From the list provided, select the two circumstances necessary for evolution to occur.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Alters B. Teaching biological evolution in higher education. Boston: Jones and Bartlett; 2005.
Google Scholar
Alters BJ, Nelson CE. Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution. 2002;56:1891–901.
Google Scholar
Anderson DL, Fisher KM, Norman GJ. Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39:952–78. doi:10.1002/tea.10053.
Google Scholar
Asghar A, Wiles JR, Alters B. Canadian pre-service elementary teachers' conceptions of biological evolution and evolution education. McGill J Educ. 2007;42:189–209.
Google Scholar
Attenborough D. Life on earth. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1979.
Google Scholar
Banet E, Ayuso GE. Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. Int J Sci Edu 2003;25:373–407.
Google Scholar
Bardapurkar A. Do students see the “selection” in organic evolution? A critical review of the causal structure of student explanations. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008;1:299–305. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0048-5.
Google Scholar
Barton NH, Briggs DEG, Eisen JA, Goldstein DB, Patel NH. Evolution. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2007.
Google Scholar
Bartov H. Can students be taught to distinguish between teleological and causal explanations? J Res Sci Teach. 1978;15:567–72. doi:10.1002/tea.3660150619.
Google Scholar
Bartov H. Teaching students to understand the advantages and disadvantages of teleological and anthropomorphic statements in biology. J Res Sci Teach. 1981;18:79–86. doi:10.1002/tea.3660180113.
Google Scholar
Beardsley PM. Middle school student learning in evolution: are current standards achievable? Am Biol Teach. 2004;66:604–12. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2004)066[0604:MSSLIE]2.0.CO;2.
Google Scholar
Bell G. The basics of selection. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1997.
Google Scholar
Bell G. Selection: the mechanism of evolution. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
Google Scholar
Berkman MB, Pacheco JS, Plutzer E. Evolution and creationism in America's classrooms: a national portrait. PLoS Biol. 2008;6:e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124.
Google Scholar
Bishop BA, Anderson CW. Evolution by natural selection: a teaching module (Occasional Paper No. 91). East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching; 1986.
Google Scholar
Bishop BA, Anderson CW. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. J Res Sci Teach. 1990;27:415–27. doi:10.1002/tea.3660270503.
Google Scholar
Bizzo NMV. From Down House landlord to Brazilian high school students: what has happened to evolutionary knowledge on the way? J Res Sci Teach. 1994;31:537–56.
Google Scholar
Bloom P, Weisberg DS. Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science. 2007;316:996–7. doi:10.1126/science.1133398.
CAS Google Scholar
Brem SK, Ranney M, Schindel J. Perceived consequences of evolution: college students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Sci Educ. 2003;87:181–206. doi:10.1002/sce.10105.
Google Scholar
Brumby M. Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. J Biol Educ. 1979;13:119–22.
Google Scholar
Brumby MN. Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Sci Educ. 1984;68:493–503. doi:10.1002/sce.3730680412.
Google Scholar
Burkhardt RW. The inspiration of Lamarck's belief in evolution. J Hist Biol. 1972;5:413–38. doi:10.1007/BF00346666.
CAS Google Scholar
Burkhardt RW. The spirit of system. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1995.

Google Scholar
Chinsamy A, Plaganyi E. Accepting evolution. Evolution. 2007;62:248–54.
Google Scholar
Clough EE, Wood-Robinson C. How secondary students interpret instances of biological adaptation. J Biol Educ. 1985;19:125–30.
Google Scholar
Corsi P. The age of Lamarck. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1988.
Google Scholar
Coyne JA. Selling Darwin. Nature. 2006;442:983–4. doi:10.1038/442983a.
CAS Google Scholar
Creedy LJ. Student understanding of natural selection. Res Sci Educ. 1993;23:34–41. doi:10.1007/BF02357042.
Google Scholar
Curry A. Creationist beliefs persist in Europe. Science. 2009;323:1159. doi:10.1126/science.323.5918.1159.
CAS Google Scholar
Darimont CT, Carlson SM, Kinnison MT, Paquet PC, Reimchen TE, Wilmers CC. Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:952–4. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809235106.
CAS Google Scholar
Darwin C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray; 1859.
Google Scholar
Darwin, C. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray; 1868.
Google Scholar
Darwin C, Wallace AR. On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Proc Linn Soc. 1858;3:46–62.
Google Scholar
Deadman JA, Kelly PJ. What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topic? J Biol Educ. 1978;12:7–15.
Google Scholar
Demastes SS, Settlage J, Good R. Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: cases of replication and comparison. J Res Sci Teach. 1995;32:535–50. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320509.
Google Scholar
Deniz H, Donelly LA, Yilmaz I. Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution. J Res Sci Teach. 2008;45:420–43. doi:10.1002/tea.20223.
Google Scholar
Dennett DC. Darwin's dangerous idea. New York: Touchstone Books; 1995.
Google Scholar
Espinasa M, Espinasa L. Losing sight of regressive evolution. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008;1:509–16. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0094-z.
Google Scholar
Evans EM, Mull MS, Poling DA, Szymanowski K. Overcoming an essentialist bias: from metamorphosis to evolution. In Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA; 2005.
Evans EM, Spiegel A, Gram W, Frazier BF, Thompson S, Tare M, Diamond J. A conceptual guide to museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. In Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco; 2006.
Ferrari M, Chi MTH. The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. Int J Sci Educ. 1998;20:1231–56. doi:10.1080/0950069980201005.
Google Scholar
Firenze R. Lamarck vs. Darwin: dueling theories. Rep Natl Cent Sci Educ. 1997;17:9–11.
Google Scholar
Freeman S, Herron JC. Evolutionary analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2007.
Google Scholar
Futuyma DJ. Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer; 2005.
Google Scholar
Gelman SA. Psychological essentialism in children. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8:404–9. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001.
Google Scholar
Geraedts CL, Boersma KT. Reinventing natural selection. Int J Sci Educ. 2006;28:843–70. doi:10.1080/09500690500404722.
Google Scholar
Gould SJ. Shades of Lamarck. In: The Panda's Thumb. New York: Norton; 1980. p. 76–84.
Greene ED. The logic of university students' misunderstanding of natural selection. J Res Sci Teach. 1990;27:875–85. doi:10.1002/tea.3660270907.

Google Scholar
Gregory TR. Evolution as fact, theory, and path. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008a;1:46–52. doi:10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z.
Google Scholar
Gregory TR. The evolution of complex organs. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008b;1:358–89. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0076-1.
Google Scholar
Gregory TR. Artificial selection and domestication: modern lessons from Darwin's enduring analogy. Evo Edu Outreach. 2009;2:5–27. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0114-z.
Google Scholar
Hall BK, Hallgrimsson B. Strickberger's evolution. 4th ed. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 2008.
Google Scholar
Halldén O. The evolution of the species: pupil perspectives and school perspectives. Int J Sci Educ. 1988;10:541–52. doi:10.1080/0950069880100507.
Google Scholar
Halloun IA, Hestenes D. The initial knowledge state of college physics students. Am J Phys. 1985;53:1043–55. doi:10.1119/1.14030.
Google Scholar
Hillis DM. Making evolution relevant and exciting to biology students. Evolution. 2007;61:1261–4. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00126.x.
Google Scholar
Humphreys J. The laws of Lamarck. Biologist. 1995;42:121–5.
Google Scholar
Humphreys J. Lamarck and the general theory of evolution. J Biol Educ. 1996;30:295–303.
Google Scholar
Ingram EL, Nelson CE. Relationship between achievement and students' acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper-level evolution course. J Res Sci Teach. 2006;43:7–24. doi:10.1002/tea.20093.
Google Scholar
Jeffery WR. Adaptive evolution of eye degeneration in the Mexican blind cavefish. J Heredity. 2005;96:185–96. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi028.
CAS Google Scholar
Jensen MS, Finley FN. Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Sci Educ. 1995;79:147–66. doi:10.1002/sce.3730790203.
Google Scholar
Jensen MS, Finley FN. Changes in students' understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. J Res Sci Teach. 1996;33:879–900. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<879::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-T.
Google Scholar
Jiménez-Aleixandre MP. Thinking about theories or thinking with theories?: a classroom study with natural selection. Int J Sci Educ. 1992;14:51–61. doi:10.1080/0950069920140106.
Google Scholar
Jiménez-Aleixandre MP, Fernández-Pérez J. Selection or adjustment? Explanations of university biology students for natural selection problems. In: Novak, JD. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, vol II. Ithaca: Department of Education, Cornell University; 1987;224–32.
Jørgensen C, Enberg K, Dunlop ES, Arlinghaus R, Boukal DS, Brander K, et al. Managing evolving fish stocks. Science. 2007;318:1247–8. doi:10.1126/science.1148089.
Google Scholar
Jungwirth E. The problem of teleology in biology as a problem of biology-teacher education. J Biol Educ. 1975a;9:243–6.
Google Scholar
Jungwirth E. Preconceived adaptation and inverted evolution. Aust Sci Teachers J. 1975b;21:95–100.
Google Scholar
Jungwirth E. Should natural phenomena be described teleologically or anthropomorphically?—a science educator’s view. J Biol Educ. 1977;11:191–6.
Google Scholar
Kampourakis K, Zogza V. Students’ preconceptions about evolution: how accurate is the characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Sci Edu 2007;16:393–422.
Google Scholar
Kampourakis K, Zogza V. Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Sci Educ. 2008;17:27–47. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9075-9.
Google Scholar
Kampourakis K, Zogza V. Preliminary evolutionary explanations: a basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Sci Educ. 2009; in press.
Kardong KV. An introduction to biological evolution. 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw Hill; 2008.
Google Scholar
Kargbo DB, Hobbs ED, Erickson GL. Children's beliefs about inherited characteristics. J Biol Educ. 1980;14:137–46.
Google Scholar
Kelemen D. Why are rocks pointy? Children's preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Dev Psychol. 1999a;35:1440–52. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1440.
CAS Google Scholar
Kelemen D. Function, goals and intention: children's teleological reasoning about objects. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999b;3:461–8. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01402-3.
Google Scholar
Kelemen D, Rosset E. The human function compunction: teleological explanation in adults. Cognition. 2009;111:138–43. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001.
Google Scholar
Keown D. Teaching evolution: improved approaches for unprepared students. Am Biol Teach. 1988;50:407–10.
Google Scholar
Lawson AE, Thompson LD. Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. J Res Sci Teach. 1988;25:733–46. doi:10.1002/tea.3660250904.
Google Scholar
MacFadden BJ, Dunckel BA, Ellis S, Dierking LD, Abraham-Silver L, Kisiel J, et al. Natural history museum visitors' understanding of evolution. BioScience. 2007;57:875–82.
Google Scholar
Mayr E. The growth of biological thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1982.
Google Scholar
Mayr E. What evolution Is. New York: Basic Books; 2001.
Google Scholar
McCloskey M, Caramazza A, Green B. Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: naïve beliefs about the motion of objects. Science. 1980;210:1139–41. doi:10.1126/science.210.4474.1139.
CAS Google Scholar
Moore R, Mitchell G, Bally R, Inglis M, Day J, Jacobs D. Undergraduates' understanding of evolution: ascriptions of agency as a problem for student learning. J Biol Educ. 2002;36:65–71.
Google Scholar
Nehm RH, Reilly L. Biology majors' knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience. 2007;57:263–72. doi:10.1641/B570311.
Google Scholar
Nehm RH, Schonfeld IS. Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? J Sci Teach Educ. 2007;18:699–723. doi:10.1007/s10972-007-9062-7.
Google Scholar
Nehm RH, Poole TM, Lyford ME, Hoskins SG, Carruth L, Ewers BE, et al. Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students' faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evo Edu Outreach. 2009;2: In press.
Nelson CE. Teaching evolution effectively: a central dilemma and alternative strategies. McGill J Educ. 2007;42:265–83.
Google Scholar
Nelson CE. Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integr Comp Biol. 2008;48:213–25. doi:10.1093/icb/icn027.
Google Scholar
Packard AS. Lamarck, the founder of evolution: his life and work with translations of his writings on organic evolution. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co; 1901.
Google Scholar
Palumbi SR. Humans as the world's greatest evolutionary force. Science. 2001;293:1786–90. doi:10.1126/science.293.5536.1786.
CAS Google Scholar
Passmore C, Stewart J. A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39:185–204. doi:10.1002/tea.10020.
Google Scholar
Pedersen S, Halldén O. Intuitive ideas and scientific explanations as parts of students' developing understanding of biology: the case of evolution. Eur J Psychol Educ. 1992;9:127–37.
Google Scholar
Pennock RT. Learning evolution and the nature of science using evolutionary computing and artificial life. McGill J Educ. 2007;42:211–24.
Google Scholar
Prinou L, Halkia L, Skordoulis C. What conceptions do Greek school students form about biological evolution. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008;1:312–7. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0051-x.
Google Scholar
Ridley M. Evolution. 3rd ed. Malden: Blackwell; 2004.
Google Scholar
Robbins JR, Roy P. The natural selection: identifying & correcting non-science student preconceptions through an inquiry-based, critical approach to evolution. Am Biol Teach. 2007;69:460–6. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[460:TNSICN]2.0.CO;2.
Google Scholar
Rose MR, Mueller LD. Evolution and ecology of the organism. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2006.
Google Scholar
Rutledge ML, Mitchell MA. High school biology teachers' knowledge structure, acceptance & teaching of evolution. Am Biol Teach. 2002;64:21–7. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2002)064[0021:HSBTKS]2.0.CO;2.
Google Scholar
Scharmann LC. Enhancing an understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: the influence of a diversified instructional strategy. Sch Sci Math. 1990;90:91–100.
Google Scholar
Settlage J. Conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense-making process. J Res Sci Teach. 1994;31:449–57.
Google Scholar
Shtulman A. Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognit Psychol. 2006;52:170–94. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001.
Google Scholar
Sinatra GM, Southerland SA, McConaughy F, Demastes JW. Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. J Res Sci Teach. 2003;40:510–28. doi:10.1002/tea.10087.
Google Scholar
Sinatra GM, Brem SK, Evans EM. Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008;1:189–95. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0037-8.
Google Scholar
Southerland SA, Abrams E, Cummins CL, Anzelmo J. Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Sci Educ. 2001;85:328–48. doi:10.1002/sce.1013.
Google Scholar
Spiegel AN, Evans EM, Gram W, Diamond J. Museum visitors' understanding of evolution. Museums Soc Issues. 2006;1:69–86.
Google Scholar
Spindler LH, Doherty JH. Assessment of the teaching of evolution by natural selection through a hands-on simulation. Teach Issues Experiments Ecol. 2009;6:1–20.
Google Scholar
Stauffer RC (editor). Charles Darwin's natural selection: being the second part of his big species book written from 1856 to 1858. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1975.
Google Scholar
Stearns SC, Hoekstra RF. Evolution: an introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
Google Scholar
Strevens M. The essentialist aspect of naive theories. Cognition. 2000;74:149–75. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00071-2.
CAS Google Scholar
Sundberg MD. Strategies to help students change naive alternative conceptions about evolution and natural selection. Rep Natl Cent Sci Educ. 2003;23:1–8.
Google Scholar
Sundberg MD, Dini ML. Science majors vs nonmajors: is there a difference? J Coll Sci Teach. 1993;22:299–304.
Google Scholar
Tamir P, Zohar A. Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Sci Educ. 1991;75:57–67. doi:10.1002/sce.3730750106.
Google Scholar
Tidon R, Lewontin RC. Teaching evolutionary biology. Genet Mol Biol. 2004;27:124–31. doi:10.1590/S1415-475720054000100021.
Google Scholar
Vlaardingerbroek B, Roederer CJ. Evolution education in Papua New Guinea: trainee teachers' views. Educ Stud. 1997;23:363–75. doi:10.1080/0305569970230303.
Google Scholar
Wilson DS. Evolution for everyone: how to increase acceptance of, interest in, and knowledge about evolution. PLoS Biol. 2005;3:e364. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030364.
Google Scholar
Wood-Robinson C. Young people's ideas about inheritance and evolution. Stud Sci Educ. 1994;24:29–47. doi:10.1080/03057269408560038.
Google Scholar
Zirkle C. The early history of the idea of the inheritance of acquired characters and of pangenesis. Trans Am Philos Soc. 1946;35:91–151. doi:10.2307/1005592.
Google Scholar
Zohar A, Ginossar S. Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism in biology education—heretical suggestions. Sci Educ. 1998;82:679–97. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199811)82:6<679::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-E.
Google Scholar

Page 2

Reference	Natural selection	Fitness
Ridley (2004)	The process by which the forms of organisms in a population that are best adapted to the environment increase in frequency relative to less well-adapted forms over a number of generations	The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes. When genotypes differ in fitness because of their effects on survival, fitness can be measured as the ratio of a genotype's frequency among the adults divided by its frequency among individuals at birth
Futuyma (2005)	The differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics. To constitute natural selection, the difference in survival and/or reproduction cannot be due to chance, and it must have the potential consequence of altering the proportions of the different entities. Thus, natural selection is also definable as a deterministic difference in the contribution of different classes of entities to subsequent generations. Usually, the differences are inherited. The entities may be alleles, genotypes or subsets of genotypes, populations, or, in the broadest sense, species. A complex concept	The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations
Stearns and Hoekstra (2005)	The correlation of a trait with variation in reproductive success	Relative lifetime reproductive success, which includes the probability of surviving to reproduce. In certain situations, other measures are more appropriate. The most important modifications to this definition include the inclusion of the effects of age-specific reproduction and of density dependence
Rose and Mueller (2006)	The differential net reproduction of genetically distinct entities, whether mobile genetic elements, organisms, demes, or entire species	The average reproduction of an individual or genotype, calibrated over a complete life cycle
Barton et al. (2007)	The process by which genotypes with higher fitness increase in frequency in a population	The number of offspring left by an individual after one generation. The fitness of an allele is the average fitness of individuals carrying that allele
Freeman and Herron (2007)	A difference, on average, between the survival or fecundity of individuals with certain phenotypes compared with individuals with other phenotypes	The extent to which an individual contributes genes to future generations or an individual's score on a measure of performance expected to correlate with genetic contribution to future generations (such as lifetime reproductive success)
Hall and Hallgrimsson (2008)	Differential reproduction or survival of replicating organisms caused by agencies other than humansa. Because such differential selective effects are widely prevalent and often act on hereditary (genetic) variations, natural selection is a common major cause for a change in the gene frequencies of a population that leads to a new distinctive genetic constitution (evolution)	Central to evolutionary theory evaluating genotypes and populations, fitness has many definitions, ranging from comparing growth rates to comparing long-term survival rates. The basic fitness concept that population geneticists commonly use is relative reproductive success, as governed by selection in a particular environment
Kardong (2008)	The culling process by which individuals with beneficial traits survive and reproduce more frequently, on average, than individuals with less favorable traits	The relative reproductive success of individuals, within a population, in leaving offspring in the next generation. At the genetic level, fitness is measured by the relative success of one genotype (or allele) compared to other genotypes (or alleles)