High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
tudents harbor widespread misconceptionsabout the mechanisms of organic evolution. The prob-lem is especially apparent when they discuss the evolu-tion of their own species – year after year I hear from mystudents that
Homo sapiens
will soon evolve to lose thepinky toe and become more intelligent. Such miscon-ceptions are not effectively addressed by pedagogy that teaches Darwin’s theory via memorization of facts and vocabulary words. This lesson attempts to better devel-op sound comprehension of natural selection theory byprompting students to use its concepts to explain theevolutionary status of humans.I have used the following lesson successfully withall ability levels in first and second high school biologycourses. I expect that the lesson would be useful in cer-tain college biology courses as well.
The Question
This activity centers on the question: Are humansstill evolving? Of course there is little doubt that humanpopulations currently undergo microevolutionarychanges in allele frequencies due to natural selectionand other factors. Anthropologist Meredith Small(1999) writes, “… some people live and some people die,and some people pass on more genes than others.Therefore, there is a change in the human gene poolover time.” Some advanced students will realize thisimmediately. Nevertheless, humans behave differentlyenough from other species to make the question inter-esting to consider and to discuss. And, even in an Advanced Placement Biology classroom, many studentswill initially focus on the popular misconceptions that they have encountered repeatedly in the past.Moreover, the purpose of this activity is not to expe-ditiously arrive at a definitive answer to the question
EVOLVING HUMANS 21
M
ARTIN
S
HIELDS
is a biology teacher at Pascack Hills High School,Montvale, NJ 07645; e-mail: mshields@pascack.k12.nj.us.
S
M
ARTIN
S
HIELDS
Are Humans Still Evolving?
A NATURAL SELECTION DISCUSSION LESSON
posed. Rather, the lesson’s value lies in student appli-cation, explication, and discussion of selection theory.The question is simply a tool to stimulate analysis andstudent debate on the accurate transfer of evolution’sconcepts to a case study species.
Introductory vs. AdvancedClasses
To my introductory 9th and 10th grade classes, thequestion of current human evolution translates to: Arehumans changing over time due to natural selection? Ioften offer this version to them as a clarification of theoriginal question. In some ability levels of IntroductoryBiology, I do not specifically teach the concepts (or at least not the terms)
microevolution, macroevolution,
or
allele frequency
. In these classes, the lesson is neverthe-less effective at advancing understanding of evolution-ary biology. The focus in these classes centers simplyon whether or not certain traits are favored by naturalselection and passed on more often than others.In Honors Level Introductory Biology and Advanced Placement classes, my students learn themore complex aspects of population genetics beforethis lesson. In these courses, the students tend to sub-divide the question themselves into: Are humans stillundergoing microevolution and are they still undergo-ing macroevolution? Microevolution refers to the rela-tively small changes that occur within a species over arelatively small number of generations. Macroevolutionrefers to large change, such as the origin of a newspecies (speciation) that usually occurs over a muchlonger time period (Greenberg, 2001).
The Lesson Sequence
I begin with students writing one to two page essaysor journal entries on the central question, “Are humansstill evolving?” This first step is critical in promotingindividual idea development. I stress to the studentsthat they will not be graded according to the side of theissue they choose to argue. It is important to avoidrestricting students at this point through fear of gettingthe wrong answer. I want to draw the students out, tocoax the entrenched misconceptions to the surface.
After I have read their essays, we have a class dis-cussion. The students and I clear desks from the roomcenter and we arrange ourselves in a circle. While thismay seem unnecessary or incidental I have found thequality of student-to-student interaction vastlyimproves when I am not physically positioned as a focalpoint. The group discussion usually fills a 44-minuteclass period.I begin the discussion by choosing a student toexpress his/her ideas on the topic. Then I call on anadjacent student, followed by a series of nearby stu-dents. I call on students in the beginning, rather thansoliciting volunteers, to prevent the discussion frommoving immediately into debate. I have found it fruitfulto begin by eliciting a pool of ideas (some valid, somenot) that can subsequently be critiqued by the group.In this initial phase, I provide little feedback and Irefrain from correcting inaccuracies. I want other stu-dents to do that later. Also, at this point, I don’t want toinhibit students. Eventually, I open the discussion to volunteer contributors and I begin to pose questions. Iusually pick a recurring misconception, repeat it, andsolicit opinions on its validity. The discussion heats upand it is easy to simply facilitate as students respond toone another.My role during the discussion is primarily that of moderator. I challenge inaccuracies with questions. Ipush students to reason their way to a more soundunderstanding. Periodically I interject a new subtopicto move the discussion in a different direction. Often, Ineed to ask a student to temporarily defer an idea untila current one has been successfully discussed andresolved. The more students talking, the better.However, I often need to weigh in on a debated point when the group hasn’t correctly explained it. The stu-dents still need the teacher as final arbiter and informa-tion resource. The key is to subjugate this role to allowas much as possible for student-constructed knowl-edge.
Typical Student Responses
Table 1 provides some topics typically raised in stu-dent essays and in the discussion. The right side of thetable includes appropriate application of selection the-ory to the topic. Ideally, these explanations will be gen-erated by the students with varying degrees of instruc-tor guidance.
I have found students need continual reminders of the connection between evolution and genes. They for-get that beneficial traits will not emerge or increase infrequency unless the same happens to genes that influ-ence those traits. For instance, many students claimthat humans “need to be” increasingly more intelligent to survive in a technology-rich world, and that this pro-motes the evolution of increased intelligence. If suchan issue is not correctly resolved by other students, Iwill respond with a question. I might ask, “Does aSilicon Valley software designer leave more of his orher genes to the next generation than someone whodoesn’t even use a computer?” There is, of course, noevidence that technological facility or even intelligence
22 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER,VOLUME 66,NO.1,JANUARY 2004
(a difficult to define and controversial concept) increas-es a person’s fitness in the modern environment.Students need to employ the selection theory litmustest: Does the trait affect an individual’s ability to sur- vive into and through the reproductive years (relativeto individuals lacking the trait), and does it affect anindividual’s ability to produce fertile offspring? If so,then the frequency of occurrence of an allele that influ-ences the trait will be altered, and the population willexperience microevolution due to natural selection. Or,in simpler terms: The gene for that trait will be passedon more often and it will be found in more individualsof the following generations.
There are two important side issues raised by thesoftware engineer example. One is the student proclivi-ty to refer to the “need” for a species to evolve inresponse to an environmental pressure. Research hasrevealed this misconception to be prevalent even inmedical students who have, presumably, a strong aca-demic background in biology (Brumby, 1984). I usual-ly interrupt when I hear students ask, “Do species
need
EVOLVING HUMANS 23
Table 1.
STUDENT-GENERATED TOPICAPPROPRIATE EXPLANATIONS
Pinky/pinky toe getting smaller or disappearing.Variant forms do not provide survival advantage or disadvantage,so allele frequencies should“Wisdom teeth”will disappear.not change (e.g.,large and small pinky toes will be passed on with equal frequency).Appendix getting smaller or disappearing.It is possible that allele(s) for smaller/less likely-to-become-infected appendixes could befavored in areas without access to quality health care.But this is probably not an issue whereinfected appendixes are easily treated.Aren’t humans taller than in the 1700s?If true,this is based on differences in nutrition/health care,not natural selection.Lethal diseases.Alleles for lethal disorders or predispositions for diseases are selected against,especially if they kill the individual before reproductive age.Alleles that confer resistance are selected for.For example,individuals with 2 CCR5 alleles do not acquire AIDS even if infected with HIV(O’Brien & Dean,1997).These alleles should increase in frequency where AIDS mortality ishigh (e.g.,Africa).People evolving to be smarter in response to Ability to use technology is not gene-based or normally related to survival/reproduction.new technologies.“Intelligence”is difficult to define.Modern medicine.People with potentially lethal alleles may have life prolonged,thus maintaining thedistribution of those alleles in populations.For example,the PKU allele probably exists inhigher frequency in countries where the disorder is diagnosed and treated (Ridley,2001).Biotechnology:These are forms of artificial selection – further removing humans from the influence of “Genius sperm banks”natural selection?Embryo screeningGene therapy/“designer”babies.Skin color,race.Skin color probably has little,if any,effect on survival today due to clothing,housing,behavior,nutrition,sunscreen,etc.Recent research suggests a benefit to light skin for vitaminD production in northern latitudes (Kirchweger,2001).Existence of distinct human races is not supported by human genome analysis (Paabo,2001).Speciation/macroevolutionNot occurring.If anything,there is less gene pool isolation today due to advances in globaltravel (Hayden,2002).
Add a Comment