VII. CORRECTING COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION
AND NATURAL SELECTION (See Freeman and Herron (2001) Chapter 3 sections
3.3-3.4 and the lecture notes on avoiding misconceptions
about natural selection)
Terms to know: primitive, derived, adaptation, phylogeny, evolution
Questions:
-
Distinguish between primitive traits and primitive species. Which
are more appropriate to talk about from an evolutionary perspective when
considering modern, extant species?
-
Many biologists refer to amphibians as primitive vertebrates and mammals
as advanced vertebrates. From an evolutionary point of view, what
are problems with referring to these species as "primitive" and "advanced"?
What differences between amphibians and mammals are they trying to describe
with these terms, and what would be a more evolutionary accurate way of
describing these differences?
-
Early evolutionary biologists frequently made reference to a "scala naturae"
(scale of nature) in which organisms were represented as evolving from
simple forms to more and more complex forms. A typical example might
be: bacteria --> amoebae --> invertebrates --> fish --> amphibians -->
reptiles --> mammals. How many things can you find wrong with this
view of evolution? How can the evolution of these groups be portrayed
more meaningfully?
-
Evolution can sometimes result in increased complexity of structure --
for example, multicellular organisms are thought to have evolved from unicellular
organisms. As a result, structurally complex species are sometimes
considered more advanced, evolutionarily, than are structurally primitive
organisms. Give at least two problems with this viewpoint, from an
evolutionary perspective.
-
In which of the following examples does the change that is described result
in evolutionary adaptation? (a) As it gets colder, an individual
mouse changes such that it grows longer fur in the cold; it is more likely
to survive as a result. (b) In a cold climate, in a population of
mice, individuals with shorter hair are less likely to survive; longhaired
individuals survive better and pass that long hair to their offspring.
As a result, the population changes such that all individuals have long
hair. (c) As food becomes scarce, an individual mouse learns to hoard
food, so it changes its feeding strategy from eating whatever it finds
to storing some of the food it finds. It is more likely to survive
as a result. (d) In a mouse population, some individuals have a genetically
determined behavior so that they hoard food and others lack this genetically
determined behavior. In an area of scarce food, individuals who hoard
food are more likely to survive, and over time hoarding behavior becomes
more common until all individuals hoard food and survive better.
This behavior decreases available food sources so that the probability
of the whole population dying out increases.
-
Freeman and Herron note that "natural selection acts on individuals..."
What do they mean by "act on"? Does natural selection change an individual?
If so, how? If not, then how does natural selection have its effect?
-
Freeman and Herron (2001) state that "Finches with large bodies and deep,
narrow beaks would have been favored during the drought even if all the
variation in the population had been environmental in origin...But no evolution
would have occurred." What do they mean by variation that is environmental
in origin? If the finches with large bodies and deep narrow beaks
would have been favored in this situation, why would evolution not have
occurred?
-
Evolution of new species has been referred to as "tree-like" rather than
"ladder-like." What does this mean?
-
Why is it incorrect to say that a trait has evolved "for the good of a
species" or "to help a species survive?"
-
From Freeman and Herron (2001), identify a characteristic of a species
that illustrates how a characteristic can increase the fitness (survival
and/or reproduction) of an individual but be bad for the species to which
that individual belongs. Which kind of trait will evolve -- one that
is good for the individual or one that is good for the whole species?
Why, based on the way natural selection works?
-
Suppose someone tells you that fur evolved in the ancestor to mammals because
the climate was about to become colder, so having fur would be adaptive.
Clearly explain to this person why this argument does not make evolutionary
sense.
-
Salmon return from the ocean to the streams where they were spawned in
order to reproduce. Suppose someone tells you that to ensure that
salmon find each other so that the species will not die out. Clearly
explain to this person why this argument does not make evolutionary sense.
Give an argument based on natural selection that does make evolutionary
sense.
-
Suppose someone tells you that since mammals are warm-blooded and salmon
are cold-blooded, that mammals are higher on the evolutionary scale than
are salmon. Clearly explain to this person why this argument does
not make evolutionary sense.