Belief versus acceptance: Why do people not believe in evolution?

Despite being an established and accepted scientific theory for 150 years, repeated public polls show that evolution is not believed by large numbers of people. This essay examines why people do not accept evolution and argues that its poor representation in some science textbooks allows misconceptions, established and reinforced in early childhood, to take hold. There is also a lack of up‐to‐date examples of evidence for evolution in school textbooks. Poor understanding by science graduates and teachers of the nature of science and incorrect definitions by them of key terminology, serve only to undermine efforts to improve public understanding of evolution. This paper has several recommendations, including the introduction of evolution to primary age children and a call to bring evolution back as the central tenet of biology.     

Multiple Explanations in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

Variational evolutionary theory as advocated by Darwin is not a single theory, but a bundle of related but independent theories, namely: (a) variational evolution; (b) gradualism rather than large leaps; (c) processes of phyletic evolution and of speciation; (d) causes for the formation of varying individuals in populations and for the action of selective agents; and (e) all organisms evolved from a common ancestor. The first four are nomological-deductive explanations and the fifth is historical-narrative. Therefore evolutionary theory must be divided into nomological and historical theories which are both testable against objective empirical observations. To be scientific, historical evolutionary theories must be based on well corroborated nomological theories, both evolutionary and functional. Nomological and general historical evolutionary theories are well tested and must be considered as strongly corroborated scientific theories. Opponents of evolutionary theory are concerned only with historical evolutionary theories, having little interest in nomological theory. Yet given a well corroborated nomological evolutionary theory, historical evolutionary theories follow automatically. If understood correctly, both forms of evolutionary theories stand on their own as corroborated scientific theories and should not be labeled as facts.     

Explanations in evolutionary theory1

The theory of biological evolution is defined in many ways, leading to considerable confusion in its application and testing against objective empirical observations. Evolutionary change is usually defined as genetic which would exclude both cultural and template evolution; hence the qualifying adjective genetic should not be included in the definition of biological evolution. Darwin's theory, always described by him in the singular, is actually a bundle of five independent theories about evolution as advocated by Mayr. Furthermore only one of these theories, that of common descent, is historical, and the other four – evolution as such, gradualism, processes of phyletic evolution and of speciation, and causes of evolution – are nomological. Hence not all evolutionary theory is historical. Biological comparisons can be divided into horizontal and vertical ones and valid conclusions from one type of comparisons cannot be automatically extrapolated to the other. All phyletic evolutionary change, no matter how extensive it may be, never crosses species taxa boundaries; hence it is not possible to distinguish ‘trans‐specific evolution’ (= evolution beyond or above the level of the species) from evolution within the species level. Macroevolution does not differ from microevolution except in the scale of the overall change; no special causes or processes of macroevolution exist.     

Misconceptions About Evolution in Brazilian Freshmen Students

Regarding such an important issue as our origin, as well as the origin of all biological diversity, it is surprising to realize that evolution still faces drawbacks in keeping its deserved notability as a unifying theory in biology. This does not happen because evolutionism lacks validity as a scientific theory, but rather because of several misconceptions regarding evolutionary biology that were and continue to be found in elementary and secondary education. Furthermore, mistaken evolutionary ideas also affect some philosophical and social issues. The aim of the present study was to evaluate knowledge about evolution among freshman students from distinct majoring areas at Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste do Paraná (UNICENTRO), Brazil. The research was carried out based on a ten-question questionnaire about evolution with distinct levels of difficulty, comprising the most observed misconceptions. In this study, 231 students attending classes in biological sciences (morning and evening schedule), exact sciences (agronomy, physics, chemistry, and math), and human sciences (history, geography, and pedagogy) were interviewed. The total average of right answers was 48.8%, and the highest average per course obtained was 58.7% from the students attending biological sciences (evening schedule). Although evolutionary biology and ecology are supposed to represent teaching guide issues according to the recommendations of the National Curricular Parameters for the Secondary School, the data obtained suggest that the evidence for evolution, the role of natural selection and random events, as well as the sources of variation, must be better focused at schools.     

Bioaltruism reconsidered

Altruistic behavior is often regarded as sociobiology's most central theoretical problem, but is it? Altruism in biology, bioaltruism, has many meanings, which can be grouped into two categories. The first I will callcommon bioaltruism. It is primarily of ethological relevance. The second,evolutionary bioaltruism, is a special category in evolutionary respects in that it may indeed pose a problem for evolutionary theory. These categories are logically independent. Moreover, both of them are logically different from altruism in its everyday psychological or moral sense. Sociobiological examples of bioaltruistic behavior concern bioaltruism in the first sense only, so the theoretical problem ‘altruism’ is supposed to pose, is indeed nothing but a theoretical problem and the bioaltruism that actually occurs has no evolutionary relevance. Nevertheless, evolutionary theory is relevant to our understanding of the possibility of common bioaltruism, and that possibility — even though bioaltruism is conceptually different from ethical altruism — is relevant for ethicists: it sheds light on what we can ask people to do or not to do.     

Non-conflict theories for the evolution of genomic imprinting

Theories focused on kinship and the genetic conflict it induces are widely considered to be the primary explanations for the evolution of genomic imprinting. However, there have appeared many competing ideas that do not involve kinship/conflict. These ideas are often overlooked because kinship/conflict is entrenched in the literature, especially outside evolutionary biology. Here we provide a critical overview of these non-conflict theories, providing an accessible perspective into this literature. We suggest that some of these alternative hypotheses may, in fact, provide tenable explanations of the evolution of imprinting for at least some loci.     

The weird eusociality of polyembryonic parasites

Some parasitoid wasps possess soldier castes during their parasitic larval stage, but are often neglected from our evolutionary theories explaining caste systems in animal societies. This is primarily due to the polyembryonic origin of their societies. However, recent discoveries of polyembryonic trematodes (i.e. flatworms) possessing soldier castes require us to reconsider this reasoning. I argue we can benefit from including these polyembryonic parasites in eusocial discussions, for polyembryony and parasitism are taxonomically vast and influence the evolution of social behaviours and caste systems in various circumstances. Despite their polyembryony, their social evolution can be explained by theories of eusociality designed for parent–offspring groups, which are the subjects of most social evolution research. Including polyembryonic parasites in these theories follows the trend of major evolutionary transitions theory expanding social evolution research into all levels of biological organization. In addition, these continued discoveries of caste systems in parasites suggest social evolution may be more relevant to parasitology than currently acknowledged.     

An international study ofyoung peoples' drawings of what is inside themselves

This paper reviews the question of why the presentation of evolution in class frequently does not achieve acceptance of the evolutionary theory. In general, problems are twofold. Firstly, students may come to this particular topic with strong preconceptions, often based on specific religious teachings. Secondly, teachers may or may not bring an informed and/or dedicated approach to the teaching of evolution, relating to what they themselves were taught. Additional to our review of this topic and its problems, we suggest the use of a simple ‘test’ formulated, not on trying to impose knowledge and belief of evolution on the student, but on directing students towards the application of information on evolution to material already familiar to them. In this process, it is hoped that students will naturally incorporate at least some of the ideas of evolution into their own belief systems. Students are thus encouraged to assess or reassess evolution in terms of what they already consider to be true from their own experiences. Preliminary results (two trial runs) using this questionnaire indicate that students readily apply information with which they are familiar to Darwinian principles, and vice versa. These results, including verbal and written comments, also suggest that this ‘test’ may be meaningful as a first step towards acceptance of evolutionary theory. Teachers may find our questionnaire useful in determining a student's ability to understand evolutionary theory, and in exploring connections between understanding of and belief in evolution. Reviewed by Will H. Blackwell     

Similarities and Varieties: A Brief Sketch on the Reception of Darwinism and Sociobiology in Japan

This paper discusses the reception of Darwinian evolutionary theory and sociobiology in Japan. Darwinism was introduced into Japan in the late 19th century and Japanese people readily accepted the concept of evolution because, lacking Christianity, there was no religious opposition. However, the theory of evolution was treated as a kind of social scientific tool, i.e., social Spencerism and eugenics. Although evolutionary biology was developed during the late 19th and the early 20th century, orthodox Darwinian theory was neglected for a long time. In the mid 1980s, sociobiology was introduced but it was ignored and criticized by a large part of the ecologist-evolutionist community in Japan. This hostile attitude was due to the absence of Darwinism among these scientists. Compared with the reception of sociobiology in English-speaking countries, there were both similarities and differences in Japan.     

Arguments against non-programmed aging theories

Until recently, non-programmed theories of biological aging were popular because of the widespread perception that the evolution process could not support the development and retention of programmed aging in mammals. However, newer evolutionary mechanics theories including group selection, kin selection, and evolvability theory support mammal programmed aging, and multiple programmed aging theories have been published based on the new mechanics. Some proponents of non-programmed aging still contend that their non-programmed theories are superior despite the new mechanics concepts. However, as summarized here, programmed theories provide a vastly better fit to empirical evidence and do not suffer from multiple implausible assumptions that are required by non-programmed theories. This issue is important because programmed theories suggest very different mechanisms for the aging process and therefore different mechanisms behind highly age-related diseases and conditions such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke.     

The evolution of theory of mind on welfare tradeoff ratios

People seem to attribute beliefs and desires to another person when interacting with them. Such a “theory of mind” capacity is essential for complex and uniquely human behavior such as language, but its evolutionary origin remains elusive. Using the formal tools of evolutionary game theory, we asked what environmental properties are necessary to select for a basic form of theory of mind—the ability to infer the prosociality, quantified by the welfare tradeoff ratio, of another person toward oneself. We found that none of the environments studied in classical or evolutionary game theory give an advantage to this form of theory of mind capacities; theory of mind is advantageous only in a new class of environments with stable opponents and variable payoff structures. In two behavioral experiments (n = 91) we verified that people can, and do use theory of mind in such an environment. These results suggest that some features of early humans’ social environment that were previously neglected in evolutionary game theory may be responsible for the evolution of people’s complex social capacities.     

The Significance of Non-vertical Transmission of Phenotype for the Evolution of Altruism

My aim in this paper is to demonstrate that a very simple learning rule based on imitation can help to sustain altruism as a culturally transmitted pattern or behaviour among agents playing a standard prisoner’s dilemma game. The point of this demonstration is not to prove that imitation is single-handedly responsible for existing levels of altruism (a thesis that is false), nor is the point to show that imitation is an important factor in explanations for the evolution of altruism (a thesis already prominent in the existing literature). The point is to show that imitation contributes to the evolution of altruism in a particular way that is not always fairly represented by evolutionary game theory models. Specifically, the paper uses a simple model to illustrate that cultural transmission includes mechanisms that do not transmit phenotype vertically (i.e. from parent to related offspring) and that these mechanisms can promote altruism in the absence of any direct biological propensity favouring such behaviour. This is a noteworthy result because it shows that evolutionary models can be built to explicitly reflect the contribution of non-vertical transmission in our explanations for the evolution of altruism among humans and other social species.     

Genetic versus phenotypic models of selection: can genetics be neglected in a long-term perspective?

Game theoretical concepts in evolutionary biology have been criticized by populations geneticists, because they neglect such crucial aspects as the mating system or the mode of inheritance. In fact, the dynamics of natural selection does not necessarily lead to a fitness maximum or an ESS if genetic constraints are taken into account. Yet, it may be premature to conclude that game theoretical concepts do not have a dynamical justification. The new paradigm of long-term evolution postulates that genetic constraints, which may be dominant in a short-term perspective, will in the long run disappera in the face of the ongoing influx of mutations. Two basic results (see Hammerstein; this issue) seem to reconcile the dynamical approach of long-term population genetics with the static approach of evolutionary game theory: (1) only populations at local fitness optima (Nash strategies) can be long-term stable; and (2) in monomorphic populations, evolutionary stability is necessary and sufficient to ensure long-term dynamic stability. The present paper has a double purpose. On the one hand, it is demonstrated by fairly general arguments that the scope of the results mentioned above extends to non-linear frequency dependent selection, to multiple loci, and to quite general mating systems. On the other hand, some limitations of the theory of long-term evolution will also be stressed: (1) there is little hope for a game theoretical characterization of stability in polymorphic populations; (2) many interesting systems do not admit long-term stable equilibria; and (3) even if a long-term stable equilibrium exists, it is not at all clear whether and how it is attainable by a series of gene substition events.     

Amoebae as Exemplary Cells: The Protean Nature of an Elementary Organism

In the nineteenth century protozoology and early cell biology intersected through the nexus of Darwin’s theory of evolution. As single-celled organisms, amoebae offered an attractive focus of study for researchers seeking evolutionary relationships between the cells of humans and other animals, and their primitive appearance made them a favourite model for the ancient ancestor of all living things. Their resemblance to human and other metazoan cells made them popular objects of study among morphologists, physiologists, and even those investigating animal behaviour. The amoeba became the exemplar of the new protoplasmic cell concept of mid-century and because its apparent simplicity made it widely generalizable it became a popular subject in a breadth of experimental investigations and theoretical speculations. It was able to do this because “the amoeba” denotes not a particular organism, but a general type of behaviour common to the cells of a range of protozoa, simple plants and higher animals. Its status as an exemplary cell also rested upon auxiliary philosophical assumptions about what constitutes a primitive characteristic and the thesis that evolution is a progressive development of order from chaos.     

The role of interspecific competition in the biogeography of island lizards

There is increasing evidence that interspecific competition has set important constraints on the distribution, abundance and evolution of island lizards. This is surprising not because competition is rare but because for a biogeographic pattern caused by species interactions to be detectable, it must be strong enough to override the many physical and historical differences that exist among real islands. Moreover, the direct pairwise links between species, once embedded in the complicated network of species interactions in entire communities, may become diluted and confused by the indirect interactions of still other species, particularly predators. Nevertheless, if competition is strong and if communities are simple (as they are on many species-poor islands), competition leaves its fingerprint on the ecological and evolutionary trajectories taken by island lizards.     

Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. XII. Against Evolutionary Ethics

Evolutionary ethics has recently become popular again. Some of its representatives elaborate new attempts to derive ethics from evolutionary biology. The attempts, like previous ones, fail because they commit the naturalistic fallacy. Premises from evolutionary biology together with normative premises also do not justify ethical principles. Other representatives argue that evolutionary considerations imply that ethics cannot be justified at all. Their arguments presuppose an unacceptable form of foundationalism. In principle, evolutionary biology might explain some aspects of morality, but in practice explanations are hard to come by. All this does not imply that evolutionary theory is irrelevant in normative settings. To the contrary, it may help us devise guidelines in environmental policy and health care policy. It is to be hoped that evolutionary ethicists will divert their research efforts to the elaboration of such guidelines.     

生物进化研究的回顾与展望

生物进化是自然科学的永恒之迷。随着历史的发展和科学的进步,生物进化思想从早期的萌芽,到自然选择学说、新达尔文主义,从现代综合理论,到分子进化的中性学说。再到新灾变论和点断平衡论等。当前,由于生物学各分支学科的飞速发展．它们就各自的研究对象在宏观和微观上不断地拓展和深入,并在不同的层次上形成了广泛的交叉、渗透和融合,现代的进化生物学研究从宏观的表型到微观的分子,从群体遗传改变的微进化到成种事件以及地史上生物类群谱系演化的宏进化,从直接的化石证据到基于形态性状、分子证据和环境变迁的综合推理,从基于遗传基础的比较基因组学到演化机理的进化发育生物学等。可以预见,在新的世纪里,在哲学和具体方法论(如系统论、控制论和信息论)的指导下,在生命科学、其他自然科学乃至社会科学工作者的通力合作下,综合遗传、发育和进化等研究领域的各种理论成果,生物进化理论即将出现也一定会出现的一个新的大综合和新的大统一。     

Are There Laws of Genome Evolution?

Research in quantitative evolutionary genomics and systems biology led to the discovery of several universal regularities connecting genomic and molecular phenomic variables. These universals include the log-normal distribution of the evolutionary rates of orthologous genes; the power law-like distributions of paralogous family size and node degree in various biological networks; the negative correlation between a gene's sequence evolution rate and expression level; and differential scaling of functional classes of genes with genome size. The universals of genome evolution can be accounted for by simple mathematical models similar to those used in statistical physics, such as the birth-death-innovation model. These models do not explicitly incorporate selection; therefore, the observed universal regularities do not appear to be shaped by selection but rather are emergent properties of gene ensembles. Although a complete physical theory of evolutionary biology is inconceivable, the universals of genome evolution might qualify as "laws of evolutionary genomics" in the same sense "law" is understood in modern physics.