Examining the Interaction of Acceptance and Understanding: How Does the Relationship Change with a Focus on Macroevolution?

The goal of this research was to illuminate the relationship between students’ acceptance and understanding of macroevolution. Our research questions were: (1) Is there a relationship between knowledge of macroevolution and acceptance of the theory of evolution?; (2) Is there a relationship between the amount of college level biology course work and acceptance of evolutionary theory and knowledge of macroevolution?; and (3) Can college student acceptance of the theory of evolution and knowledge of macroevolution change over the course of a semester? The research participants included 667 students from a first-semester biology course and 74 students from the evolutionary biology course. Data were collected using both the MATE (a measure of the acceptance of evolutionary theory) and the MUM (a measure of understanding of macroevolution). Pre-instruction data were obtained for the introductory biology course, and pre- and post-data were obtained for the evolutionary biology course. Analysis revealed acceptance of evolution (as measured by the MATE) was correlated to understanding of macroevolution, and the number of biology courses was significantly correlated to acceptance and knowledge of macroevolution. Finally, there was a statistically significant change in students’ understanding of macroevolution and acceptance of evolution after the one-semester evolutionary biology course. Significance of these findings is discussed.     

对我国分子生态学研究近期发展战略的一些思考

分子生态学是多学科交叉的整合性研究领域, 是运用进化生物学理论解决宏观生物学问题的科学。经过半个多世纪的发展, 本学科已日趋成熟, 它不仅已经广泛渗透到宏观生物学的众多学科领域, 而且已经成为连接和融合很多不同学科的桥梁, 是目前最具活力的研究领域之一。其研究的范畴, 从最基础的理论和方法技术, 到格局和模式的发现和描述, 到对过程和机制的深入探讨, 再到付诸于实践的行动和规划指导等各个层次。分子生态学的兴起给宏观生物学带来了若干飞跃性的变化, 使宏观生物学由传统的以观察、测量和推理为主的描述性研究转变为以从生物和种群的遗传构成的变化和历史演化背景上检验、证明科学假设及揭示机制和规律为主的机制性/解释性研究, 因而使得对具有普遍意义的科学规律、生态和进化过程及机制的探索成为可能。分子生态学已经进入组学研究时代, 这使得阐明复杂生态过程、生物地理过程和适应性演化过程的机制性研究由原来难以企及的梦想变成完全可以实现的探求; 它也带来了全新的挑战, 其中最有深远影响的将是对分子生态学研究至关重要的进化生物学基础理论方面的突破, 例如遗传变异理论、种群分化理论、表观遗传因素的作用, 乃至进化生物学的基本知识构架等等。这些方面的进展必将使宏观生物学迎来一场空前的革命, 并对生态学的所有分支学科产生重大影响, 甚至催生诸如生态表观组学这样的新分支学科。对于中国科学家来说, 分子生态学组学时代的开启, 更是一个千载难逢的机遇, 为提出和建立生命科学的新方法、新假说、新思想和新理论提供了莫大的探索空间——此前我们对宏观生物学方法、理论和思想的发展贡献很小。然而, 限制组学时代重大突破的关键因素是理论、概念、理念、实验方法或分析方法方面的创新和突破, 这正是我国分子生态学研究最薄弱的环节。我国教育部门应尽快调整生命科学本科生培养的理念和方法, 以培养具备突出创新潜力的年轻一代后备人才; 同时, 科研项目资助部门和研究人员不仅应清醒地认识本学科领域的发展态势, 更要及时调整思路, 树立新的项目管理理念和治学 理念。     

Evolutionary developmental biology its roots and characteristics

The rise of evolutionary developmental biology was not the progressive isolation and characterization of developmental genes and gene networks. Many obstacles had to be overcome: the idea that all genes were more or less involved in development; the evidence that developmental processes in insects had nothing in common with those of vertebrates.Different lines of research converged toward the creation of evolutionary developmental biology, giving this field of research its present heterogeneity. This does not prevent all those working in the field from sharing the conviction that a precise characterization of evolutionary variations is required to fully understand the evolutionary process.Some evolutionary developmental biologists directly challenge the Modern Synthesis. I propose some ways to reconcile these apparently opposed visions of evolution. The turbulence seen in evolutionary developmental biology reflects the present entry of history into biology.     

The naturalist in a world of genomics

Functional genomics provides new opportunities to address issues of fundamental interest in evolutionary biology and suggests many new research directions that are ripe for evolutionary investigation. New types of data, and the ability to study biological processes from a whole genome perspective, are likely to have a profound impact on evolutionary biology and ecology. To illustrate, we discuss how genomewide gene expression studies can be used to reformulate questions about trade-offs and pleiotropy. We then touch on some of the new research opportunities that the application of functional genomics affords to evolutionary biologists. We end with some brief notes about how evolutionary biology and comparative approaches will probably have an impact on functional genomics.     

Promises and limits of an agency perspective in evolutionary developmental biology

An agent-based perspective in the study of complex systems is well established in diverse disciplines, yet is only beginning to be applied to evolutionary developmental biology. In this essay, we begin by defining agency and associated terminology formally. We then explore the assumptions and predictions of an agency perspective, apply these to select processes and key concept areas relevant to practitioners of evolutionary developmental biology, and consider the potential epistemic roles that an agency perspective might play in evo devo. Throughout, we discuss evidence supportive of agential dynamics in biological systems relevant to evo devo and explore where agency thinking may enrich the explanatory reach of research efforts in evolutionary developmental biology.     

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.     

IS EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY STRATEGIC SCIENCE?

There is a profound need for the scientific community to be better aware of the policy context in which it operates. To address this need, Evolution has established a new Outlook feature section to include papers that explore the interface between society and evolutionary biology. This first paper in the series considers the strategic relevance of evolutionary biology. Support for scientific research in general is based on governmental or institutional expenditure that is an investment, and such investment is based on strategies designed to achieve particular outcomes, such as advance in particular areas of basic science or application. The scientific community can engage in the development of scientific strategies on a variety of levels, including workshops to explicitly develop research priorities and targeted funding initiatives to help define emerging scientific areas. Better understanding and communication of the scientific achievements of evolutionary biology, emphasizing immediate and potential societal relevance, are effective counters to challenges presented by the creationist agenda. Future papers in the Outlook feature section should assist the evolutionary biology community in achieving a better collective understanding of the societal relevance of their field.     

The uncertain foundation of neo-Darwinism: metaphysical and epistemological pluralism in the evolutionary synthesis

The Evolutionary Synthesis is often seen as a unification process in evolutionary biology, one which provided this research area with a solid common theoretical foundation. As such, neo-Darwinism is believed to constitute from this time onward a single, coherent, and unified movement offering research guidelines for investigations. While this may be true if evolutionary biology is solely understood as centred around evolutionary mechanisms, an entirely different picture emerges once other aspects of the founding neo-Darwinists’ views are taken into consideration, aspects potentially relevant to the elaboration of an evolutionary worldview: the tree of life, the ontological distinctions of the main cosmic entities (inert matter, biological organisms, mind), the inherent properties of self-organizing matter, evolutionary ethics, and so on. Profound tensions and inconsistencies are immediately revealed in the neo-Darwinian movement once this broader perspective is adopted. This pluralism is such that it is possible to identify at least three distinct and quasi-incommensurable epistemological/metaphysical frameworks as providing a proper foundation for neo-Darwinism. The analysis of the views of Theodosius Dobzhansky, Bernhard Rensch, and Ernst Mayr will illustrate this untenable pluralism, one which requires us to conceive of the neo-Darwinian research agenda as being conducted in more than one research programme or research tradition at the same time.     

RNA today. Molecular Evolution of Introns and Other RNA Elements: a Keystone Symposium, Taos, NM, USA, February 2-8, 1991.

RNA research is alive and well. The joyride for those studying the biochemistry and molecular biology of RNA continues, although perhaps not at the thrill-a-month pace of recent years. The Keystone Symposium provided an opportunity to gain deeper insight into RNA-based biological phenomena by attempting to place current research in an evolutionary context. In this sense the meeting was an unqualified success. The meeting participants, having been warmed by the New Mexico sun and the chile-laden cuisine, now return to their laboratories determined to pursue not only the details of RNA biochemistry and molecular biology, but also the evolutionary implications of their work.     

Toward an integration of evolutionary biology and ecosystem science

At present, the disciplines of evolutionary biology and ecosystem science are weakly integrated. As a result, we have a poor understanding of how the ecological and evolutionary processes that create, maintain, and change biological diversity affect the flux of energy and materials in global biogeochemical cycles. The goal of this article was to review several research fields at the interfaces between ecosystem science, community ecology and evolutionary biology, and suggest new ways to integrate evolutionary biology and ecosystem science. In particular, we focus on how phenotypic evolution by natural selection can influence ecosystem functions by affecting processes at the environmental, population and community scale of ecosystem organization. We develop an eco-evolutionary model to illustrate linkages between evolutionary change (e.g. phenotypic evolution of producer), ecological interactions (e.g. consumer grazing) and ecosystem processes (e.g. nutrient cycling). We conclude by proposing experiments to test the ecosystem consequences of evolutionary changes.     

What is speciation and how should we study it?

To understand speciation, we first need to know what species are. Yet debates over species concepts have seemed endless, with little obvious relevance to the study of speciation. Recently, there has been progress in resolving these debates, favoring a lineage-based, evolutionary species concept. This progress calls for reconsideration of the study of speciation. Traditional speciation research based on the biological species concept has led to great advances in understanding how nonallopatric speciation occurs and how species diverge and remain separate from each other. However, this research has neglected the question of how new species arise in the first place for the most common geographic mode (allopatric). A new and very different research program is needed to understand the ecological and evolutionary processes that split an ancestral species into new allopatric lineages. This research program will connect speciation to many other fundamental questions in evolutionary biology, ecology, biogeography, and conservation biology.     

花、基因、禾本科

进化发育生物学的一个重要任务就是揭示形态多样性的分子基础,该领域的研究包含形态、形态发育相关基因和形态所属类群等三个要素。花/花序是进化发育生物学研究的首要对象,系统发育重建和个体发育剖析的结合将促进认知花的形态进化。发育相关基因的进化表现为等位基因遗传或表观遗传的突变,基因家族生与死的进化,不同基因组拥有独特的基因。运用形态学或序列分析方法很大程度揭示了禾本科植物花进化过程中的基因进化。试从学科问题、思路方法以及具体例子介绍植物进化发育生物学。     

Michael Akam and the rise of evolutionary developmental biology

Michael Akam has been awarded the 2007 Kowalevsky medal for his many research accomplishments in the area of evolutionary developmental biology. We highlight three tributaries of Michael’s contribution to evolutionary developmental biology. First, he has made major contributions to our understanding of development of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Second, he has maintained a consistent focus on several key problems in evolutionary developmental biology, including the evolving role of Hox genes in arthropods and, more recently, the evolution of segmentation mechanisms. Third, Michael has written a series of influential reviews that have integrated progress in developmental biology into an evolutionary perspective. Michael has also made a large impact on the field through his effective mentorship style, his selfless promotion of younger colleagues, and his leadership of the University Museum of Zoology at Cambridge and the European community of evolutionary developmental biologist.     

厦门两种文昌鱼染色体的制备与观察(英文）

文昌鱼的进化地位十分重要,对其染色体的研究在进化和比较基因组学方面有重要意义。然而文昌鱼的染色体制备困难,使研究受到了限制。本文介绍了一种改良的文昌鱼胚胎细胞染色体标本制备方法,以及用文昌鱼成体再生细胞制备染色体,首次获得了文昌鱼体细胞中期染色体标本,并观察了厦门2种文昌鱼的染色体,其中白氏文昌鱼（Branchiostoma belcheri）二倍体2n=40,日本文昌鱼（B. japonicum）二倍体2n=36。再次从细胞分类学角度证实白氏文昌鱼和日本文昌鱼作为两个独立物种的分类地位。     

Using Tinbergen��s Four Questions (Plus One) to Facilitate Evolution Education for Human-Oriented Disciplines

Nikolaas Tinbergen provided an elegantly comprehensive guide to behavioral research with his Four Questions. Unsurprisingly, these questions summarize the different aspects that are vital to an evolutionary perspective. In this article, the authors describe how they use these Four Questions (plus one they have added regarding the role of culture) to facilitate evolution education in the human-oriented disciplines. The use of evolutionary theory in these fields is young, and educating new members of these fields in evolutionary theory is an even newer idea. Tinbergen’s Four Questions (Plus One) make the goals of an evolutionary perspective clear and the application of the mechanisms of evolution apparent. It can effectively dispel myths that surround evolutionary theory, like genetic determinism and hyperadaptationism, and can help ameliorate other ideological concerns. Finally, it is suggested that it is a heuristic that encourages students to make the transition from understanding the mechanisms of evolution in biology to applying this knowledge in cross-disciplinary research.     

Atmospheric carbon dioxide: a driver of photosynthetic eukaryote evolution for over a billion years?

Exciting evidence from diverse fields, including physiology, evolutionary biology, palaeontology, geosciences and molecular genetics, is providing an increasingly secure basis for robustly formulating and evaluating hypotheses concerning the role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO(2)) in the evolution of photosynthetic eukaryotes. Such studies span over a billion years of evolutionary change, from the origins of eukaryotic algae through to the evolution of our present-day terrestrial floras, and have relevance for plant and ecosystem responses to future global CO(2) increases. The papers in this issue reflect the breadth and depth of approaches being adopted to address this issue. They reveal new discoveries pointing to deep evidence for the role of CO(2) in shaping evolutionary changes in plants and ecosystems, and establish an exciting cross-disciplinary research agenda for uncovering new insights into feedbacks between biology and the Earth system.     

Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology

Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.     

Kowalevsky, comparative evolutionary embryology, and the intellectual lineage of evo-devo

Alexander Kowalevsky was one of the most significant 19th century biologists working at the intersection of evolution and embryology. The reinstatement of the Alexander Kowalevsky Medal by the St. Petersburg Society of Naturalists for outstanding contributions to understanding evolutionary relationships in the animal kingdom, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative zoology is timely now that Evo-devo has emerged as a major research discipline in contemporary biology. Consideration of the intellectual lineage of comparative evolutionary embryology explicitly forces a reconsideration of some current conceptions of the modern emergence of Evo-devo, which has tended to exist in the shadow of experimental embryology throughout the 20th century, especially with respect to the recent success of developmental biology and developmental genetics. In particular we advocate a sharper distinction between the heritage of problems and the heritage of tools for contemporary Evo-devo. We provide brief overviews of the work of N. J. Berrill and D. T. Anderson to illustrate comparative evolutionary embryology in the 20th century, which provides an appropriate contextualization for a conceptual review of our research on the sea urchin genus Heliocidaris over the past two decades. We conclude that keeping research questions rather than experimental capabilities at the forefront of Evo-devo may be an antidote to any repeat of the stagnation experienced by the first group of evolutionary developmental biologists over one hundred years ago and acknowledges Kowalevsky's legacy in evolutionary embryology.     

Origins of multicellular complexity: Volvox and the volvocine algae

The collection of evolutionary transformations known as the ‘major transitions’ or ‘transitions in individuality’ resulted in changes in the units of evolution and in the hierarchical structure of cellular life. Volvox and related algae have become an important model system for the major transition from unicellular to multicellular life, which touches on several fundamental questions in evolutionary biology. The Third International Volvox Conference was held at the University of Cambridge in August 2015 to discuss recent advances in the biology and evolution of this group of algae. Here, I highlight the benefits of integrating phylogenetic comparative methods and experimental evolution with detailed studies of developmental genetics in a model system with substantial genetic and genomic resources. I summarize recent research on Volvox and its relatives and comment on its implications for the genomic changes underlying major evolutionary transitions, evolution and development of complex traits, evolution of sex and sexes, evolution of cellular differentiation and the biophysics of motility. Finally, I outline challenges and suggest future directions for research into the biology and evolution of the volvocine algae.