Do Students See the “Selection” in Organic Evolution? A Critical Review of the Causal Structure of Student Explanations

This paper critically reviews and characterizes the student's causal-explanatory understanding; this is done as a step toward explicating the problematic of evolution education as it concerns the cognitive difficulties in understanding Darwin's theory of natural selection. The review concludes that the student's understanding is fundamentally different from Darwin's, for the student understands evolutionary change as necessary individual transformation caused by the transformative action of various physical and behavioral factors. This is in complete contrast to Darwin's (and even the Darwinian's, for that matter) understanding of evolutionary change as a change caused by accumulative selection. Hence, to understand natural selection, the student has to learn to “see” how the accumulative selection causes evolutionary change.

Phylogenetic relationships and morphological diversity in Darwin's finches and their relatives

Despite the importance of Darwin's finches to the development of evolutionary theory, the origin of the group has only recently been examined using a rigorous, phylogenetic methodology that includes many potential outgroups. Knowing the evolutionary relationships of Darwin's finches to other birds is important for understanding the context from which this adaptive radiation arose. Here we show that analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequence data from the cytochrome b gene confirm that Darwin's finches are monophyletic. In addition, many taxa previously proposed as the sister taxon to Darwin's finches can be excluded as their closest living relative. Darwin's finches are part of a well-supported monophyletic group of species, all of which build a domed nest. All but two of the non-Darwin's finches included in this clade occur on Caribbean islands and most are Caribbean endemics. These close relatives of Darwin's finches show a diversity of bill types and feeding behaviors similar to that observed among Darwin's finches themselves. Recent studies have shown that adaptive evolution in Darwin's finches occurred relatively quickly. Our data show that among the relatives of Darwin's finches, the evolution of bill diversity was also rapid and extensive.     

Darwin and the Galápagos

Charles Darwin's historic visit to the Galápagos Islands in 1835 represents a landmark in the annals of science. But contrary to the legend long surrounding Darwin's famous Galápagos visit, he continued to believe that species were immutable for nearly a year and a half after leaving these islands. This delay in Darwin's evolutionary appreciation of the Galápagos evidence is largely owing to numerous misconceptions that he entertained about the islands, and their unique organic inhabitants, during the Beagle voyage. For example, Darwin mistakenly thought that the Galápagos tortoise–adult specimens of which he did not collect for scientific purposes–was not native to these islands. Hence he apparently interpreted reports of island-to-island differences among the tortoises as analogous to changes that are commonly undergone by species removed from their natural habitats. As for Darwin's finches, Darwin initially failed to recognize the closely related nature of the group, mistaking certain species for the forms that they appear, through adaptive radiation, to mimic. Moreover, what locality information he later published for his Galápagos finch specimens was derived almost entirely from the collections of three other Beagle shipmates, following his return to England. Even after he became an evolutionist, in March of 1837 (when he discussed his Galápagos birds with the eminent ornithologist John Gould), Darwin's theoretical understanding of evolution in the Galápagos continued to undergo significant developments for almost as many years as it took him to publish the Origin of Species (1859). The Darwin-Galápagos legend, with its romantic portrait of Darwin's 'eureka-like' insight into the Galápagos as a microcosmic 'laboratory of evolution', masks the complex nature of scientific discovery, and, thereby, the real nature of Darwin's genius.     

Darwin's evolutionary philosophy: The laws of change

The philosophical or metaphysical architecture of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is analyzed and diflussed. It is argued that natural selection was for Darwin a paradigmatic case of a natural law of change — an exemplar of what Ghiselin (1969) has called selective retention laws. These selective retention laws lie at the basis of Darwin's revolutionary world view. In this essay special attention is paid to the consequences for Darwin's concept of species of his selective retention laws. Although Darwin himself explicity supported a variety of nominalism, implicit in the theory of natural selection is a solution to the dispute between nominalism and realism. It is argued that, although implicit, this view plays a very important role in Darwin's theory of natural selection as the means for the origin of species. It is in the context of these selective retention laws and their philosophical implications that Darwin's method is appraised in the light of recent criticisms, and the conclusion drawn that he successfully treated some philosophical problems by approaching them through natural history. Following this an outline of natural selection theory is presented in which all these philosophical issues are highlighted.     

Darwin on Aristotle

Charles Darwin's famous 1882 letter, in response to a gift by his friend, William Ogle of Ogle's recent translation of Aristotle's Parts of Animals, in which Darwin remarks that his “two gods,” Linnaeus and Cuvier, were “mere school-boys to old Aristotle,” has been thought to be only an extravagantly worded gesture of politeness. However, a close examination of this and other Darwin letters, and of references to Aristotle in Darwin's earlier work, shows that the famous letter was written several weeks after a first, polite letter of thanks, and was carefully formulated and literally meant. Indeed, it reflected an authentic, and substantial, increase in Darwin's already high respect for Aristotle, as a result of a careful reading both of Ogle's Introduction and of more or less the portion of Ogle's translation which Darwin says he has read. Aristotle's promotion to the pantheon, as an examination of the basis for Darwin's admiration of Linnaeus and Cuvier suggests, was most likely the result specifically of Darwin's late discovery that the man he already knew as “one of the greatest ... observers that ever lived” (1879) was also the ancient equivalent both of the great modern systematist and of the great modern advocate of comparative functional explanation. It may also have reflected some real insight on Darwin's part into the teleological aspect of Aristotle's thought, indeed more insight than Ogle himself had achieved, as a portion of their correspondence reveals. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Darwin was a teleologist

It is often claimed that one of Darwin's chief accomplishments was to provide biology with a non-teleological explanation of adaptation. A number of Darwin's closest associates, however, and Darwin himself, did not see it that way. In order to assess whether Darwin's version of evolutionary theory does or does not employ teleological explanation, two of his botanical studies are examined. The result of this examination is that Darwin sees selection explanations of adaptations as teleological explanations. The confusion in the nineteenth century about Darwin's attitude to teleology is argued to be a result of Darwin's teleological explanations not conforming to either of the dominant philosophical justifications of teleology at that time. Darwin's explanatory practices conform well, however, to recent defenses of the teleological character of selection explanations.I would like to thank John Beatty, David Hull and one of this journal's readers for constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

Humboldt,Darwin, and population

Conclusions I have attempted to clarify some of the pathways in the development of Darwin's thinking. The foregoing examples of influence by no means include all that can be found by comparing Darwin's writings with Humboldt's. However, the above examples seem adequate to show the nature and extent of this influence. It now seems clear that Humboldt not only, as had been previously known, inspired Darwin to make a voyage of exploration, but also provided him with his basic orientation concerning how and what to observe and how to write about it. An important part of what Darwin assimilated from Humboldt was an appreciation of population analysis as a tool for assessing the state of societies and of the benefits and hardships which these societies can expect to receive from the living world around them.Darwin exhibited in his Journal of Researches a casual interest in the economic and political conditions of the countries he visited, but these considerations were much less important to him than to Humboldt. Instead, Darwin, with the assistance of Lyell's Principles of Geology, shifted from Humboldt's largely economic framework to a biological one built around the species question. This shift led Darwin away from a consideration of how the population biology of animals was related to man's economy to focus instead upon how population biology fitted into the economy of nature.Humboldt's Personal Narrative served very well as a model for Darwin's Journal of Researches, thereby helping Darwin gain scientific eminence. The Journal of Researches, like virtually all of Humboldt's writings, was a contribution to scientific orthodoxy. But Darwin had, along the way, acquired an urge to do more than just add his building blocks to the orthodox scientific edifice. He decided to rearrange those blocks of knowledge into a different structure, and for that task neither Humboldt's Personal Narrative nor any other of his works could serve as a model. Humboldt had lacked the confidence which Darwin needed that biogeography and the origin of species could be understood. Humboldt had not explored very far the possible connections between biology and geology. Nor had he provided a general synthetic account of population biology. Had he done so, he might have been more explicit about the extent of his endorsement of Malthus. But even if he had, Humboldt's strong orientation toward cooperation would probably have inhibited his recognition of the importance of competition in nature.Lyell, who had also benefited from reading Humboldt, gave Darwin insights that were lacking in Humboldt's Personal Narrative. Lyell admirably demonstrated how stratigraphy, paleontology, biogeography, and population biology could be interrelated, and his reasons for doing so were essentially the same as Darwin's. Lyell's understanding of biogeography and ecology came from the writings of Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle as much as from Humboldt's, and from the former Lyell derived an appreciation for the importance of competition and also a confidence that the mysteries of biogeography could be explained.¹¹⁷ Furthermore, Lyell's discussion of all these subjects and also of evolution in his Principles of Geology is a good synthetic argument that was the ideal model for Darwin's greatest book.Darwin, having become convinced that species change through time, was able to synthesize in his mind the contributions which he had derived from the writings of Humboldt and Lyell as they applied to the species question. When Darwin wrote his Journal of Researches there were two large gaps in his thinking about evolution that bothered him—the mechanism of evolution and the causes of extinction. It was only after reading Malthus in 1838 that he realized, as Lyell had more or less pointed out, how important was competition in nature. He now had the general outlines for his theory, and in the 1845 abridged edition of his Journal, now retitled The Voyage of the Beagle, he inserted a fuller discussion of competition in nature which showed his awareness of its importance as an ecological factor.¹¹⁸ An abridged version of this paper was presented at the meeting of the History of Science Society in Washington, D.C., on 29 December 1969.     

From Charles Darwin's botanical country-house studies to modern plant biology

As a student of theology at Cambridge University, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) attended the lectures of the botanist John S. Henslow (1796–1861). This instruction provided the basis for his life-long interest in plants as well as the species question. This was a major reason why in his book On the Origin of Species , which was published 150 years ago, Darwin explained his metaphorical phrase 'struggle for life' with respect to animals and plants. In this article, we review Darwin's botanical work with reference to the following topics: the struggle for existence in the vegetable kingdom with respect to the phytochrome-mediated shade avoidance response; the biology of flowers and Darwin's plant–insect co-evolution hypothesis; climbing plants and the discovery of action potentials; the power of movement in plants and Darwin's conflict with the German plant physiologist Julius Sachs; and light perception by growing grass coleoptiles with reference to the phototropins. Finally, we describe the establishment of the scientific discipline of Plant Biology that took place in the USA 80 years ago, and define this area of research with respect to Darwin's work on botany and the physiology of higher plants.     

On heliotropism in tendrils of Pisum sativum: A response to infrared irradiation

Summary In 1876, Darwin observed that tendrils of Pisum sativum oriented the long axis of their circumnutational sweep to keep it approximately normal to the direction of the sun's rays. Using various types of irradiation sources, the present study confirms Darwin's findings. Although blue light slightly increases the rate of circumnutation, only infrared irradiation (i.e. heat), effects the reorientation. The response can therefore be termed Diathermotropic. Diathermotropism in circumnutating tendrils is probably a device to bend the leaves of the elongating weak-stemmed plant away from the shade and toward the sun.     

Understanding emotions in primates: in honor of Darwin's 200th birthday

In the bicentenary year of Darwin's birth, the American Society of Primatologists honored his memory by convening a symposium entitled "Understanding emotions in primates: In honor of Darwin's 200th birthday." The four articles in this special section, excepting this introduction, derive from that symposium. The section confirms that the topic of emotion is once again, as in Darwin's lifetime, the subject of wide-ranging, theoretically exciting research, and that studies with nonhuman primates are at the leading edge of a rapidly changing field.     

Island selection on mammalian life-histories: genetic differentiation in offspring size

Background  

Since Darwin's pioneering work, evolutionary changes in isolated island populations of vertebrates have continued to provide the strongest evidence for the theory of natural selection. Besides macro-evolutionary changes, micro-evolutionary changes and the relative importance of natural selection vs. genetic drift are under intense investigation. Our study focuses on the genetic differentiation in morphological and life-history traits in insular populations of a small mammal the bank vole Myodes glareolus.     

Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps

The handicap principle is a simple but powerful metaphor that has had a major impact on how biologists study and understand sexual selection. Here, I show that its application to signalling in sexual selection is not a valid generalization from its roots in economics. Although some signalling systems, with additive costs and benefits, have solutions that resemble sports handicaps, the signalling in sexual selection has multiplicative costs and benefits, and solutions that do not resemble sports handicaps. The sports analogy is technically incorrect, metaphorically misleading and a poor guide for empirical research on the signalling in sexual selection. The evolution of sexually selected signals is not a missing piece of Darwin's puzzle; it is an integral piece of the process of evolution by natural selection, and it should be approached with the same tools that we bring to bear on the evolution of other correlated traits involved in social interactions.     

The search for a macroevolutionary theory in German paleontology

Summary Six schools of thought can be detected in the development of evolutionary theory in German paleontology between 1859 and World War II. Most paleontologists were hardly affected in their research by Darwin's Origin of Species. The traditionalists (School 1) accepted evolution within lower taxa (genera and families) but not for organisms in general. They also rejected Darwin's theory of selection. The early Darwinians (School 2) accepted Darwin's theory of transmutation and theory of selection as axioms and applied them fruitfully to the fossil record, thereby laying the foundation for the new research areas of phylogeny and paleo-biology. The enthusiasm of the early Darwinians faded when the fossil record and the problems of its interpretion became more widely known. The pluralists of the turn of the century (School 3) invented and adopted a wealth of hypothetical mechanisms in order to explain individual features of the fossil record. They failed, however, to provide one coherent theory. Dissatisfaction with this situation led to adoption of a dogmatic neo-Lamarckism (School 4), which was regarded as a coherent theory providing a fruitful research program. The rejection of the Lamarckian mechanism early in this century left paleontologists with only one kind of evolutionary mechanism: inner causes.Like many neo-Lamarckians several orthogeneticists (School 5) were highly interested in adaptation and did not see any contradiction between the inner causes of evolution and adaptation. The dominance of stratigraphical research programs in paleontology led in the 1930s and 1940s to a decrease in interest in adaptation. Stratigraphical records of taxa were accepted as meaningful in the context of evolutionary theory. Orthogenesis and the new concepts of saltation and cyclicism were amalgamated into one theory: typostrophism (School 6). This theory dominated German paleontology for decades after the war and only recently has the synthetic theory been seriously considered.Evolution was never very intensively discussed in German paleontology in the hundred years after Darwin's book. Most information used here comes from textbooks or from papers given on special occasions. It has been impossible to summarize how members of one school defended their views or discussed the ideas of competing schools.     

Darwin's artificial selection as an experiment

Darwin used artificial selection (ASN) extensively and variedly in his theorizing. Darwin used ASN as an analogy to natural selection; he compared artificial to natural varieties, hereditary variation in nature to that in the breeding farm; and he also compared the overall effectiveness of the two processes. Most historians and philosophers of biology have argued that ASN worked as an analogical field in Darwin's theorizing. I will argue rather that this provides a limited and somewhat muddled view of Darwinian science. I say "limited" because I will show that Darwin also used ASN as a complex experimental field. And I say "muddled" because, if we concentrate on the analogical role exclusively, we conceive Darwinian science as rather disconnected from contemporary conceptions of "good science". I will argue that ASN should be conceived as a multifaceted experiment. As a traditional experiment, ASN established the efficacy of Darwin's preferred cause: natural selection. As a non-traditional experiment, ASN disclosed the nature of a crucial element in Darwin's evolutionary mechanics: the nature of hereditary variation. Finally, I will argue that the experiment conception should help us make sense of Darwin's comments regarding the "monstrous" nature of domestic breeds traditionally considered to be problematic.     

On the origin of Darwin's finches

Darwin's finches comprise a group of 15 species endemic to the Galápagos (14 species) and Cocos (1 species) Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The group is monophyletic and originated from an ancestral species that reached the Galápagos Archipelago from Central or South America. Descendants of this ancestor on the Archipelago then colonized Cocos Island. In the present study, we used sequences of two mitochondrial (mt) DNA segments (922 bp of the cytochrome b gene and 1,082 bp of the control region), as well as two nuclear markers (830 bp of numt2, consisting of 140 bp of mtDNA control region and 690 bp of flanking nuclear DNA; and 740 bp of numt3, consisting of 420 bp of mt cytochrome b sequence flanked by 320 bp of nuclear DNA) to identify the species group most closely related to the Darwin's finches. To this end, we analyzed the sequences of 28 species representing the main groups (tribes) of the family Fringillidae, as well as 2 outgroup species and 13 species of Darwin's finches. In addition, we used mtDNA cytochrome b sequences of some 180 additional Fringillidae species from the database for phylogeny reconstruction by maximum-parsimony, maximum-likelihood, minimum-evolution, and neighbor-joining methods. The study identifies the grassquit genus Tiaris, and specifically the species Tiaris obscura, as the nearest living relative of Darwin's finches among the species surveyed. Darwin's finches diverged from the Tiaris group shortly after the various extant species of Tiaris diverged from one another. The initial adaptive radiation of the Tiaris group apparently occurred on the Caribbean islands and then spread to Central and South America, from where the ancestors of Darwin's finches departed for the Galápagos Islands approximately 2.3 MYA, at the time of the dramatic climatic changes associated with the closure of the Panamanian isthmus and the onset of Pleistocene glaciation.     

Darwin's changing views on evolution: from centres of origin and teleology to vicariance and incomplete lineage sorting

It is a strange fact that in many ways the first edition of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is closer to modern neodarwinism than the sixth and last edition. Sometimes this is attributed to a decline in the quality of the argument, but the opposite interpretation is given here. It is suggested that Darwin's early work on evolution is naïve and based on the two creationist principles of centre of origin and teleology (panselectionism). This fusion later became the 'modern synthesis'. However, after the first edition of the Origin , Darwin developed a non-teleological synthesis that integrated natural selection with what he called 'laws of growth'– phylogenetic/morphogenetic trends or tendencies. Discussion of Darwin's later, more sophisticated model of evolution has been suppressed in the teleological modern synthesis, but similar ideas are re-emerging in current work on molecular phylogenetics and biogeography. This indicates that the ancestor of a group can be diverse in its morphology and its ecology, that this diversity can be inherited, and that groups usually originate over a broad region and not at a single point.     

Further evidence for Darwin's pangenesis.

Darwin's pangenesis, a developmental theory of heredity, has been largely thought to be wrong for more than a century. In this paper, further evidence for the inheritance of acquired characters and graft hybridization is provided. A striking similarity between mRNA and Darwin's so-called gemmule has been found by comparing their nature and function. I propose that once the term gemmule has been replaced by mRNA, Darwin's pangenesis will revive, indicating an important step in biology.     

Darwin and the linguists: the coevolution of mind and language, part 2. The language-thought relationship

This paper examines Charles Darwin's idea that language-use and humanity's unique cognitive abilities reinforced each other's evolutionary emergence-an idea Darwin sketched in his early notebooks, set forth in his Descent of man (1871), and qualified in Descent's second (1874) edition. Darwin understood this coevolution process in essentially Lockean terms, based on John Locke's hints about the way language shapes thinking itself. Ironically, the linguist Friedrich Max Müller attacked Darwin's human descent theory by invoking a similar thesis, the German romantic notion of an identity between language and thought. Although Darwin avoided outright contradiction, when he came to defend himself against Müller's attacks, he undercut some of his own argumentation in favor of the coevolution idea. That is, he found it difficult to counter Müller's argument while also making a case for coevolution. Darwin's efforts in this area were further complicated by British and American writers who held a naturalistic view of speech origins yet still taught that language had been invented by fully evolved homo sapiens, thus denying coevolution.     

Darwin's use of the analogy between artificial and natural selection

Conclusion The central role played by Darwin's analogy between selection under domestication and that under nature has been adequately appreciated, but I have indicated how important the domesticated organisms also were to other elements of Darwin's theory of evolution-his recognition of the constant principle of change, for instance, of the imperfection of adaptation, and of the extent of variation in nature. The further development of his theory and its presentation to the public likewise hinged on frequent reference to domesticates.We have seen that Darwin's reliance on the analogy between domesticated varieties and wild species was a bold and original step, in light of contemporary views on the nature of domesticates. However, as Darwin undoubtedly foresaw, his reliance on the analogy created difficulties as well as solving problems, and these began with his Malthusian codiscoverer of the principle of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace's paper On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type, presented to the Linnean Scoiety along with the first public unveiling of Darwin's theory, states: We see, then, that no inferences as to varieties in a state of nature can be deduced from the observation of those occurring among domestic animals. The two are so much opposed to each other in every circumstance of their existence, that what applies to the one is almost sure not to apply to the other. Domestic animals are abnormal, irregular, artificial; they are subject to varieties which never occur and never can occur in a state of nature.⁶² Much has been made of the similarity of views of Darwin and Wallace, but this quotation surely reveals how utterly different their views were on what to Darwin was an important matter. Several critics of the Origin saw Darwin's reliance on the domesticates as his Achilles heel. As Young has pointed out, Samuel Wilberforce included the following passage in his attack on the Origin: Nor must we pass over unnoticed the transference of the argument from the domesticated to the untamed animals. Assuming that man as the selector can do much in a limited time, Mr. Darwin argues that Nature, a more powerful, a more continuous power, working over vastly extended ranges of time, can do more. But why should Nature, so uniform and persistent in all her operations, tend in this instance to change? Why should she become a selector of varieties?⁶³ Another critic, Fleeming Jenkin, found the analogy a weakness in Darwin's theory because of the limited extent of variation in any one direction in domestic animals and plants.⁶⁴ We have already seen that Darwin had confided a similar view to his notebook thirty years earlier, but changed his mind as a result of his profound study of domesticates. De Beer's reference to an English country gentleman's knowledge of domestic plants and animals and their breeding⁶⁵ fails totally to recognize the originality and depth of Darwin's knowledge of domesticates.Why did Darwin, against the currents of his time, rely so heavily on mankind's experience with domesticated organisms to shape his theory about species in nature? On reason is that only with domesticates was an approach that came close to experimental verification possible. Darwin fully realized the inadequacies of the experiment, as is emphasized by his repeated contrasting of selection under nature and selection by man. Yet the extensive experience and data of plant and animal breeders offered the only reliable base against which Darwin could continually challenge his views. As he wrote in the introduction to Variation, with domestication, man ... may be said to have been trying an experiment on a gigantic scale.⁶⁶ Given Darwin's high opinion of the quantitative work of Malthus and Quetelet (as emphasized by Schweber),⁶⁷ and his unremitting efforts to secure data by which to test his theories, it was inevitable that he should attach high significance to domesticated varieties. John Tyndall, in his Belfast address of 1874, said: The strength of the doctrine of Evolution consists, not in experimental demonstration (for the subject is hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in its general harmony with scientific thought.⁶⁸ Darwin would have agreed with the latter thought, but I think he would have challenged the preceding one on the grounds that long experience with domesticated varieties did provide an element of experimental demonstration. It gave him confidence in his theory, and he used his vast knowledge of artificial selection boldly and creatively.