Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 92: 465-471, 2009 Coming to terms with biological evolution: a critique of the terms and perspectives embedded in the definition and description of some of its fundamental concepts J Unno 1'2 1 Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 2 V & C Semeniuk Research Group 21 Glenmere Road, Warwick, WA, 6024 Manuscript received /unitary 2010; accepted February 2010 Abstract The abstract concepts embodied in the theory of biological evolution are difficult for most people to comprehend since humans are not genetically endowed with the cognitive mechanisms to directly perceive biological evolutionary events and must deal with them in a culturally derived intellectual manner. This can lead to inaccurate, misapplied, and poorly conceived terms, and the inappropriate changing of meanings of established terms. More effort should be made by authors when coining new terms or applying existing terms. By not addressing these issues of terms and meanings, future research may go in unproductive directions, thus delaying attainment of a better understanding of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Keywords: biological evolution, evolutionary terms, science education Introduction authors have observed a similar situation in studies of various groups from primary school level to secondary From the time of the publication of Darwin's On the school level biology teachers (Demastes et nl. 1995; Jensen Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), there have existed & Findley 1996; Larreamendy-Joerns & Ohlsson 1995; problems of misunderstanding and misapplication of Ohlsson 1991; Zuzovsky 1994). fundamental concepts in the science of biological evolution, particularly concepts such as random While various authors have put forward explanations variation, non-random natural selection and descent with for the continued misunderstanding of biological modification from a common ancestor. This is despite evolutionary concepts (e.g., the naive schema of claims by scientists (Gould 1996; Mayr 1997; Dawkins, Larreamendy-Joerns & Ohlsson 1995; the event versus 2009), that the concept of natural selection is simple to equilibration ontology of Ferrari & Chi 1998; or the prior understand. For example, Weismann (1909) quoted disposition, understanding and parents' education level, T H Huxley as saying about Darwin's idea of natural determined by Deniz et al. 2008), in this paper I suggest selection: "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that part of the problem is etymologically related in that that." the embedded meanings of the terms and language employed in defining and describing the fundamental However, it is evident that a majority of people, even concepts of biological evolution create a (non-conscious) when exposed to biological education, have difficulty in bias in the mind of the user towards a way of thinking accurately grasping the fundamental concepts of that is non-scientific and inapplicable to the actual biological evolution. Bishop & Anderson (1990) found processes of biological evolution. Further, although the that college students who had previously studied biology concepts of biological evolution such as natural had three main misconceptions about biological selection, adaptation, common ancestry, etc., appear evolution: (1) a teleological or need-driven idea of the straight-forward and simple to understand, these ideas adaptive process; (2) variation of traits within a contain abstract, statistical and temporal aspects which population and subsequent differences in reproductive are not necessarily compatible with the natural success were not recognised; and (3) a gradual variation perceptual and cognitive abilities of the human brain. of traits was perceived to occur in all members of the Thus, throughout the paper there will be discussion of population at the same time. Gregory & Ellis (2009) two ideas: (1) that of the problems with terminology studied students undertaking an advanced postgraduate including misleading, misappropriate or misapplied degree in science and found that while post-graduate terms and (2) that of the genetic ("hardwired") nature students had a better understanding of concepts of of human neurologically-based cognitive and perceptual biological evolution than students at lower levels, there frameworks, particularly in relation to language. In fact, were still persistent misconceptions and a lack of the two ideas are inter-related, in that the nature of working knowledge of biological evolutionary human "hardwiring" and its effect on cognitive and mechanisms even at this advanced level. Many other perceptual frameworks leads to the misunderstanding of concepts, and the coining and use of misleading, © Royal Society of Western Australia 2009 misappropriate or misapplied terms. 465 Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 92(4), December 2009 The impact of words that words may have imprecise or multiple meanings? After all, there are many non-verbal cues in social Terms have different meanings to different scientists contexts which re-enforce verbal meanings. My thesis in (and people in general, for that matter), depending on this paper is that it does matter when an objective their path in life, or background, and the meaning description is required, of processes (e.g., biological conveyed to readers may not always be the one intended evolution, quantum mechanics, amongst others) which by the writer. Further, not all scientists fully understand occur in the physical world and may have no relation to the use of terms in their own discipline, or that in other human social contexts or human time-scales, or common, related disciplines, nor can they coin appropriate terms. everyday experiences. Thus, for many of the experiences The misapplication of terms in the history of science, and and natural phenomena described by scientists, there is the changes in meaning of a term in the history of a generally no direct human experience as a calibration, given discipline provide examples of this problem. Such and hence it becomes even more important that words, misinterpretations, misapplications, and misunder¬ terms and meanings are correctly conveyed. This is the standings, and evolution of the meanings of terms is realm of scientific terminology where nomenclature particularly relevant to the theory of biological evolution, forms the basis of description and classification as as it is an arena that is mired in controversy, and terms employed in the Scientific Method, and is essential to need to be explicit, precise, and not open to Science and its communication. misapplication and misinterpretation. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and I proffer the notion that two of the Inherent in the principle of the Scientific Method is the problems in the controversy and debate in biological assumption that the language or terms employed in evolution resides in: (1) the misuse, poor definition, and scientific studies are defined such that there is a common misunderstanding of terms; and (2) the incorrect and understanding of the ideas being conveyed. This inappropriate coining of terms. These terms can create understanding of defined terms is a critical component in erroneous perceptions of what constitutes biological the process of reproducibility of results, without which evolution, create resistance to the idea of biological scientists cannot be certain that they are talking evolution, and mislead research directions. unambiguously about the same topic. An example of an area where the clarity of scientific terminology is The influence of words on human emotions and particularly important is in forensic science, especially in thinking has been noted by philosophers and scientists criminal cases where non-scientist members of the jury from early in recorded history to the present day. and judiciary are struggling to understand the expert Buddha in the 5th Century BC, advised that "Whatever evidence that may or may not convict a person (Edmond words we utter should be chosen with care, for people will hear 2002). them and be influenced by them for good or evil." This can be modified to the theme of this paper as: "Whatever words Unfortunately, scientists are not perfectly logical we utter should be chosen with care, for people zvill hear them machines, and the terms that they assign to phenomena and be influenced by them from their own perception, training are a product of the existing scientific knowledge, and background ." Carl von Linne (Linnaeus 1707-1778) perpetuation of erroneous ideas, and the current culture wrote: Nomina si nescis, peril cognitio rerum (If you ignore of the times in which the scientists live. The convention names, actual knowledge vanishes). Mark Twain (Samuel of positive to negative flow of electricity in an electrical Clemens), a 19th Century author and social circuit is an example of the perpetuation of erroneous commentator, observed (as related in Paine 1917) that "A ideas. An initial conclusion (based on the observations powerful agent is the right word: it lights the reader's and equipment available in the 1700s), was later proven way and makes it plain." Clearly, words are an erroneous (electrons flow from negative potentials to important part of communication, and they are an positive potentials as discovered in the early 1900s), important pathway for lighting the way to further and however, the original terms are retained to the deeper understanding of a given subject matter. continuing confusion of innumerable high school students and university students. On the other hand, the Recent psychological and neurological studies have meanings of terms in a discipline often evolve with investigated how language, human behaviour and neural various practitioners redefining the terms in the literature structures are interrelated (Chomsky 1965; Liberman & according to their own interpretations and this process Whalen 2000; Scott & Johnsrude 2003; Coppola & may lead to confusion (Fallon & Smyth, 2009), and Newport 2005; Dehaene-Lambertz et al. 2006; Friederici employing a term with a changed meaning. et al. 2006; Goldberg 2008; Ledoux & Camblin 2008). Several parts of the human brain are involved in To illustrate this principle, an example is borrowed language processing, particularly in the left hemisphere, from the discipline of sedimentology. Sedimentologists such as Broca's area, Wernicke's area, and the inferior have employed an adjectival term "sedimentary", to refer parietal lobule (Geschwind's territory), so an argument to unconsolidated geological material (e.g., sedimentary can be made that human response to words, while deposit), but the adjective has also been incorrectly having cultural causative factors (i.e., each culture has applied to the study of rocks derived from sedimentary developed its own language and word meanings), also materials resulting in the oxymoron "sedimentary has genetic and hence biological evolutionary petrology". Consider the etymological evolution of the underpinnings. Human languages (and the underlying adjective "sedimentary": it has changed in its use in anatomical neural areas) have developed in a social referring to a sediment, to a sedimentary deposit, to a context within common experiences of the physical world sedimentary rock (change in the strict meaning of and largely deal with a timescale spanning the current "sedimentary"), to sedimentary petrology (another instant (several seconds) to a person's lifetime (ideally change in the strict meaning of "sedimentary", in that spanning ~ 80-100 years). In that situation, does it matter petrology cannot be "sedimentary"), to sedimentary 466 Unno: Coming to terms with biological evolution research, e.g., The Journal of Sedimentary Research evolution, viz., "natural selection". It was a term that (where it is implied that the phrase "sedimentary Darwin came to regret, as shown in a letter to his friend research" conveys the meaning of "research into Charles Lyell in 1860, where Darwin wrote "Talking of sedimentary materials, and rocks deriving from 'Natural Selection', if I had to commence de novo, I would sediments, and the petrology of those sediments and have used 'natural preservation'; for I find men like sedimentary rocks). The meaning embedded in the Harvey of Dublin cannot understand me" (Burkhardt et adjective "sedimentary" in "sedimentary research" is al 1993). very different from that in "sedimentary deposit". Later, in a letter to the Irish botanist W H Harvey, Darwin replied in part "The term 'Selection' I see deceives many persons; though I see no more reason why Critique of terms in biological evolution it should than elective affinity, as used by the old This brings us to the confusing and sometimes chemists. If I had to rewrite my book, I would use unfortunate terms existing in the area of biological 'natural preservation' or 'naturally preserved'" evolution. There are many commonly misused, (Burkhardt et al. 1993). misleading, misunderstood, inappropriate or not well The problem with "natural selection" is that conceptualised terms extant in the biological evolutionary embedded in the word "selection" is the implication of literature and a selection of these is presented in Table 1. choice by a living agent. The act of selection does not Several problematical terms are discussed in detail apply to inanimate processes, which is a problem since below. the process of differential survival and reproduction of Darwin himself has the distinction of proposing one organisms (termed as "natural selection") is an of the most misleading terms in the concepts of biological inanimate, deterministic occurrence, viz., the action of Table 1 Examples of terms employed in the area of biological evolution which are either often misunderstood and consequently misapplied, or poorly designed as conceptual explanatory terms. Adapt: "to fit"; should be used only for species/populations, not individuals, and only in the intransitive sense e.g. animals have become adapted to their environment", not "the animal adapts to its environment" or "the animal learns to [physically] adapt" Biological evolution: a term that should be used instead of "evolutionary biology" where the main topic, evolution , has been transformed into a descriptor Design: a word that should not be applied to a deterministic process such as biological evolution which evidences a variety of states that range from poorly organised to complex Darwinism: philosophy based on Charles Darwin's ideas; the word has no place in a scientific discussion of biological evolution where "Charles Darwin's concept of evolution" would be more appropriate; one does not see the words "Newtonism" or "Einsteinism' employed in scientific writing Evo-devo: an unscientific abbreviation of the phrase "evolutionary development biology"; ontogenological phylogeny would more accurately describe this area of study Evolution: "unrolling" or gradual development; the word has become synonymous with biological evolution, whereas there is evolu¬ tion of landscape, magmas, societies, language, amongst others; a natural process that should never be personified Fitness: the success of an organism in surviving in its environment and reproducing its genetic material into the next generation; mistakenly perceived as only physical strength as in "Survival of the Fittest"= survival of the strongest or most aggressive, which is not always the case (c/. biological altruism) Gene: a sequence of nucleotides coding for a protein; by definition, a "non-coding gene" is an oxymoron; exclusive focus by scientists on genes has resulted in a public perception that genes comprise the total genetic material of an organism whereas in reality, genes form only ~ 2% of the DNA (in humans) Junk DNA: a somewhat short-sighted term for non-coding DNA which comprises 98% of human genetic material. Now found to have important regulatory functions in gene expression Natural Selection: Darwin acknowledged that this phrase had unintended connotations (the concept of a "Selector ); often personified as in "Natural selection chooses..."; an alternative phrase such as "environment-constrained differential phenotype survival mig it e more accurate Orthogenesis: hypothesis that biological evolution is an intrinsic drive towards perfection; confusing and discredited term Primitive characters: misleading term for antecedent characters in a lineage; these characters may be quite complex Random mutation: change in the DNA that is unpredictable by current scientific models; often conflated with biological evolution, ignoring environment-constrained differential phenotype survival (natural selection) which is deterministic, NOT random 467 Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 92(4), December 2009 environmental pressures on variable organisms. It is of scientific information accumulated since then. understandable as to why Darwin chose the term However, the fact that the "Great Chain of Being" idea "natural selection". He was concerned that people would has persisted throughout history in various guises not understand or accept the truth of his conclusions, (Lovejoy 1936; Bynum 1975) supports the idea of an particularly because of the controversial nature of anthropocentric bias in human perceptual frameworks. eliminating a need for a Deity in the development of new That is, Lovejoy's unit ideas of "plentitude, continuity species. Therefore, he accumulated a vast number of and gradation" reflects genetic behaviours involved in examples of artificial selection (i.e., selective breeding, survival such as obtaining food, reproduction and social with himself as the "selector") amongst domestic plants hierarchy. This tendency for the human condition to be and animals (especially pigeons), producing variation reflected in the perception of natural order has been and different "types" (Darwin 1859). He then introduced noted previously (Durkheim & Mauss 1903). the concept of "natural selection" as the natural The terms "primitive" and "advanced" as applied to equivalent of "artificial selection" in the hope that people the more appropriately termed antecedent or derivative, could easily grasp the concept that the same process respectively, characters in an organism's lineage are occurred amongst non-domesticated organisms as in misleading as the word "primitive" is usually equated domesticated organisms. The problem begins here, with "simple" and a primitive character may actually be because in his analogous examples involving selective very complex. Chloroplasts, for example, are considered breeding, Darwin in fact was a "selector", while natural a primitive character of vascular plants, although, in fact, processes that inanimately exert pressure on organisms these organelles are relatively complex. The word are not. "character" also is confusing and poorly defined, as it As a direct consequence of the animistic nature of the can refer to a range of features from molecular to word "selection", authors and teachers explaining this morphological, to behavioural, and be applied to a range fundamental concept inexorably personify the term into of taxonomic levels from individual, to species, to clades. "Natural Selection" (note capitalisation), which That is, the term "character" has different meanings in "chooses" or "selects for" a particular event to happen. different disciplines, and even different meanings within Even a populariser of biological evolution, the biologist the same discipline. Use of this term, therefore, does not Richard Dawkins, wrote that "Natural Selection convey explicit meaning. chooses...", adding the qualifier that this was the An example of how the meaning of terms can evolve incorrect use of the term but "we know what is meant" is shown in the history of the term "orthogenesis". (Dawkins 2009). It is evident from the body of work, Orthogenesis was a popular idea in the 19th and early 20,h mentioned previously, on the misunderstanding of Centuries, and originally represented the hypothesis of biological evolutionary concepts (including natural an intrinsic lateral direction in the development of life, selection), that students in particular, do not know. and later became conflated with teleological ideas where Proponents of biological evolution theory have a evolution was unidirectional towards a perfect goal as in responsibility to explain the fundamental concepts as "progressive evolution" (e.g., the increasing complexity accurately as possible and this may involve coining of organisms from simple prokaryotes to complex original terms. Dawkins did not do this when he eukaryotes culminates in the superior complexity of employed a familiar, well-defined human emotional term humans (Bonner 1988]). Orthogenetic ideas became in describing the genetic basis of altruism as "selfish discredited by palaeontological evidence of non-linearity genes" (Dawkins 1976), and re-defining the meaning of in the fossil record. However, some modern researchers the word "selfish" as being successful in the processes of now employ the term "orthogenetic" to describe a local biological evolution. Brown (1999) relates the furore linear trend in the evolution of a trait within a species created by the use of the connotatively morally negative (Jacobs et al. 1995), thus changing its meaning yet again. word "selfish", which was taken literally and Regardless of the discrediting of the orthogenesis idea, engendered two main objections: (1) genes, as simple, the impression of direction and progress in biological non-sentient matter, axiomatically are incapable of a evolution still persists among the general public (Scott complex animal behavioural attribute such as selfishness, 1999). This is in spite of the fossil evidence. Additionally, and (2) there was resistance to the idea that an advanced there are many examples of extant lineages producing human moral quality such as altruism could be the less complex organisms from complex ancestors (non¬ product of mere genes, particularly selfish ones. Perhaps linear biological evolution) as, for example, in mites there would have been a better reception of Dawkin's (Walter & Proctor 1999) and parasitic flatworms (Poulin ideas if he had used the phrase "co-operative genes" 2006). Other evidence against orthogenesis includes: 1) although this would still be misleading as the word "co¬ the vast bulk of life on Earth consists of prokaryotes (and operative" implies intent and purpose on behalf of the if "progressive" biological evolution has been occurring genes. for ~ 4 billion years, then life on Earth should be Such purpose-driven explanations incorporated into dominated by complex forms); 2) there exist prokaryotes biological phenomena are espoused in Aristotle's idea of and eukaryotes with a range of structural complexity the "Scala Naturae", otherwise known as the "Ladder of from a microscopic bacterium to a macroscopic cetacean, Life" or the "Great Chain of Being", a classification of the all concurrently undergoing the processes of biological living world where all species are arrayed in hierarchical evolution with the result that a modern prokaryote is order linearly from primitive organisms to the advanced often more complex than an ancestral prokaryote perfection of Humanity. Aristotle's classification was a (biological evolution should only be occurring in the reasonable model given the knowledge that he had at the most "progressive" stage if a linear progression is true); time, but one that has been superseded by a greater body 3) many organisms (e.g., the rice plant, Orxjza sativa) have 468 Unno: Coming to terms with biological evolution more complex genomes than that of humans, and 4) 2) differential survival and reproductive success of these cross-species or horizontal gene transfer (Syvanen 1985; phenotypes. Where are the terms that accurately describe Rumpho et al. 2008) occurs, thereby eliminating the idea and encapsulate this process? Why in the 150 years since of a unidirectional linear progression of genetic material. Darwin put forward the self-acknowledged inadequate As a denouement of the orthogenetic hypothesis and term "natural selection" have no researchers advanced challenging the teleological and anthropocentric idea that more appropriate terms? An explanation may be that humans, as the most complex organism on Earth (due to humans generally comprehend simple events better than their complex brain), are the final goal of biological complex abstract and long term processes, and have evolution, recent research has shown that humans have neurological systems that cope with either routine an invertebrate rival for neuronal complexity in coleoid common events or novel events (Sitnikova, Holcomb & cephalopods (Wollesen et al. 2009). Kuperberg 2008). Examples abound where scientists and engineers reduce complex, non-linear, and interacting The fact that the idea of "progressive" biological phenomena to simple models in order to cope with evolution persists, despite the overwhelming evidence understanding them. Perception of biological against it, is interesting as this phenomenon illustrates evolutionary processes has not been necessary for human more about the cognitive behaviour of humans than any survival or reproductive success, unlike as for example, empirical reality of the idea. A possible explanation for perception of the ecological process of predation or the persistence of erroneous ideas in the face of empirical process of reproduction, for which humans have genetic evidence is that humans may have cognitive filters in behaviours, and hence 1 suggest that there is not the pattern recognition (Van Essen et al. 1991) or cognitive genetic "hard wiring" to adequately address the frameworks in reasoning (Stenning & van Lambalgen complexities of biological evolution. 2008) that predicate them towards deriving false correlations from natural data. In the case of "Junk" DNA (Ohno 1972) illustrates an important "progressive" evolution, the logic proceeds as follows: principle in how terms and words are misapplied, and eukaryotes biologically evolved from prokaryote how there is (potential) creation of misperceptions with organisms (true), and multi-celled organisms are ramifications for future research directions. Without fully structurally more complex than single-celled organisms understanding the function of "junk" DNA, supposedly (true), and therefore biological evolution is directed "non-coding" DNA regions were interpreted to be non¬ towards increasing complexity (false). functional genetic relicts, and this interpretation led to molecular biologists focusing on only the 5 % of DNA One of the most misunderstood words in biological which coded for proteins and ignoring 95 % of the entire evolution is "random" as in "random genetic mutation". human genome for almost 40 years! A term should have Since events occur axiomatically in a deterministic been utilised that was objectively descriptive, and that fashion, nothing is "random", not even genetic mutations would survive acquisition of additional information, - there is just not enough information currently available since the use of the adjective "junk" now has to be to predict their occurrence. French astronomer and abandoned, as more information on the functionality of mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace was confident that this "junk" DNA has been obtained. Sections of "junk the universe is not random (Laplace 1814) when he wrote DNA" termed transposable elements, comprising ~ 50 the following words: % of the human genome (Smit 1999) have been We ought to then regard the present state of recognised (retrospectively in some cases), to have a the universe as the effect of its anterior state regulatory effect in gene expression (McClintock 1965; and as the cause of the one which is to follow. Thornburg et al 2006) and cell differentiation (Britten & Given for one instant an intelligence which Davidson 1969), so perhaps the "junk" term will be could comprehend all the forces by which relegated to the trash bin. nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it - an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to Conclusions analysis - it would embrace in the same The abstract concepts embodied in biological evolution formula the movements of the greatest bodies of are difficult for most people to comprehend, since the the universe and those of the lightest atom; for processes involved occur either over long time-scales or it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, at the microscopic genetic level. As discussed above, as the past, would be present to its eyes. humans are not genetically endowed with the cognitive (Translation from Truscott & Emory 1902) mechanisms to directly perceive biological evolutionary Thus "random" as employed in biological evolution events and must deal with them in a culturally derived refers to a causal event that is unpredictable as to its intellectual manner. This can lead to inaccurate, occurrence in time and place. The word "random" is misapplied, and poorly conceived terms, and to the often equated with the word "chance" to mean an inappropriate changing of meanings of established terms. unpredictable event of unknown cause. The coining and continued use of inaccurate, misapplied, A common misunderstanding of biological evolution and poorly conceived terms has only added to the is that complex anatomical structures (such as complex problem of understanding biological evolution. While the eyes) develop entirely by chance, which seems impossible. scientific discipline of biological evolution is not unique However, chance does not operate in isolation. Complex in having a proliferation of confusing or misleading anatomical structures are a resultant of a cumulative two- terms (Barrass 1979), more effort than shown in the past stage process: 1) random (chance) genetic mutations in should be made by authors when coining new terms or individuals producing variant phenotypes; and applying existing terms. Terms should be descriptive and 469 Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 92(4), December 2009 not genetic1, such that the meaning of the word can be Edmond G 2002 Constructing Miscarriages of Justice: Misunderstanding Scientific Evidence in High Profile "unpacked". Other considerations involved in coining a Criminal Appeals. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22(1): 53- new term include consideration of the relevant scientific 89. history and possible future directions of the research Fallon M & Smyth J 2009 Terminology: the historical (whether the new term has older connotations, or perspective, evolution and current usage- room for whether the term is "fashionable" and likely therefore to confusion? European Journal of Cancer 44(8): 1069-1071. become out-dated), and consideration of the cognitive Ferrari M & Chi MTH 1998 The nature of naive explanations of impact of the term (i.e., will the term fit into human natural selection. International Journal of Science Education language/perception schema, or be invisible in that 20: 1231-1256. people will not understand and will ignore it). By not Friedcrici A D, Bahlmann J, Heim S, Schubotz R I & Anwander addressing these issues of terms and meanings, future A 2006 The brain differentiates human and non-human research may go in unproductive directions and grammars: Functional localization and structural resources may be wasted, thus delaying attainment of a connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(7): 2458-2463. better understanding of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Goldberg A E 2008 Universal Grammar? Or prerequisites for natural language? Behavioural & Brain Sciences 31: 522-523. Gould S J 1996 Life's Grandeur: The Spread of Excellence from References Plato to Darwin. Random House. Gregory T R 2009 Understanding natural selection: Essential Barrass R 1979 Vocabulary for introductory courses in biology: concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education necessary, unnecessary and misleading terms. Journal of & Outreach 2: 156-175. Biological Education 13(3): 179-191. Gregory T R & Ellis C A J 2009 Concepts of evolution among Bishop B A & Anderson C W 1990 Student conceptions of science graduate students. BioScience 59(9): 792-799. natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Jacobs S C, Larson A & Cheverud J M 1995 Phylogenetic Research in Science Teaching 27: 415^427. Relationships and Orthogenetic Evolution of Coat Color Bonner J T 1988 The evolution of complexity by means of Among Tamarins (Genus Saguinus). Systematic Biolology natural selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New 44(4): 515-532. Jersey. Jensen M S & Findley F N 1996 Changes in students' Britten R J & Davidson E H 1969 Gene regulation for higher understanding of evolution resulting from different cells: A theory'. Science 165: 349-357. curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Brown A 1999 The Darwin Wars. Simon & Schuster, London. Science Teaching, 33: 879-900. Burkhardt F, Browne J, Duncan D M & Richmond M (eds) 1993 Laplace P S 1814 Essai philosophique sur les probabilites. The correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 8: 1860 Courcier, Paris [in French], Edited Cambridge University Press. Larreamendy-Joerns J & Ohlsson S 1995 Evidence for Chomsky N 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, explanatory patterns in evolutionary biology. Iti J. D. Moore Massachusetts. & J. F. Kehman (eds). Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 637-643). Coppola M & Newport E L 2005 Grammatical 'Subjects' in home Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. sign: Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Ledoux K & Camblin C 2008 The Neural Mechanisms of Academy of Sciences 102: 19249-19253. Coreference. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(6): 1013— 1037. Dawkins R 2009 The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution. Bantam Press, London. Liberman A M & Whalen D H 2000 On the relation of speech to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(5): 187-196. Darwin C 1859 On the Origin of Species By Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Lovejoy A O 1936 The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the John Murray, London. History of an Idea. William James Lecture Series. Harvard Dehaene-Lambertz G, Hertz-Pannier L & Dubois J 2006 Nature University Press. and nurture in language acquisition: anatomical and McClintock, B 1965 Components of action of the regulators Spm functional brain-imaging studies in infants. Trends in and Ac. Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book Neurosciences 29(7): 367-373. 64:527-536. Demastes S S, Good R G & Peebles P 1996 Patterns of conceptual Ohlsson S 1991 Young adults' understanding of evolutionary change in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching explanations: Preliminary observations. Technical Report. 33: 407-431. Learning Research & Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Demastes S S, Settlage J & Good R 1995 Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of Ohno S 1972 So much 'junk' DNA in our genome. In: H. H. replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Smith (ed) Evolution of Genetic Systems. Brookhaven Teaching 32: 535-550. Symposia in biology 23: 366-370. Durkheim E & Mauss M 1903 De quelques formes primitives de Paine A B (ed) 1917 What is Man? And Other Essays. Harper & classification. L'Annee Sociologique 6: 1-72. Brothers, New York, p 229. 1 The term "genetic" is used in the sense of origin, and does not refer to the discipline of genetics. Terms and classification systems may be descriptive, e.g., the phrase "quartz sandstone" is comprised of descriptive terms, and simply provides a description of what is at hand. Alternatively, terms may be genetic, referring to how an author infers something has formed, e.g., the term "aeolianite", implying that the material has been deposited or formed by aeolian processes. In the latter case, if the origin of the material eventually is re-interpreted as non- aeolian then the term "aeolianite" has to be revised. It is therefore preferable to have non-genetic, descriptive terms and classification systems, rather than genetic terms. 470 Unno: Coming to terms with biological evolution Poulin R 2006 Evolutionary biology of parasites 2nd Edition. Syvanen M 1985 Cross-species gene transfer; implications for a Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. new theory of evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 112(2): 333-43. Rumpho M E, Worful J M, Lee J, Kannan K, Tyler M S, Bhattacharya D, Moustafa A & Manharl J R 2008 Horizontal Thornburg B G, Gotea V & Makalowski W 2006 Transposable gene transfer of the algal nuclear gene psbO to the elements as a significant source of transcription regulating photosynthetic sea slug Elysia chlorotica. Proceedings of the signals. Gene 365:104-110. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Truscott F W & Emory F L 1902 A Philosophical Essay on America 105(46): 17867-17871. Probabilities by Pierre Simon Marquis de Laplace. Translated Ridley M 2004 Evolution. 3rd Edition. Blackwell Publishing, from the 6th French Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Oxford. Van Essen D, Olshausen B A, Anderson C H & Gallant J T 1991 Samarapungavan A & Wiers R W 1997 Children's thoughts on Pattern recognition, attention, and information bottlenecks the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. in the primate visual system. In: B P Mathur & C Koch (eds). Cognitive Science 21: 147-177. Visual Information Processing: From Neurons to Chips (Proceedings Volume). Proceedings of the Society of Scott E C 1999 Problem concepts in evolution: cause, purpose, Photographic Instrumentation Engineers 1473: 17-28. design and chance. In: Kelley P H, Bryan J R & Hansen T A (eds) The evolution-creationism controversy II: perspectives Walter D & Proctor H 1999 Mites: ecology, evolution and on science, religion, and geological education. The behaviour. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Paleontological Society Papers, Volume 5. The Weismann A 1909 The Selection Theory. In: Seward A C (ed). Paleontological Society, 242 pp. Darwin and modem science. Essays in commemoration of Scott S K & Johnsrude I S 2003 The neuroanatomical and the centenary of the birth of Charles Darwin and of the functional organization of speech perception. Trends in fiftieth anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Neurosciences 26(2): 100-107. Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Settlage J 1994 Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of Wollesen T Loesel R & Wanninger A 2009 Pygmy squids and the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science giant brains: mapping the complex cephalopod CNS by Teaching 31: 449^157. phalloidin staining of vibratome sections and whole mount preparations. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 179(1): 63- Sitnikova T, Holcomb P J & Kuperberg G R 2008 Neurocognitive 67. mechanisms of human comprehension. In: Shipley T F & Zacks J M (eds) Understanding Events. Oxford University Zuzovsky R 1994 Conceptualizing a teaching experience on the Press, Oxford. development of the idea of evolution: An epistemological approach to the education of science teachers. Journal of Smit A F A 1999 Interspersed repeats and other mementos of Research in Science Teaching 31: 557-574. transposable elements in mammalian genomes. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 9: 657-663. 471