No abstract

Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection have generally failed to provide a direct connection to speciation and to explore the consequences of finite population size. The connection to speciation has been indirect because the models have treated only the evolution of male and female traits and have stopped short of modeling the evolution of sexual isolation. In this article we extend Lande’s (1981) model of sexual selection to quantify predictions about the evolution of sexual isolation and speciation. Our results, based on computer simulations, support and extend Lande’s claim that drift along a line of equilibria can rapidly lead to sexual isolation and speciation. Furthermore, we show that rapid speciation can occur by drift in populations of appreciable size (Ne ≥ 1000). These results are in sharp contrast to the opinion of many researchers and textbook writers who have argued that drift does not play an important role in speciation. We argue that drift may be a powerful amplifier of speciation under a wide variety of modeling assumptions, even when selection acts directly on female mating preferences.

The Genetic Drift Inventory is a multiple true–false format concept inventory consisting of 22 statements. It tests how well upper-division undergraduate biology students grasp four key concepts, while simultaneously testing for the presence of six misconceptions.

This study explores biology undergraduates’ misconceptions about genetic drift. We use qualitative and quantitative methods to describe students’ definitions, identify common misconceptions, and examine differences before and after instruction on genetic drift. We identify and describe five overarching categories that include 16 distinct misconceptions about genetic drift. The accuracy of students’ conceptions ranges considerably, from responses indicating only superficial, if any, knowledge of any aspect of evolution to responses indicating knowledge of genetic drift but confusion about the nuances of genetic drift. After instruction, a significantly greater number of responses indicate some knowledge of genetic drift (p = 0.005), but 74.6% of responses still contain at least one misconception. We conclude by presenting a framework that organizes how students’ conceptions of genetic drift change with instruction. We also articulate three hypotheses regarding undergraduates’ conceptions of evolution in general and genetic drift in particular. We propose that: 1) students begin with undeveloped conceptions of evolution that do not recognize different mechanisms of change; 2) students develop more complex, but still inaccurate, conceptual frameworks that reflect experience with vocabulary but still lack deep understanding; and 3) some new misconceptions about genetic drift emerge as students comprehend more about evolution.

No abstract