher survival rate and breeding rate are frequently inherited compared to alternative varieties. As Darwin wrote in a letter to Joseph Hooker (September 11, 1857), "I'm just writing a bold essay.

Typological, Essentialist, and Transformationist Thinking

Figure 2

Events and Absolutes Versus Processes and Probabilities

Here is a very simplified explanation of natural selection (correct) and a general explanation of a common misconception about its mechanism (incorrect). Natural selection happens like this: ( A ) A population of organisms shows variation in a particular trait that is related to survival in a given environment. In this diagram, darker colors happen to be favored, but vice versa in another environment. As a result of that trait, not all individuals in the first generation survive equally well; only a nonrandom subsample eventually succeed in reproducing and inherit the trait ( B ). Note that the individual organisms in the first generation do not change, but rather the proportion of individuals in the population with different traits changes. The surviving individuals from the first generation reproduce to produce a second generation. ( C ) Because the trait in question is heritable, this second generation is (mostly) similar to the parent generation. However, mutations also occur. Because mutations are nondirectional (i. e., they occur randomly in terms of the trait-changing results), the second generation will produce both lighter and darker individuals compared to the parents in the first generation. In this environment, the light mutants are less successful than the average of their parents, and the dark mutants are more successful than the average of their parents. Again, nonrandom survival occurs among individuals in the population, leading to a disproportionate distribution of dark traits.

It is assumed that all individuals in one generation change according to the pressure from the environment (Y). It is thought that when these individuals grow, the acquired traits are inherited. Furthermore, the changes caused by mutation are thought to be exclusively heading in the direction of improvement (Z). Research has revealed that it is very difficult for no n-experts to abandon this intuitive interpretation and prioritize scientifically reasonable mechanisms. The figure is partially based on Bishop and Anderson (1990).
The most basic form is that natural selection is an elegant theory that effectively explains that living things are clearly suitable for the environment. The mechanism of natural selection is extremely simple in principle, but very powerful in application. However, the fact that it was difficult to explain until 150 years ago suggests that understanding the mechanism and meaning is much more difficult than usually considered.

Concluding Remarks

A 3 0-year survey has gained a clear data on a surprisingly large number of students, from ordinary people, elementary school students to college students who major in science (Alters 2005; Bardapurkar 2008; Table 2). The result that only less than 10 % of the survey is understood natural selection is not typical. In particular, it is unpleasant that the confusion about natural selection is common, especially among the person in charge of natural selection, and it is definitely worsening the situation. As Nehm and School (2007) has recently concluded, "I don't think that a teacher with a wealth of biology has accurate knowledge of evolution, natural selection, and science."

Table 2 Natural selection and adaptation are assumed that all individuals in one generation will change according to the pressure from the environment (Y). ) It is thought that when these individuals grow, the acquired traits are inherited. Furthermore, the changes caused by mutation are thought to be exclusively heading in the direction of improvement (Z). Research has revealed that it is very difficult for no n-experts to abandon this intuitive interpretation and prioritize scientifically reasonable mechanisms. The figure is partially based on Bishop and Anderson (1990).

The most basic form is that natural selection is an elegant theory that effectively explains that living things are clearly suitable for the environment. The mechanism of natural selection is extremely simple in principle, but very powerful in application. However, the fact that it was difficult to explain until 150 years ago suggests that understanding the mechanism and meaning is much more difficult than usually considered.

Notes

Table 2 Natural selection and adaptation are assumed that all of the individuals in the first generation of research, which indicate that there is a high misunderstanding among various groups, will change according to the pressure from the environment (Y). It is thought that when these individuals grow, the acquired traits are inherited. Furthermore, the changes caused by mutation are thought to be exclusively heading in the direction of improvement (Z). Research has revealed that it is very difficult for no n-experts to abandon this intuitive interpretation and prioritize scientifically reasonable mechanisms. The figure is partially based on Bishop and Anderson (1990).

Table 2 Summary of research that indicates that there are high misunderstandings among various groups about natural selection and adaptation

There are two obvious hypotheses as to why misunderstanding of natural selection is so widespread. The first is that understanding the mechanism of natural selection requires the acceptance of the historical fact of evolution, the latter of which is denied by a large part of the population. A better understanding of the process of natural selection would increase overall acceptance of evolution, but surveys show that acceptance already far exceeds understanding. And while understanding and acceptance may be positively correlated among teachers (Vlaardingerbroek and Roederer 1997; Rutledge and Mitchell 2002; Deniz et al. 2008), among students the two parameters seem to be at best very weakly related. Regardless of teachers, "the majority on both sides of evolution and creationism do not appear to understand the process of natural selection or its role in evolution" (Bishop and Anderson 1990). The second intuitive hypothesis is that most people have no formal education in biology and have learned incorrectly about evolutionary mechanisms from non-authoritative sources (television, movies, parents, etc.). Inaccurate portrayals of the evolutionary process by the media, teachers, and scientists themselves certainly exacerbate the situation (e. g., Jungwirth 1975a, b, 1977; Moore et al.). However, this cannot fully explain the situation, since even direct instruction about natural selection tends to produce only small improvements in students' understanding (e. g., Jensen and Finley 1995; Ferrari and Chi 1998; Nehm and Reilly 2007; Spindler and Doherty 2009). There is also evidence that understanding does not differ significantly between science majors and non-science majors (Sundberg and Dini 1993). In the disturbing words of Ferrari and Chi (1998), "misunderstandings of even the basic principles of Darwinian evolution are extremely persistent, even after years of biology education."

It is well known that misunderstandings are common in many (perhaps most) aspects of science, including simpler and more commonly encountered phenomena such as the physics of motion (e. g., McCloskey et al 1980; Halloun and Hestenes 1985; Bloom and Weisberg 2007). The root of this major problem seems to be a major disconnect between the nature of the world as reflected in everyday experience and the nature of the world as revealed by systematic scientific investigation (Shtulman 2006; Sinatra et al.). Our intuitive interpretations of the world, sufficient for everyday life, are usually fundamentally at odds with scientific principles. If common sense were superficially accurate, scientific explanations would not be so counterintuitive.

It has also been suggested that young students simply cannot understand natural selection because they have not yet developed the formal reasoning skills necessary to understand it (Lawson and Thompson 1988). This could be taken to mean that natural selection should not be taught until the early grades, but those who have directly studied student understanding tend to disagree (e. g., Clough and Wood-Robinson 1985; Settlage 1994). Overall, the problem does not seem to be a lack of logic (Greene 1990; Settlage 1994), but a combination of erroneous underlying assumptions about mechanisms and deep-seated cognitive biases that affect interpretation. It is well known that misunderstandings are common in many (perhaps most) aspects of science, including simpler and more commonly encountered phenomena such as the physics of motion (e. g., McCloskey et al 1980; Halloun and Hestenes 1985; Bloom and Weisberg 2007). The root of this major problem seems to be a wide disconnect between the nature of the world as reflected in everyday experience and the nature of the world as revealed by systematic scientific investigation (Shtulman 2006; Sinatra et al.). Our intuitive interpretations of the world, sufficient for everyday life, are usually fundamentally at odds with scientific principles. If common sense were superficially accurate, scientific explanations would not be so counterintuitive.

It has been suggested that young students simply cannot understand natural selection because they have not yet developed the formal reasoning skills necessary to understand it (Lawson and Thompson 1988). This could be taken to mean that natural selection should not be taught until the early grades, but those who have directly studied student understanding tend to disagree (e. g., Clough and Wood-Robinson 1985; Settlage 1994). Overall, the problem does not seem to be a lack of logic (Greene 1990; Settlage 1994), but a combination of erroneous underlying assumptions about mechanisms and deep-rooted cognitive biases that affect interpretation. It is well-known that misunderstandings are common in many (perhaps most) aspects of science, including simpler and more commonly encountered phenomena such as the physics of motion (e. g., McCloskey et al. 1980; Halloun and Hestenes 1985; Bloom and Weisberg 2007). The source of this major problem seems to be a major disconnect between the nature of the world as reflected in everyday experience and the nature of the world as revealed by systematic scientific investigation (Shtulman 2006; Sinatra et al.). Our intuitive interpretations of the world, sufficient for everyday life, are usually fundamentally at odds with scientific principles. If common sense were superficially accurate, scientific explanations would not be so counterintuitive. Some have suggested that younger students simply cannot understand natural selection because they have not yet developed the formal reasoning skills necessary to understand it (Lawson and Thompson 1988). This could be taken to mean that natural selection should not be taught until the early grades, but those who have directly studied student understanding tend to disagree (e. g., Clough and Wood-Robinson 1985; Settlage 1994). Overall, the problem seems not to be a lack of logic (Greene 1990; Settlage 1994), but a combination of erroneous underlying assumptions about the mechanisms and deep-seated cognitive biases that affect interpretation.

Many misunderstandings that hinder the understanding of natural selection are "naive" on the world structure, but as part of the actual understanding, it is formed early in childhood. These misunderstandings tend to last unless they are replaced with more accurate, similar functional information. From this point of view, some experts claim that the goal of education is to replace existing conceptual frameworks with more accurate ones (Sinatra et al.) Based on this concept, "I will help you understand evolution. The other author is not to increase existing knowledge, but to fix the models of the world and help to create a completely new view. " Is not maintaining a consistent conceptual framework for complex phenomena, but spontaneously assembles explanations using intuition obtained from everyday experience (Southernland et al. See 2001). Although it is not widely accepted, the latter concept is that the naive evolutionary explanation performed by no n-expert people differs depending on the type of creature to be considered, provisional, inconsistent (Southernland et al. 2001). He has gained support from the observation that there is a case (SpieGel et al. 2006). Even if you try more complex explanations, you may rely on intuitive ideas when you face difficulties (Deadman and Kelly 1978). In any case, it is clear that explaining the process of nature selection to students is not effective. Many misunderstandings that hinder the understanding of natural selection are "naive" on the world structure, but as part of the actual understanding, it is formed early in childhood. These misunderstandings tend to last unless they are replaced with more accurate, similar functional information. From this point of view, some experts claim that the goal of education is to replace existing conceptual frameworks with more accurate ones (Sinatra et al.) Based on this concept, "I will help you understand evolution. The other author is not to increase existing knowledge, but to fix the models of the world and help to create a completely new view. " Is not maintaining a consistent conceptual framework for complex phenomena, but spontaneously assembles explanations using intuition obtained from everyday experience (Southernland et al. See 2001). Although it is not widely accepted, the latter concept is that the naive evolutionary explanation performed by no n-expert people differs depending on the type of creature to be considered, provisional, inconsistent (Southernland et al. 2001). He has gained support from the observation that there is a case (SpieGel et al. 2006). Even if you try more complex explanations, you may rely on intuitive ideas when you face difficulties (Deadman and Kelly 1978). In any case, it is clear that explaining the process of nature selection to students is not effective. Many misunderstandings that hinder the understanding of natural selection are "naive" on the world structure, but as part of the actual understanding, it is formed early in childhood. These misunderstandings tend to last unless they are replaced with more accurate and similar functional information. From this point of view, some experts claim that the goal of education is to replace existing conceptual frameworks with more accurate ones (Sinatra et al.) Based on this concept, "I will help you understand evolution. The other author is not to increase existing knowledge, but to fix the models of the world and help to create a completely new view. " Is not maintaining a consistent conceptual framework for complex phenomena, but spontaneously assembles explanations using intuition obtained from everyday experience (Southernland et al. See 2001). Although it is not widely accepted, the latter concept is that the naive evolutionary explanation performed by no n-expert people differs depending on the type of creature to be considered, provisional, inconsistent (Southerland et al. 2001). He has gained support from the observation that there is a case (SpieGel et al. 2006). Even if you try more complex explanations, you may rely on intuitive ideas when you face difficulties (Deadman and Kelly 1978). In any case, it is clear that explaining the process of nature selection to students is not effective.

The causes of cognitive disorders to understanding have not yet been elucidated, but the results are well known. As obvious from many studies, the explanation of complex but accurate biological indications usually succeeds with naive intuition based on general experience (Figure 2, Table 2, 3). As a result, each of the basic components of natural selection can be overlooked or misunderstood if they try to combine them, even if they look relatively simple. The following section explains the most common, various miscellaneous misconceptions that are found to be the most common, different, no n-exclusive, and often correlated. All readers are encouraged to consider carefully to avoid pitfalls of these concepts. In particular, it is desirable for teachers to understand these errors, find and deal with students' mistakes.

Table 3 Main concepts related to adaptation evolution due to natural selection, correct interpretation and intuitive (incorrect) interpretation (see Fig. 2)

Many human experience is to overcome obstacles, achieve goals, and satisfy their desires. Not surprisingly, the psychology of humans contains powerful biases for thinking about the "purpose" and "functions" of things and behavior, and Kelemen and Rosset (2009) is "Human Function Compunition". I call. This bias is particularly strong in children, and children tend to see most of the world from the purpose. For example, the stone is squeezed (Kelemen 1999a, B; Kelemen and Rosset 2009). The tendency ("purpose theory") based on such a purpose is very deep, and it will continue from high school (Southernland et al. 2001) to secondary education (Kelemen and Rosset 2009). In fact, in the introductory education of science, it has been argued that the default mode of objective thinking is at best being suppressed, rather than replacing it. For example, it is a description of the balance of the ecosystem ("fungus grows in the forest to help corruption") and the survival of species ("Finch diversifies to survive"; Kelemen and Rosset 2009). The cause of cognitive disability for understanding has not yet been elucidated, but the results are well known. As obvious from many studies, the explanation of complex but accurate biological indications usually succeeds with naive intuition based on general experience (Figure 2, Table 2, 3). As a result, each of the basic components of natural selection can be overlooked or misunderstood if they try to combine them, even if they look relatively simple. The following section explains the most common, various miscellaneous misconceptions that are found to be the most common, different, no n-exclusive, and often correlated. All readers are encouraged to consider carefully to avoid pitfalls of these concepts. In particular, it is desirable for teachers to understand these errors, find and deal with students' mistakes.

References

Table 3 Main concepts related to adaptation evolution due to natural selection, correct interpretation and intuitive (incorrect) interpretation (see Fig. 2)
Many human experience is to overcome obstacles, achieve goals, and satisfy their desires. Not surprisingly, the psychology of humans contains powerful biases for thinking about the "purpose" and "functions" of things and behavior, and Kelemen and Rosset (2009) is "Human Function Compunition". I call. This bias is particularly strong in children, and children tend to see most of the world from the purpose. For example, the stone is squeezed (Kelemen 1999a, B; Kelemen and Rosset 2009). The tendency ("purpose theory") based on such a purpose is very deep, and it will continue from high school (Southernland et al. 2001) to secondary education (Kelemen and Rosset 2009). In fact, in the introductory education of science, it has been argued that the default mode of objective thinking is at best being suppressed, rather than replacing it. For example, it is a description of the balance of the ecosystem ("fungus grows in the forest to help corruption") and the survival of species ("Finch diversifies to survive"; Kelemen and Rosset 2009). The causes of cognitive disorders to understanding have not yet been elucidated, but the results are well known. As obvious from many studies, the explanation of complex but accurate biological indications usually succeeds with naive intuition based on general experience (Figure 2, Table 2, 3). As a result, each of the basic components of natural selection can be overlooked or misunderstood if they try to combine them, even if they look relatively simple. The following section explains the most common, various miscellaneous misconceptions that are found to be the most common, different, no n-exclusive, and often correlated. All readers are encouraged to consider carefully to avoid pitfalls of these concepts. In particular, it is desirable for teachers to understand these errors, find and deal with students' mistakes.
Table 3 Main concepts related to adaptation evolution due to natural selection, correct interpretation and intuitive (incorrect) interpretation (see Fig. 2)
Many human experience is to overcome obstacles, achieve goals, and satisfy their desires. Not surprisingly, the psychology of humans contains powerful biases for thinking about the "purpose" and "functions" of things and behavior, and Kelemen and Rosset (2009) is "Human Function Compunition". I call. This bias is particularly strong in children, and children tend to see most of the world from the purpose. For example, the stone is squeezed (Kelemen 1999a, B; Kelemen and Rosset 2009). The tendency ("purpose theory") based on such a purpose is very deep, and it will continue from high school (Southernland et al. 2001) to secondary education (Kelemen and Rosset 2009). In fact, in the introductory education of science, it has been argued that the default mode of objective thinking is at best being suppressed, rather than replacing it. For example, it is a description of the balance of the ecosystem ("fungus grows in the forest to help corruption") and the survival of species ("Finch diversifies to survive"; Kelemen and Rosset 2009).
Teleological explanations of biological features date back to Aristotle and remain very common in naive interpretations of adaptation (e. g., Tamir and Zohar 1991; Pedersen and Halldén 1992; Southerland et al.). On the one hand, teleological reasoning may exclude consideration of mechanisms altogether, arguing that identifying the current function of an organ or behavior is sufficient to explain its existence (e. g., Bishop and Anderson 1990). On the other hand, when teleologically oriented thinkers consider mechanisms, they are often framed in terms of changes that occur in response to specific needs (Table 2). This is clearly in contrast to a two-step process involving natural selection followed by undirected mutations (see Figure 2 and Table 3).
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human-like conscious intention to the objects of natural selection and to the process itself (see below). In this sense, anthropomorphic misperceptions can be either internal (attributing adaptive changes to the intentional actions of organisms) or external (thinking of natural selection or “nature” as a conscious agent; e. g., Kampourakis and Zogza 2008; Sinatra et al.).
Internal anthropomorphism and “intentionality” are closely linked to the misperception that individual organisms evolve in response to challenges posed by their environment (rather than recognizing evolution as a population-level process). Gould (1980) comments on the obvious appeal of such an intuitive concept:
Since the living world is the product of evolution, why not suppose that it arose in the simplest and most direct way? Living organisms improve themselves by their own efforts and pass on their advantages to their offspring in the form of altered genes. This idea appeals to common sense not only for its simplicity, but perhaps even more so for the happy implication that evolution is driven by the organism's own efforts and follows an essentially progressive path.
The tendency to see the conscious intentions is not only the human spine other than the human (there is certainly no knowledge of genetic or Darwin's aptitude, but the consciousness may actually occur), but also plants. It may be applied to single cell organisms. In this way, in any classification group, adaptation may be described as "innovation", "invention", and "solution" (sometimes "original"). Even in the evolution of antibiotics resistance, it is characterized by a regular "learning" process that bacteria "pull out" antibiotics. Behind the general misunderstanding that organisms act to enhance the lon g-term happiness of species, there is also anthropomorphism that emphasizes the depth. Once again, considering the actual mechanism of natural selection, you can see why it is wrong.
The description of reliable authority has been enhanced by the anthropomorphic view of the evolution (Jungwirth 1975a, B, 1977; Moore et al.) Management of the National Institute of Health. Let's consider a terrible example on the website:
Microorganisms adapt to the environment as they evolve. If microorganisms, such as antibacterial agents, hinder proliferation or diffusion, change the gene structure to evolve a new mechanism that resists antibacterial agents. By changing the gene structure, the descendants of microorganisms with resistance can also be resistant.
Such a fundamentally incorrect description is surprisingly large. As a correction measure, it is a useful training to replace such an incorrect characteristics with accurate expressions. For example, you can read as follows:
Bacteria that cause illness are in a large group, and not all individuals are the same. If there is an individual with a genetic characteristics that happens to be resistant to antibiotics, the individual will survive after treatment, and the remaining individuals will gradually die. As a result of a high survival rate, resistant individuals will leave more offspring than sensitive individuals, and each time a new generation is born, the percentage of resistance individuals will increase. When only the descendants of resistant individuals remain, the bacterial group has evolved the resistance to antibiotics. The only tendency to see the conscious intentions is the spine other than the human (there is certainly no knowledge of genetic or Darwin, but the consciousness may actually occur). It may be applied to plants and single cell organisms. In this way, in any classification group, adaptation may be described as "innovation", "invention", and "solution" (sometimes "original"). Even in the evolution of antibiotics resistance, it is characterized by a regular "learning" process that bacteria "pull out" antibiotics. Behind the general misunderstanding that organisms act to enhance the lon g-term happiness of species, there is also anthropomorphism that emphasizes the depth. Once again, considering the actual mechanism of natural selection, you can see why it is wrong.
The description of reliable authority has been enhanced by the anthropomorphic view of the evolution (Jungwirth 1975a, B, 1977; Moore et al.) Management of the National Institute of Health. Let's consider a terrible example on the website:
Microorganisms adapt to the environment as they evolve. If microorganisms, such as antibacterial agents, hinder proliferation or diffusion, change the gene structure to evolve a new mechanism that resists antibacterial agents. By changing the gene structure, the descendants of microorganisms with resistance can also be resistant.
Such a fundamentally incorrect description is surprisingly large. As a correction measure, it is a useful training to replace such an incorrect characteristics with accurate expressions. For example, you can read as follows:
Bacteria that cause illness are in a large group, and not all individuals are the same. If there is an individual with a genetic characteristics that happens to be resistant to antibiotics, the individual will survive after treatment, and the remaining individuals will gradually die. As a result of a high survival rate, resistant individuals will leave more offspring than sensitive individuals, and each time a new generation is born, the percentage of resistance individuals will increase. When only the descendants of resistant individuals remain, the bacterial group has evolved the resistance to antibiotics. The tendency to see the conscious intentions is not only the spinal animal other than the human (there is no knowledge of genetic or Darwin's aptitude, but the consciousness may actually occur), but also a plant. It may be applied to single cell organisms. In this way, in all classification groups, adaptation may be described as "innovation", "invention", and "solution" (sometimes "original"). Even in the evolution of antibiotics resistance, it is characterized by a regular "learning" process that bacteria "pull out" antibiotics. Behind the general misunderstanding that organisms act to enhance the lon g-term happiness of species, there is also anthropomorphism that emphasizes the depth. Once again, considering the actual mechanism of natural selection, you can see why it is wrong.
The description of reliable authority has been enhanced by the anthropomorphic view of evolution (Jungwirth 1975a, B, 1977; Moore et al.) Management of the National Institute of Health. Let's consider a terrible example on the website:
Microorganisms adapt to the environment as they evolve. If microorganisms, such as antibacterial agents, hinder proliferation or diffusion, change the gene structure to evolve a new mechanism that resists antibacterial agents. By changing the gene structure, the descendants of microorganisms with resistance can also be resistant.
Such a fundamentally incorrect description is surprisingly large. As a correction measure, it is a useful training to replace such an incorrect characteristics with accurate expressions. For example, you can read as follows:
Bacteria that cause illness are in a large group, and not all individuals are the same. If there is an individual with a genetic characteristics that happens to be resistant to antibiotics, the individual will survive after treatment, and the remaining individuals will gradually die. As a result of a high survival rate, resistant individuals will leave more offspring than sensitive individuals, and each time a new generation is born, the percentage of resistance individuals will increase. When only the descendants of resistant individuals remain, the bacterial group has evolved the resistance to antibiotics.
Many students who wish to avoid the teleological and anthropomorphic pitfalls still believe that evolution is about changes in organs due to use or disuse. This idea was explicitly developed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, but was also adopted to some extent by Darwin (1859). For example, Darwin (1859) invoked natural selection to explain the loss of vision in some underground rodents, but instead supported disuse alone as an explanation for the loss of eyes in blind cave-dwelling animals: "I attribute all loss of eyes to disuse, as it is difficult to imagine that, although useless, they can do any harm to animals living in darkness." Such intuitions are still commonly found in naive explanations for why unnecessary organs degenerate or eventually disappear. Modern evolutionary theory gives several reasons for the loss of complex organs (e. g., Jeffery 2005; Espinasa and Espinasa 2008). Evolution, which involves changes in individual organisms, whether based on conscious choice or use and disuse, requires that characteristics acquired during an individual's lifetime be passed on to offspring. The idea that acquired traits are passed on to offspring has been a common assumption among thinkers for over 2, 000 years, including Darwin's time (Zirkle 1946). As currently understood, inheritance is actually "hard": physical changes that occur during an organism's lifetime are not transmitted to offspring because the cells involved in reproduction (germline) are different from the cells that make up the rest of the body (somatic lineage). New genetic variations arise by mutation and recombination during replication and often only exert their effects in offspring, not in the parents from whom they arose in germ cells (though they may arise very early in development and appear later in adult offspring). Figure 3 contrasts correct and incorrect interpretations of inheritance. Figure 3
Summary of correct (left) and incorrect (right) concepts of inheritance for adaptive evolutionary change. The diagram on the left shows a mechanism of "hard inheritance," while the diagram on the right shows a naive mechanism of "soft inheritance." In all diagrams, a set of nine squares represents an individual multicellular organism, with each square representing a type of cell that makes up the organism. In the left panel, the organism contains two types of cells: the cells that make gametes (germline, black) and the cells that make up the rest of the body (somatic lineage, white). In the top left diagram, all cells of the parent organism initially contain a gene that specifies the color white, written as W (A). A random mutation occurs in the germline, changing it from a gene that specifies the color white to a gene that specifies the color gray. This mutated gene is passed on to an egg (C), which develops into an offspring that exhibits gray (D). The mutation in this case occurred in the parent (specifically in the germline), but its effects were not apparent until the next generation. In the bottom left panel, the parent again starts out white, with the white gene in all its cells (H). During its lifetime, the parent becomes grayish through exposure to certain environmental conditions (I). However, this does not result in any change to the genes in the germline, so the original white remains gray.
As a result, the offspring develops white in most cells, but in cells with a mutation that induces gray with a parent, it develops gray (Z). At the root of many misunderstandings about how adaptive evolution occurs, there is an intuitive idea about soft heredity (see Figure 2).
Research has shown that the concept of soft heredity is formed as part of a naive model about heredity (eg, Deadman and Kelly 1978; Kargbo et al.) That intuitive. Perhaps the idea of soft hereditary is the reason why it has survived so long among prominent thinkers and is difficult to correct among modern students. Unfortunately, being unable to abandon this idea is to understand the evolution of natural selection as a tw o-stage process, which is an independent consideration of the relevance of new mutations and survival in a specific environment. It is fundamentally incompatible.
Thirty years ago, a broadly respected broadcaster David Attenbox (1979) expresses the task of avoiding anthropomorphic abbreviations in the description of adaptation:
Darwin has indicated that the driving force of the [adaptive] evolution is born from countless generations of accidental genetic changes caused by the rigor of natural selection. When explaining the results of this process, it is too easy to use words that suggest that the animal himself was trying to make a change with the purpose. As a result, the offspring develops white in most cells, but in cells with a mutation that induces gray, gray color (Z). At the root of many misunderstandings about how adaptive evolution occurs, there is an intuitive idea about soft heredity (see Figure 2).
Research has shown that the concept of soft heredity is formed as part of a naive model about heredity (eg, Deadman and Kelly 1978; Kargbo et al.) That intuitive. Perhaps the idea of soft hereditary is the reason why it has survived so long among prominent thinkers and is difficult to correct among modern students. Unfortunately, being unable to abandon this idea is to understand the evolution of natural selection as a tw o-stage process, which is an independent consideration of the relevance of new mutations and survival in a specific environment. It is fundamentally incompatible.
Thirty years ago, a broadly respected broadcaster David Attenbox (1979) expresses the task of avoiding anthropomorphic abbreviations in the description of adaptation:
Darwin has indicated that the driving force of the [adaptive] evolution is born from countless generations of accidental genetic changes caused by the rigor of natural selection. When explaining the results of this process, it is too easy to use words that suggest that the animal himself was trying to make a change with the purpose. As a result, the offspring develops white in most cells, but in cells with a mutation that induces gray with a parent, it develops gray (Z). At the root of many misunderstandings about how adaptive evolution occurs, there is an intuitive idea about soft heredity (see Figure 2).
Research has shown that the concept of soft heredity is formed as part of a naive model about heredity (eg, Deadman and Kelly 1978; Kargbo et al.) That intuitive. Perhaps the idea of soft hereditary is the reason why it has survived so long among prominent thinkers and is difficult to correct among modern students. Unfortunately, being unable to abandon this idea is to understand the evolution of natural selection as a tw o-stage process, which is an independent consideration of the relevance of new mutations and survival in a specific environment. It is fundamentally incompatible.
Thirty years ago, a broadly respected broadcaster David Attenbox (1979) expresses the task of avoiding anthropomorphic abbreviations in the description of adaptation:
Darwin has indicated that the driving force of the [adaptive] evolution is born from countless generations of accidental genetic changes caused by the rigor of natural selection. When explaining the results of this process, it is too easy to use words that suggest that the animal himself was trying to make a change with the purpose.
Unlike many authors, Attenborough (1979) tried to avoid using such misleading terms. However, this quotation inadvertently highlights the difficulty of describing natural selection in misleading terms. In this quotation, natural selection is described as a "driving force" that strictly "sifts" genetic variation, which can be misconstrued as an active role for natural selection in driving evolutionary change. More serious is describing natural selection as a process of "choosing" among "favourable" variants, or of "experimenting" or "exploring" various options. Expressions such as "favored" and "selected for" are common abbreviations in evolutionary biology, and are not intended to refer to natural selection in any way.
Darwin (1859) himself could not avoid occasionally using the word "agency":
Natural selection examines the whole world, every day, every hour, for even the slightest changes, eliminating the bad ones, and preserving and heaping up all the good ones. Nothing of this slow progress of change is visible until the hands of time show the passage of many years.
Darwin (1868) must have recognized the misinterpretation of such language, later writing, "The term 'Natural Selection' has its downsides, since it seems to suggest conscious choice. Unfortunately, it seems to require more than 'a little familiarity' to discard the notion of Nature as an active decision-maker."
Because natural selection is the simple result of differential reproductive success due to genetic traits, it cannot have plans, goals, or intentions and cannot induce change as needed. For this reason, Jungwirth (1975a, b, 1977) lamented the tendency of authors and instructors to explain the process of natural selection in teleological or anthropomorphic terms, arguing that this contributes to students' misunderstandings (Bishop and Anderson 1990; Alters and Nelson 2002; Moore et al.). Nevertheless, Tamir and Zohar's (1991) study of high school students suggests that older students are able to recognize the distinction between anthropomorphic or teleological formulations (i. e., explanations that are merely convenient) and anthropomorphic/teleological explanations (i. e., in which conscious intentions or goal-directed mechanisms are involved as causal factors) (see also Bartov 1978, 1981). In contrast, Moore et al. (2002) concluded from a study of undergraduates that "students are unable to distinguish between the relatively concrete terminology of genetics and the more figurative language of the specialist shorthand required to condense the evolutionary process over time" (see also Jungwirth 1975a, 1977). Some authors argue that teleological representations may have some value as shorthand for explaining complex phenomena in a simple way, precisely because they correspond to normal patterns of thought.
The intuitive evolution model based on software inheritance is a on e-step model for adaptation: traits are changed in a certain generation and appeared in the next generation. This is inconsistent with the actual adaptation process, including the independent process of mutation and natural selection. Unfortunately, many students who shy away from soft heredity have not been able to distinguish between natural selection and new variants (for example, Greene 1990; Creedy 1993; Moore et Al.) In accurate understanding Most of the variants recognize that they are neutral or harmful in the given environment, while such a naive interpretation shows that mutation occurs as an environmental challenge and is always useful. Assume (Fig. 2). For example, when many students, exposure to antibiotics, do not simply change the relative frequency of resistant bacteria and no n-resistant bacteria, but to directly increase the tolerant bacteria by killing the latter. You may be thinking. Again, natural selection itself does not create a new mutation, but only affects the ratio of existing mutations. Most selection reduces the amount of genetic mutation within the group, but can cancel it by continuously emerging new variants due to n o-oriented mutations and recombination.
The misunderstanding about how the mutation occurs is a problem, but it is even more concerned that not recognizing that mutations have not played a role at all. Since Darwin (1859), the theory of evolution has been strongly based on "group" thinking that emphasizes differences between individuals. In contrast, many of the naive interpretations of evolution remain rooted in the "type logical" or "main theoretical" thinking that has existed since ancient Greek era (Mayr 1982, 2001; Sinatra et al.) In this case. Seeds are considered to indicate a single "type" or a common "essence", and the mutation between individuals indicates a deviation that is almost important due to abnormalities and essence. As SHTULMAN (2006) points out, "Humans tend to be the essence of biological types, and essentialism is incompatible with natural selection." Like many other conceptual biases, the tendency to become essential occurs early in childhood and seems to remain default for most people (Strevens 2000; Gelman 2004; Evans et al. 2005; SHTULMAN 2006) 。
The wrong idea that the species is uniform leads to the "transformationist" indication that the whole group is transformed as a whole (Alters 2005; Shtulman 2006; Bardapurkar 2008). This is in contrast to the correct "variable" understanding of the natural choice of changing the percentage of traits in the group (Fig. 2). Unexpectedly, the adaptive modified models usually include the tolerable changes in on e-step change in soft heredity and tasks. In fact, SHTULMAN (2006) discovered that the frequency of traits converted to "need" as a cause of the change in evolution is three times higher than that of a mutant.
Understanding natural selection shows that natural selection is a process that occurs in groups for generations. Natural selection is performed by cumulative and statistical impact on the proportion of different traits that have the effects of reproductive success. This is in contrast to the two major errors often seen in the simple concept of the process of natural selection:
1. Natural selection is incorrectly perceived as an event, not as a process (Ferrari and CHI 1998; Sinatra et al. 2008). Events generally have the beginning and end, may occur in specific order, consist of clear actions, and may be intended. In contrast, natural selection is a continuous and simultaneous thing in the entire group, not a purpos e-oriented thing (Ferrari and CHI 1998). If you misunderstand selection as a single event, it may lead to a transformationist thinking, as adaptive changes may occur simultaneously throughout the individual groups. In addition, regarding natural selection as one event can lead to a claim of incorrect "sal t-basedism", which is imagined that complex adaptive characteristics appear suddenly in one generation (evolution of complex organs). See Gregory 2008b for an overview.
2. Natural selection is mistakenly considered "all or nashing" that all incompatible individuals die and all suitable individuals survive. In fact, natural selection is a stochastic process, which is more likely to succeed in breeding creatures, but not guaranteed. Furthermore, the statistical properties of this process are sufficient to gradually increase the frequency of traits over many generations, even if there is a small difference in breeding success rate (for example, 1 %).
Surveys of students at all levels paint a bleak picture of understanding of natural selection. Even though natural selection is based on well-established and individually easy-to-understand components, a proper understanding of its mechanisms and their meaning is extremely rare among non-experts. The inescapable conclusion is that the vast majority of people, including those with a secondary science education, lack a basic understanding of how adaptive evolution occurs.
While a concrete solution to this problem has yet to be found, it is clear that merely outlining the various components of natural selection is hardly enough to help students understand the process. A variety of alternative teaching methods and activities have been proposed, some of which have helped to improve students' understanding (e. g., Bishop and Anderson 1986; Jensen and Finley 1995, 1996; Firenze 1997; Passmore and Stewart 2002; Sundberg 2003; Alters 2005; Scharmann 1990; Wilson 2005; Nelson 2007, 2008; Pennock 2007; Kampourakis and Zogza 2008). Efforts to integrate evolution into the entire biology curriculum, rather than isolating it in a single unit, may also prove more effective (Nehm et al. 2009).
At the very least, it is clear that the teaching and learning of natural selection requires efforts to identify, confront, and dispel misconceptions, most of which originate from conceptual biases deeply held since childhood. Natural selection, like many complex scientific theories, runs counter to common experience, competes with intuitive ideas about inheritance, mutation, function, intentionality, and probability, and usually fails. The tendency to use imprecise language to describe evolutionary phenomena, both outside and in academia, probably exacerbates these problems.
Natural selection is a central element of modern evolutionary theory and, by extension, the unifying theme of all biology. Without understanding this process and its consequences, it is impossible to understand, even in basic terms, how and why life came to have such incredible diversity. The great challenge facing biologists and educators in correcting misunderstandings about natural selection is equal to its importance.
For more advanced treatment, see Bell (1997, 2008) or see textbooks on major evolutionary biology and group genetics at the undergraduate level.
In the words of Darwin, "Origin" was a bigger "abstract" he was trying to write. Many additional materials are published in Darwin (1868) and Stauffer (1975).
For discussions about the use of the theory of "theory" in science, see Gregory (2008a).
RIDLEY (2004) points out that Darwin's calculation needs to be overlapped in order to reach this accurate number, but even if it is a slow breeding species, the potential production speed is an actual creature. It is still enormous than the number.
Currently, humanity is in the middle of a rapid increase in the number of individuals, which is rather an exception. As Darwin (1859) states: "Some species may be increasing more or less rapidly, but all species are unlikely.
Evolution "Natural selection" is not compatible, and it is not too much to emphasize. Because all evolutions are not caused by natural selection, but all consequences of natural selection are genetically genetic. This is because a detailed discussion of the type of selection is out of the scope of this article, but the effect of the "stabilization" is to prevent changes in the direction of the group. Can be pointed out.
The leaders who want to evaluate their students' understanding are the test developed by Bishop and Anderson (1986), Anderson et al. (2002), Beardsley (2004), Shtulman (2006), Kampourakis and Zogza (2009). It would be good.
Even more concerned is that in the United States, one in six teachers is a young Earth creator, and one in eight is an effective option to replace the theory theory. There are recent reports (Berkman et al. 2008).
Strictly speaking, there is no need to understand how evolution has occurred, to be convinced that evolution has occurred. This is because the historical fact of evolution is supported by many convergence evidence, regardless of the discussions on specific mechanisms. Again, this is an important point to distinguish the evolution as facts and the theory. See Gregory (2008a).
When explaining the adaptation, anthropomorphic, such as "because" (for "because"), such as "to do" (for "to do"). You must always pay attention to the linguistic symptoms of erroneous recognition (Kampourakis and Zogza 2009).
It must be noted that the tendency of the genetic of acquired characteristics to be "Ramarcu" is incorrect: Soft inheritance has been accepted for a long time since the Lamarck era (ZIRKLE 1946). Similarly, the mechanism where the creature consciously wants to change is often accidentally treated as something caused by Ramarc. See Geraedts and Boersma (2006) and Kampourakis and Zogza (2007) for recent criticism of various misunderstandings. In fact, Ramarcu has greatly advanced the classification of invertebrate animals (also a coined word of Ramarc), and of course (although it was eventually wrong), developing the first evolutional mechanical theory. He has made many important contributions to (the first term used by Ramarc). See Packard (1901), BURKHARDT (1972, 1995), Corsi (1988), HUMPHREYS (1995, 1996), KAMPOURAKIS AND ZOGZA (2007) for Ramarc's views and contributions to evolutionary biology. Ramarc's book is http://www. lamarck. cnrs. fr/index. php? lang=en.
How does this misunderstanding harmonize with a general recommendation by a doctor to complete each treatment course with antibiotics even after the symptoms disappear?
Alters B. Teaching Biological Evolution in Higher Education. Boston: Jones and Bartlett; 2005. Google School
Alters BJ, Nelson Ce. Teaching Evolution in HighGher Education. 2002; 56: 1891-901.
ANDERSON DL, Fisher Km, Norman GJ. J RESI Sci Teach. 2002; 39: 952 --78. Doi: 10. 1002/Tea. 10053. Google Scholar
Asgar A, Wilds JR, Altars B. Canadian elementary school elementary school incumbent teachers' concepts on biological evolution and evolutionary education. McGill J EDUC. 2007; 42: 189-209.
Atten Bowl D. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1979. Google School
BANET E, Ayuso Ge. Education of organisms and evolution of organisms in secondary education. Int J Sci EDU 2003; 25: 373-407. Google Scholar
Bardapurkar A. Do students see the "selection" in organic evolution? A critical review of the causal structure of students' explanations. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008; 1:299–305. doi:10. 1007/s12052-008-0048-5. Google Scholar
Barton NH, Briggs DEG, Eisen JA, Goldstein DB, Patel NH. Evolution. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2007. Google Scholar
Bartov H. Can students be taught to distinguish between teleological and causal explanations? J Resi Sci Teach. 1978; 15:567–72. doi:10. 1002/tea. 3660150619. Google Scholar
Bartov H. Teaching students to understand the advantages and disadvantages of teleological and anthropomorphic explanations in biology. J Resi Sci Teach. 1981; 18:79–86. doi:10. 1002/tea. 3660180113. Google Scholar
Beardsley PM. Secondary school students' learning about evolution: Are current standards achievable? Am Biol Teach. 2004; 66:604-12. doi:10. 1662/0002-7685(2004)066[0604:MSSLIE]2. 0. CO; 2. Google Scholar
Bell G. The basis of selection. New York: Chapman & amp; Hall; 1997. Google Scholar
Bell G. Selection: A mechanism for evolution. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. Google Scholar
Evolution and creationism in American classrooms: a national portrait. PLoS Biol. Google Scholar
Bishop BA, Anderson CW. Evolution by natural selection: A teaching module (Occasional Paper No.). East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching; 1986. Google Scholar
Bishop BA, Anderson CW. Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. J Resi Sci Teach. 1990; 27:415–27. doi:10. 1002/tea. 3660270503. Google Scholar
Bizzo NMV. From Down House landlords to Brazilian high school students: What happened to evolutionary knowledge along the way? J Resi Sci Teach. 1994; 31:537-56. Google Scholar
Bloom P, Weisberg DS. Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science. 2007; 316:996–7. doi:10. 1126/science. 1133398. CASGoogle Scholar
Undergraduate students' perceptions of the negative personal and social effects of evolutionary theory. 2003; 87:181-206. Google Scholar
Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. 1979:13:119-22. Google Scholar
Brumby MN. Misunderstandings of the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. 1984:493-503. doi:10. 1002/sce. 3730680412. Google Scholar
Burckhardt RW. The origins of Lamarck's theory of evolution. 1972; 5:413-38. doi:10. 1007/BF00346666. CASGoogle Scholar
Burckhardt RW. The spirit of the system. The spirit of the system: Harvard University Press; 1995. Google Scholar
Embracing evolution. Evolution. 2007; 62:248-54. Google Scholar
How middle and high school students interpret cases of biological adaptation. 1985:125-30. Google Scholar
Corsi P. The age of Lamarck. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1988. Google Scholar
Coyne JA. Selling Darwin. Nature. 2006; 442:983–4. doi:10. 1038/442983a. CASGoogle Scholar
Creedy LJ. Students' understanding of natural selection. Res Sci Educ. 1993; 23:34-41. doi:10. 1007/BF02357042. Google Scholar
Curry A. Creationist beliefs persist in Europe. Science. 2009; 323:1159. doi:10. 1126/science. 323. 5918. 1159. CASGoogle Scholar
Darimont CT, Carlson SM, Kinnison MT, Paquet PC, Reimchen TE, Wilmers CC. Human predators outweigh other drivers of trait variation in the wild. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106:952-4. doi:10. 1073/pnas. 0809235106. CASGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored species in the struggle for life. London: John Murray; 1859. Google Scholar
Darwin, C. The variation of domesticated animals and plants. London: John Murray; 1868. Google Scholar
Darwin, C., Wallace, AR. On the tendency of species to form varieties, and the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural selection. 1858; 3:46-62. Google Scholar
Dedman, JA, Kelly, PJ. What do schoolboys understand before they are taught about evolution and heredity? J Biol Educ. Google Scholar
Pupils' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: a case of reproduction and comparison. J Resi Sci Teach. 1995; 32:535–50. doi:10. 1002/tea. 3660320509. Google Scholar
Exploring factors associated with acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish biology teachers: Toward a more informative conceptual ecology of biological evolution. J Resi Sci Teach. 2008; 45:420–43. doi:10. 1002/tea. 20223. Google Scholar
Dennett DC. Darwin's dangerous idea. New York: Touchstone Books; 1995. Google Scholar
Espinasa M, Espinasa L. Losing sight of regressive evolution. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008; 1:509–16. doi:10. 1007/s12052-008-0094-z. Google Scholar
Evans EM, Mull MS, Poling DA, Szymanowski K. Overcoming essentialist bias: from metamorphosis to evolution. In Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development , Atlanta, GA; 2005.
Evans EM, Spiegel A, Gramm W, Frazier BF, Thompson S, Tarre M, Diamond J. A conceptual guide for museum visitors to understand evolution. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 2006.
Ferrari M, Chi MTH. The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. 1998; 20:1231-56. doi:10. 1080/0950069980201005. Google Scholar
Lamarck versus Darwin: dueling theories. 1997:17:9-11. Google Scholar
Freeman S, Heron JC. Evolutionary analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2007. Google Scholar
Futuyma DJ. Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer; 2005. Google Scholar
Gelman SA. Psychological essentialism in children. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004; 8:404-9. doi:10. 1016/j. tics. 2004. 07. 001. Google Scholar
Geraedts CL, Boersma KT. Reinventing natural selection. Int J Sci Educ. 2006; 28:843-70. doi:10. 1080/09500690500404722. Google Scholar
Gould SJ. Lamarck's shadow. In: The Panda's Thumb. New York: Norton; 1980.
Green ED. The logic of undergraduate students' misconceptions about natural selection. J Resi Sci Teach. 1990; 27:875–85. doi:10. 1002/tea. 3660270907. Google Scholar
Gregory TR. Evolution as fact, theory, and path. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008a; 1:46–52. doi:10. 1007/s12052-007-0001-z. Google Scholar
Gregory TR. The evolution of complex organs. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008b; 1:358–89. doi:10. 1007/s12052-008-0076-1. Google Scholar
Gregory TR. Artificial selection and domestication: modern lessons from Darwin's timeless analogy. Evo Edu Outreach. 2009; 2:5–27. doi:10. 1007/s12052-008-0114-z. Google Scholar
Hall BK, Hall-Grimson B. Strickberger's Evolution. 4th ed. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 2008. Google Scholar
The evolution of species: student and school perspectives. 1988; 10:541-52. doi:10. 1080/0950069880100507. Google Scholar
The initial knowledge state of undergraduate physics students. Am J Phys. 1985; 53:1043-55. doi:10. 1119/1. 14030. Google Scholar
Hills DM. Making evolution relevant and exciting for biology students. Evolution. 2007; 61:1261-4. doi:10. 1111/j. 1558-5646. 2007. 00126. x. Google Scholar
Humphreys J. Lamarck's law. The Biologist. 1995; 42:121-5. Google Scholar
Lamarck and the general theory of evolution. J Biol Educ. 1996; 30:295-303. Google Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Ingram EL, Nelson CE. The relationship between student acceptance of evolution or creation and achievement in an advanced evolution course. J Resi Sci Teach. 2006; 43:7–24. doi:10. 1002/tea. 20093. Google Scholar

Jeffery WR. Adaptive evolution of eye degeneration in Mexican blind cavefish. J Heredity. 2005; 96:185–96. doi:10. 1093/jhered/esi028. CASGoogle Scholar

Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

Last modified: 27.08.2024

An overview of the basic process of natural selection is provided, the extent and possible causes of misunderstandings of the process are discussed. Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift. Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach. ;– Hake RR. Interactive.

Play

accepted