Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

Gregory, T. Ryan

doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

Cited by 374 publications

(545 citation statements)

References 90 publications

(136 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

465

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study explored what learners "already know" by investigating the prevalence of biological evolution-related misconceptions held by 993 Oklahoma public high school students prior to instruction in their initial high school biology course. Such misconceptions were prevalent within this population and the findings corroborate the literature that reports a strikingly high prevalence of biological evolution-related mis-conceptions in students at all levels, from elementary pupils to university science majors (Gregory, 2009), indicative of a pervasive problem in evolution education. In order for science educators to eliminate and replace their students' misconceptions with accurate science-based, biological evolution concepts, the following suggestions are offered.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The majority of students (40.1%; n = 398) agreed with statement 15 ("Variation among individuals within a species is important for evolution to occur") whereas 28.7% (n = 285) held the misconception that variation among members of a species is not important to evolutionary processes. These finding concur with the literature which indicates that students may not view genetic variation as important to evolution, even though such variation is essential to evolution taking place (Alters & Nelson, 2002;Bishop & Anderson, 1990;Gregory, 2009;Mayr, 1982;Rutledge & Warden, 2002) or that variations only affect outward appearance, and do not influence survival (Anderson et al, 2002).…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Evolutionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Students may incorrectly assume that traits are always beneficial and only these traits are passed along to offspring (Gregory, 2009). The majority of student participants were not of such opinion with 59.2% (n = 588) disagreeing with statement 19 ("Only beneficial traits are passed on from parent to offspring.")…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cunningham and Wescott's (2009) survey instrument on which the BEL Survey is modeled contained 24 statements classified into four categories: (a) evolutionary theory, (b) scientific facts, (c) process of evolution, and (d) language of science. For the present study, Cunningham and Wescott's four-category classification was modified into five categories of biological evolution-related misconceptions that are commonly employed in the literature (e.g., Alters & Alters, 2001;Bishop & Anderson, 1990;Greene, 1990;Gregory, 2009;Jensen & Finley, 1996;Wandersee et al, 1994;Wescott & Cunningham, 2005;Wilson, 2001). These misconception categories include: (a) science, scientific methodology and terminology (SSMT); (b) intentionality of evolution (IE); (c) nature of evolution (NE); (d) mechanisms of evolution (ME); and (e) evidence supporting evolution (ESE).…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Study Identifying Biological Evolution-Related Misconceptions Held by Prebiology High School Students

Yates

Marek

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students bring a diverse array of ideas about natural events to their science classes, and many of these ideas are often at variance with the scientifically accepted views. Numerous studies have identified multiple biological evolution-related misconceptions held by select groups of students. Collectively, these studies repeatedly indicate that students with varying educational backgrounds have difficulties accurately understanding the concepts of evolution. Because scientific literacy in the field of biology necessitates a basic understanding of evolution concepts and theory, students' possession of biological evolution-related misconceptions is problematic. The focus of this study was to identify the types and prevalence of such misconceptions within a state's public high schools' prebiology students and to correlate those findings with demographic variables. Some 993 students enrolled in their initial high school biology course during the 2010-2011 academic years in one of 42 Oklahoma public high schools served as this study's unit of analysis. The Biological Evolution Literacy Survey which presents 23 biological misconception statements grouped into five categories, served as the research tool for identifying students' misconceptions, calculating conception index scores, and collecting demographic data. Multiple statistical analyses were performed to identify statistically significant (p < 0.05) relationships between variables related to students' number and types of misconceptions. Analysis revealed that participants possess a mean 43.9% rate of understanding of those biological evolution concepts presented in the BEL Survey combined with a 39.1% mean misconception rate. A statistically significant difference in participants' BEL Survey mean index scores when related to biological evolution knowledge self-rating was also disclosed. Strategies for identifying and eliminating students' misconceptions are offered. Misconceptions of biological evolution were prevalent within this student population and the findings corroborate the literature that reports a strikingly high prevalence of biological evolution-related misconceptions in students at all levels, from elementary pupils to university science

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Mechanisms Of Evolutionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Mechanisms Of Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Study Identifying Biological Evolution-Related Misconceptions Held by Prebiology High School Students

Yates

Marek

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But as decades of research in scientific education suggest, teleological thinking is one of the primary obstacles in students' path to acquiring an adequate understanding of natural selection (see Galli andMeinardi, 2011 andKelemen, 2012 for an overview). For instance, students tend to think that a "personified "Mother Nature" responded to animals functional needs by generating or conferring the functional part with a view to preserving the animal's survival" (Kelemen, 2012, p. 4; see also Kampourakis & Zogza, 2008;Moore et al, 2002;and Gregory, 2009), such as by stretching a giraffe's neck so it could reach leaves on trees (e.g., Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985;Demastes, Settlage, & Good, 1995;Evans et al, 2010;Jensen & Finley,1995;Kampourakis and Zogza, 2008). Summing up a range of this work, Kelemen (2012) suggests that people's teleological views are "embedded within a framework of intuitions characterizing Nature as a designing agent" (p. 6).…”

Section: Benighted Teleologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistence through function preservation

Rosé

2014

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do ordinary material objects persist? For instance, if a rock is hit with a hammer and chipped, does the rock survive? Or if a rock is smashed to pieces by a hammer, does the rock survive the smashing? Many metaphysicians have wanted a view of persistence that fits with folk intuitions and have charged leading views with failing to do so. Yet, there is disagreement about what the folk intuit and no empirical discipline to the discussion. For a debate so heavily centered on folk intuitions, it seems that some empirical evidence might help advance the discussion. Indeed, it seems that empirically discerning the folk view of persistence will help decide whether it deserves to be taken seriously. So my question is:what is the folk view of persistence against which metaphysical accounts might be measured? My view is that the folk view of persistence is teleological in that the folk tend to intuit that a material object survives alterations when its function is preserved. As such, I hold that the folk view of persistence is tied into a benighted view of nature and thus deserves to be dismissed. Given an empirically informed understanding of the folk view of persistence, I hold that the discussion over how ordinary objects persist should be liberated from any demanded conformity with folk intuitions.The Plan: I'll begin, in Section I, by briefly documenting some conflicting claims about the folk view of persistence and charges of failing to fit common sense. In Section II, I will present evidence from psychology which suggests that the folk are promiscuous teleologists. Given the background of promiscuous teleology, I will then go on, in Section III, to present a range of evidence in support of the claim that the folk view of persistence is teleological. Having achieved sufficient empirical understanding of the folk view of persistence to judge its credentials, I will, in Section IV, argue for a dismissive take on folk intuitions about material object persistence. I will situate the discussion within the background of what Dan Korman (2009) calls the challenge from folk belief and discuss my results in the context of debunking arguments in order to show how the challenge can be met, concluding that in the specific case of persistence, the folk do not deserve to be taken seriously. They deserve to be ignored. I. Persistence and Common SenseHow do ordinary material objects persist? There are two general answers. The first is the answer of the four dimensionalist. According to the four dimensionalist, ordinary material objects persist by having temporal parts, in addition to spatial parts, which are spread out across regions of spacetime. Ordinary objects persist by having distinct temporal parts at more than one time: they persist by perduring. The second answer, that of the three dimensionalist, denies that ordinary material objects persist by having temporal parts. Instead, the three dimensionalist holds that ordinary material objects persist by being "wholly present" at more than one time,

show abstract

Abiogenesis through gradual evolution of autocatalysis into template‐based replication

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How life emerged from inanimate matter is one of the most intriguing questions posed to modern science. Central to this research are experimental attempts to build systems capable of Darwinian evolution. RNA catalysts (ribozymes) are a promising avenue, in line with the RNA world hypothesis whereby RNA pre-dated DNA and proteins. Since evolution in living organisms relies on template-based replication, the identification of a ribozyme capable of replicating itself (an RNA self-replicase) has been a major objective. However, no self-replicase has been identified to date. Alternatively, autocatalytic systems involving multiple RNA species capable of ligation and recombination may enable self-reproduction. However, it remains unclear how evolution could emerge in autocatalytic systems. In this review, we examine how experimentally feasible RNA reactions catalysed by ribozymes could implement the evolutionary properties of variation, heredity and reproduction, and ultimately allow for Darwinian evolution. We propose a gradual path for the emergence of evolution, initially supported by autocatalytic systems leading to the later appearance of RNA replicases.

show abstract

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

Cited by 374 publications

References 90 publications

A Study Identifying Biological Evolution-Related Misconceptions Held by Prebiology High School Students

A Study Identifying Biological Evolution-Related Misconceptions Held by Prebiology High School Students

Persistence through function preservation

Abiogenesis through gradual evolution of autocatalysis into template‐based replication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About