15 Human Variation: An Adaptive Significance Approach
Leslie E. Fitzpatrick
Learn more about authors and editors, Hess’ student contributions, and versioning history.
Learning Objectives
- Distinguish between adaptations and adjustments as ways of coping with environmental stressors.
- Provide examples of adjustments humans use to cope with thermal stressors.
- Describe how specific patterns of human adaptations and adjustments are correlated to natural selection processes.
- Summarize the role of solar radiation in variations of human skin tone, and explain why reduced pigmentation is advantageous in northern latitudes.
- Compare and contrast the various genetic mutations present in Tibetan and Ethiopian populations that allow them to survive at high altitudes.
- Define the relationship between specific genetic mutations in some human populations and certain infectious diseases, such as the sickle-cell trait mutation and malarial infection.
As early humans left Africa and spread across the globe, they faced numerous challenges related to their new environments. Beyond genetically influenced changes in physiology as a result of evolution, humans have developed lifestyle strategies to cope with and even thrive in a wide range of habitats. The ways populations of humans met such challenges, coupled with their geographic separation throughout the majority of the last two hundred thousand years, have led to the many forms of adaptation in our species. This chapter focuses on the complexities of modern human variation through the lens of human evolutionary history.
Stress and Homeostasis
All organisms, including humans, must maintain a baseline of normal functions within their cells, tissues, and organs to survive. This constancy of internal functions is referred to as homeostasis. Homeostatic regulation, however, may be disrupted by a variety of both external and internal stimuli known as stressors. Within limits, all organisms have evolved certain physiological mechanisms to respond to stressors in an effort to maintain homeostasis. The range of changes in the physiology (function), morphology (form), and/or behaviour of organisms in response to their environments and potential stressors is regulated by its phenotypic plasticity. Coping with these stressors led to the development of both adjustments (behavioural, acclimatory, and developmental) and adaptations, which are explained in detail in the following sections.
Adjustments and Adaptations
Adjustments
The term adjustment refers to an organism’s nongenetic way of coping with the stressors of its environment. Although adjustments themselves are nongenetic in nature, the ability of an organism to experience or develop an adjustment is based on its phenotypic plasticity, which is linked to its evolutionarily guided genetic potential. Adjustments occur exclusively on the individual level. As such, different individuals within a population may experience a wide range of possible adjustments in response to a similar stressor. In general, the three main forms of adjustment are: behavioural, acclimatory, and developmental.
Behavioural Adjustments

When you are cold, do you reach for a blanket? When you are warm, do you seek out shelter cooled by an air-conditioning system? If so, you have likely been influenced to do so by the culture in which you were raised. As noted earlier in this textbook, the term culture refers to a collection of shared, learned beliefs and behaviours among individuals within a discrete population. Behavioural adjustments are regarded as cultural responses to environmental stressors. These adjustments are temporary in nature and, since they are nongenetic, must be constantly altered to meet novel situations posed by the environment. For example, divers are able to reach extraordinary depths (in excess of 300 metres below the surface) within the water through the use of a specialized mixture of gasses for breathing, an apparatus for the delivery of the gasses, protective clothing, and gear to increase visibility. The deeper a diver descends, the more atmospheric pressure the diver experiences, resulting in increased levels of potentially toxic byproducts of respiration within the body. In addition, with increased depth there is a decrease in the ambient temperature of the water and a decrease in the availability of light within the visible spectrum. Deep-water divers are well-versed in the environmental stressors of open waters and employ a variety of strategies based on behavioural adjustments to meet such demands. From wearing protective clothing to help maintain the body’s core temperature to waiting at a specific depth for a prescribed period of time to facilitate the expulsion of nitrogen gas that may have accumulated within the bloodstream, divers employ numerous behavioural adjustments to ensure their safety (Figure 15.1). Without these culturally mediated behavioural adjustments, a deep-water diver’s first dive would also be their last.
In many developing countries, the use of refrigeration for the storage of perishable food products is uncommon; therefore, individuals within these cultures have developed a variety of behavioural adjustment strategies related to food preparation to address possible food spoilage. Through a cross-cultural analysis of spice use in recipes, Paul Sherman and Jennifer Billing (1999) determined that cultures closest to the equator, where temperatures are hotter, tend to use both a greater number and a wider variety of plant-based spices with bacteria-inhibiting phytochemical properties (e.g., garlic and onion). Antimicrobial properties of spices permits the consumption of foods, particularly animal-based protein sources, for a period of time beyond that which would be considered safe. There are some acclimatory adjustment benefits to the use of some pungent spices as well, which are explored in the following section.
Acclimatory Adjustments: Thermal Stressors
Acclimatory adjustments are temporary, reversible changes in an organism’s physiology in response to environmental stressors. Although they are not genetically determined, the range of acclimatory adjustments that an organism is capable of producing is linked to its underlying phenotypic plasticity and the duration and severity of the stressor. A good example of this is the human response to varying ambient temperatures.
To understand human adjustments, we must first understand the thermodynamic mechanisms through which heat may be gained or lost. The four pathways for this are conduction, convection, evaporation, and radiation (Figure 15.2).

Through conduction processes, heat will move from a warmer body to a cooler one through direct contact. An example of this is when you accidentally touch a hot cooktop with your hand and the heat is transferred from the cooktop to your skin.
With convection, when a warm body is surrounded by a cooler fluid (e.g., air or water), heat will be transferred from the warmer body to the cooler fluid. This is why we will often employ the behavioural adjustment of wearing multiple layers of clothing during the winter in an effort to prevent heat loss to the cooler atmosphere. Conversely, if your body temperature is cooler than that of the air surrounding you, your body will absorb heat.
Depending on your physical condition, most people will begin to sweat around 37.2℃ to 37.7℃ (98.9℉–99.9℉). Sweating is an example of evaporation, which occurs when a liquid, such as the water within our bodies, is converted to a gas. Phase conversions, such as those underlying the evaporative processes of transforming liquids to gasses, require energy. In evaporation, this energy is in the form of heat, and the effect is to cool the body.
The final mechanism for heat loss within the human body is radiation, through which energy in the form of electromagnetic waves is produced at a wavelength that typically lies below that which is visible to the human eye. Although humans gain and lose heat from their bodies through radiation, this form of heat transfer is not visible. Humans are capable of losing and gaining heat through conduction, convection, and radiation; however, heat may not be gained through evaporation.
As the ambient temperature decreases, it becomes increasingly difficult for the human body to regulate its core temperature, which is central to the maintenance of homeostasis. When an individual’s body temperature falls below 34.4℃ (93.9°F), the brain’s hypothalamus becomes impaired, leading to issues with body temperature control. A total loss of the ability to regulate body temperature occurs around 29.4℃ (84.9°F), which may result in death. When the ambient temperature falls below the critical temperature of 31℃ (87.8°F), a nude human body that is at rest will respond with a series of physiological changes to preserve homeostasis (Figure 15.3).

The human body experiences two main types of physiological responses to colder temperatures: those that increase the production of heat and those that seek to retain heat. The production of heat within the body is accomplished through short-term increases in the body’s basal metabolic rate, such as shivering to increase muscular metabolism. An organism’s basic metabolic rate is a measure of the energy required to maintain necessary body processes when the organism is at rest. Increases in basal metabolic rates, such as when we shiver from the cold, require increased consumption of energy-providing nutrients. Of course, such increases in metabolic rates are not infinite, as we may only consume a finite amount of nutrients. As with all acclimatory adjustments, an increase in the basal metabolic rate is merely temporary.
Of the physiological mechanisms to preserve heat already in the body, the most notable is vasoconstriction, or the constriction of peripheral capillaries in the skin. The decreased surface area of the capillaries through vasoconstriction results in less heat reaching the surface of the skin where it would be dissipated into the atmosphere. Vasoconstriction also leads to the maintenance of heat near the core of the body where the vital organs are located. As a trade-off, though, individuals are more at risk of cold-related injuries, such as frost-bite, which can lead to tissue necrosis (tissue death) in regions of the body that are most distant from the core (e.g., fingers, toes, nose, ears, cheeks, chin, etc.).
Just as cold stress presents challenges to maintaining homeostasis, heat does as well. In hot climates, the body will absorb heat from its surroundings (through conduction, convection, and radiation), resulting in potential heat-related disorders, such as heat exhaustion. When the human body is exposed to ambient temperatures above 35℃ (95°F), excess body heat will be lost primarily through evaporative processes, specifically through sweating. All humans, regardless of their environment, have approximately the same number of sweat glands within their bodies. Over time, individuals living in hot, arid environments will develop more sensitive forms of sweat glands resulting in the production of greater quantities of sweat (Best, Lieberman, and Kamilar 2019; Pontzer Et al. 2021). In an effort to prevent dehydration due to this form of acclimatory adjustment, there will be an additional reduction in the volume of urine produced by the individual (Pontzer Et al. 2021).
As noted in the previous section, some cultural groups, particularly those in equatorial regions, add pungent spices to their foods to inhibit the colonization of bacteria (Sherman and Billing 1999). Although adding spices to decrease spoilage rates is a behavioural adjustment, the application of some forms of peppers triggers an acclimatory adjustment as well. Compounds referred to as capsaicinoids are the secondary byproducts of chili pepper plants’ metabolism and are produced to deter their consumption by some forms of fungi and mammals. When mammals, such as humans, consume the capsaicinoids from chili peppers, a burning sensation may occur within their mouths and along their digestive tracts. This burning sensation is the result of the activation of capsaicin receptors along the body’s nerve pathways. Although the peppers themselves may be at ambient temperature so their consumption is not causing any form of body temperature increase, the human body perceives the pepper as elevating its core temperature due to the activation of the capsaicin receptors. This causes the hypothalamus to react, initiating sweating in an attempt to lower body temperature and maintain homeostasis. The increased piquancy (application of pungent spices to food) as a means of inhibiting food-borne bacterial colonization in warm climates, as well as spices’ ability to trigger sweating processes as a method for cooling the body, is an example of the intersection between behavioural and acclimatory adjustments that utilized within certain populations.
In addition to increased sweat production to maintain homeostasis in excess heat, vasodilation may occur (Figure 15.4). Vasodilation is an expansion of the capillaries within the skin leading to a more effective transfer of heat from within the body to the exterior to allow conductive, convective, radiative, and evaporative (sweating) processes to occur.

Physiologically based acclimatory adjustments to hot, dry climates may be complemented by behavioural adjustments as well. For example, individuals in such climates may limit their physical activity during the times of day when the temperature is typically the hottest. Additionally, these individuals may wear loose-fitting clothing that covers much of their skin. The looseness of the clothing allows for air to flow between the clothing and the skin to permit the effective evaporation of sweat. Although it may seem counterintuitive to cover one’s body completely in a hot climate, the covering of the skin keeps the sun’s rays from directly penetrating the skin and elevating the body’s core temperature.
Acclimatory Adjustments: Altitudinal Stressors
The challenges posed by thermal conditions are but one form of environmental stressor humans must face. High-altitude environments, which are defined as altitudes in excess of 2,400 metres above sea level (masl) or 7,874 feet above sea level (fasl), pose additional challenges to the maintenance of homeostasis in humans. Some of the main stressors encountered by those living within high-altitude environments include decreased oxygen availability, cold temperatures, low humidity, high wind speed, a reduced nutritional base, and increased solar radiation levels. Of these challenges, the most significant is the decreased availability of oxygen.
To visualize how altitude affects the availability of oxygen, imagine two balloons that are each filled with the same quantity of oxygen molecules. One of these balloons is positioned at sea-level and the other is placed high upon a mountain peak. For the balloon at sea level, there is more atmospheric pressure pressing down on the molecules within this balloon. This leads to the oxygen molecules within the sea level balloon being forced into a more compact organization. In contrast, the mountain peak balloon has less atmospheric pressure pressing down on it. This leads to the oxygen molecules within that balloon spreading out from each other since they are not being forced together quite as strongly. This example highlights the availability of oxygen molecules in each breath than we take in low- versus high-altitude environments. At 5,500 masl (approximately 18,000 fasl), the atmospheric pressure is approximately 50% of its value at sea level (Peacock 1998). At the peak of Mount Everest (8,900 masl or approximately 29,200 fasl), the atmospheric pressure is equivalent to only about 30% of their sea level amounts (Peacock 1998; Figure 15.5).

Due to decreased availability of oxygen at higher altitudes, certain acclimatory adjustments are required to ensure the maintenance of homeostasis for individuals other than those who were gestated, born, and raised at high altitude. For these people, their rate of breathing will increase to permit greater quantities of air containing oxygen into the lungs when they ascend into higher altitude environments. An increased speed and depth of breathing, which is referred to as hyperpnea, is not sustainable indefinitely; thus, the rate of breathing begins to decrease as the person becomes acclimatized to the altitude. During the initial phases of high-altitude-related hyperpnea, the heart begins to beat faster but the amount of blood pushed through during each beat decreases slightly. In addition, the body will divert energy from noncritical bodily functions, such as digestive processes.
Once the atmospheric oxygen reaches the alveoli (small air sacs) in the lungs, it spreads across the alveolar membrane and enters erythrocytes (red blood cells). As oxygen reaches the alevoli’s erythrocytes, it loosely binds with hemoglobin (an iron-rich protein) contained in the erythrocytes. When the erythrocytes carrying the hemoglobin-bound oxygen molecules reach capillaries where the partial pressure of oxygen is relatively low, oxygen will be released by the hemoglobin so that it is free for diffusion into body cells. Similar to acclimatory adjustments related to thermal conditions (e.g., shivering or sweating), those related to high altitude may not be infinitely sustained due to their energetically expensive nature.

Although the long-term acclimatory adjustments that an individual from low altitude experiences in a high-altitude environment may permit them to reside there successfully, reproduction within such settings is frequently complicated. With increased altitude comes an increased risk of miscarriage, lower birth weights, and higher infant mortality rates. As the pregnant person’s body seeks to preserve its own homeostasis, there is often a decreased rate and volume of blood flow to the uterus as compared to a pregnant person of similar physiological condition at a lower altitude (Moore, Niermeyer, and Zamudio 1998). This results in a decrease in the amount of oxygen that will be passed through the uterus and placenta to the developing fetus. In addition, pregnant people who experience pregnancy at higher altitudes are more prone to developing preeclampsia (severe elevation of blood pressure), which is linked to increased rates of both fetal and maternal death (Moore, Niermeyer, and Zamudio 1998; Figure 15.6).
Developmental Adjustments
Developmental adjustments occur only in individuals who spent their developmental period (i.e., childhood and adolescence) within a high-altitude environment; they do not apply to those who moved into these environments in the post developmental (i.e., adult) phase. Furthermore, the degree of developmental adjustment within an individual is directly related to their underlying phenotypic plasticity as well as the amount of time during the crucial growth and development period that the individual resides within the challenging environment. Although humans have the remarkable capacity to develop and survive within environments that are not overly conducive to the successful maintenance of homeostasis, there are definitely physiological costs associated with this ability.

In general, high-altitude natives tend to grow more slowly and physically mature later than their low-altitude counterparts (Figure 15.7). Lowered growth and maturity rates are linked not only to the increased physiological demands placed on the body due to the decreased partial pressure of oxygen but also to reductions in the quality of the nutritional base at higher altitudes. Increased terrain complexity, elevated solar radiation levels, and higher wind speeds coupled with the lower temperatures and humidity levels found at high altitudes leads to difficulties with growing and maintaining crops and raising livestock. Overall, as altitude rises, the quality of the available nutritional base goes down, which is correlated to a lack of the nutrients necessary to ensure proper physiological growth and development in humans. Thus, even though individuals may be able to develop and grow within high-altitude environments, they may not reach their full genetically mediated growth potential as they would in a lower-altitude environment.
Not all developmental adjustments are linked to environmental pressures such as climate or altitude; rather, some of these adjustments are correlated to sociocultural or behavioural practices. Some of these adjustments may affect the physiological appearance of an individual when they are practiced consistently during the development and growth phases.
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has no definitive cause; however, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a report in 1992 linking SIDS to infants (under the age of one) sleeping on their stomachs. The “Back to Sleep” campaign championed by the American Academy of Pediatrics helped educate members of the medical community as well as the public that the best sleep position for infants is on their backs (American Academy of Pediatrics 2000).

Placing infants on their backs to sleep has led to decreased infant mortality (death) rates due to SIDS; however, it has led to an unintended consequence: infant cranial deformation. The cranial deformations experienced by infants who sleep solely on their back tend to manifest in one of two forms: brachycephaly and plagiocephaly (Roby Et al. 2012; Figure 15.8). With positional brachycephaly, the back of the infant’s head appears rather uniformly flattened due to repetitive contact with a flat surface, such as a crib mattress or car seat back. In cases of positional plagiocephaly, the back of the infant’s head appears asymmetrically flattened. This asymmetry is typically due to an uneven distribution of mechanical forces resulting from the manner in which the infant’s head is in contact with a flat surface. The forms of cranial deformation resulting from sleep positioning do not affect the infant’s brain development. For many individuals, the appearance of the deformation is minimized during later development. Still, some individuals will maintain the pattern of cranial deformation acquired during their infancy throughout their lives. The unintentional cranial deformation resulting from placing infants on their backs to sleep as a means of preventing SIDS-related deaths is a physiological indicator of a behavioural adjustment.
Adaptations
As we have just explored, survival and reproduction at high altitudes present numerous physiological challenges for most humans. The behavioural, acclimatory, and developmental adjustments discussed above are all related to the phenotypic plasticity of the individual; however, most adjustments are temporary in nature and they affect a single individual rather than all individuals within a population. But what if the physiological changes were permanent? What if they affected all members of a population rather than just a single individual? The long-term, microevolutionary (i.e., genetic) changes that occur within a population in response to an environmental stressor are referred to as an adaptation. From an evolutionary standpoint, the term adaptation refers to a phenotypic trait (i.e., physiological/morphological feature or behaviour) that has been acted upon by natural selection processes to increase a species’ ability to survive and reproduce within a specific environment. Within the field of physiology, the term adaptation refers to traits that serve to restore homeostasis. The physiology-based interpretation of adaptations presumes that all traits serve a purpose and that all adaptations are beneficial in nature; however, this may be a fallacy, since some traits may be present without clear evidence as to their purpose. As such, during the following discussion of various forms of adaptations in human populations, we will focus our attention on phenotypic traits with an evidence-based purpose.
Adaptation: Altitudinal Adaptation

As mentioned in the previous section, there is genomic research supporting the evolutionary selection of certain phenotypes and their corresponding genotypes within indigenous high-altitude populations across the globe. The following discussion focuses on two high-altitude indigenous populations from Tibet and Ethiopia (Figure 15.9). Although these populations share many common genetic traits based on relatively similar evolutionary histories influenced by similar environmental stressors, there is support for local genetically based adaptation as well, based on different genes being acted upon by environmental stressors that may be unique to Tibet and Ethiopia (Bigham 2016).
Tibetan populations have resided in the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayan Mountain regions at elevations exceeding 4,000 masl (13,100 fasl) for at least the past 7,400 years (Meyer Et al. 2017). There is evidence of a genetic exchange event involving Tibetan populations and Denisovans around 48,700 years ago, which introduced a haplogroup involving mutations of the EPAS1 gene (Zhang Et al. 2021). The EPAS1 is involved in the regulation of erythrocytes and hemoglobin. For individuals originating in lower-altitude environments, EPAS1 stimulates increased erythrocyte production in high-altitude environments as a temporary acclimatory adjustment. For indigenous high-altitude populations of Tibet, the EPAS1 gene mutation introduced by Denisovan introgression inhibits increased erythrocyte production, which reduces potential negative effects (e.g., stroke or heart attack) associated with long-term high levels of erythrocyte production (Gray Et al. 2022; Zhang Et al. 2021). The erythrocyte count of high-altitude Tibetans with the EPAS1 point mutation is about the same as for individuals residing at sea level.
Populations indigenous to the Semien Plateau of Ethiopia, such as the Oromo and Amhara, share a similar but not identical EPAS1 point mutation with the Tibetan population (Bigham 2016); however, there is no indication that this mutation was derived from Denisovan introgression. The EPAS1 mutations occurred independently from each other; however, their effects are still similar in that they permit the Tibetan and Ethiopian populations to survive at high altitudes. Not all adaptations are related to life in high-altitude environments, however. In the following sections, we will address two more general examples of adaptation in human populations: variations in skin colour and differences in body build.
Adaptation: Skin Tone Basics
When you think about your own skin tone and compare it to members of your family, do you all possess exactly the same shade? Are some members of your family darker than others? What about your friends? Your classmates? Skin tone occurs along a continuum, which is a reflection of the complex evolutionary history of our species. The expression of skin tone is regulated primarily by melanin and hemoglobin. Melanin is a dark brown-black pigment that is produced by the oxidation of certain amino acids (e.g., tyrosine, cysteine, phenylalanine) in melanocytes. Melanocytes are specialized cells located in the base layer (stratum basale) of the skin’s epidermis as well as several other areas within the body (Figure 15.10). Within the melanocytes, melanin is produced in the special organelle called a melanosome. Melanosomes serve as sites for the synthesis, storage, and transportation of melanin. Melanosomes transport the melanin particles through cellular projections to epidermal skin cells (keratinocytes) as well as to the base of the growing hair root. In the eye, however, melanin particles produced by the melanosomes remain present within the iris and are not transported beyond their origin location. The two main forms of melanin related to skin, hair, and eye colour are eumelanin and pheomelanin. All humans contain both eumelanin and pheomelanin within their bodies; however, the relative expression of these two forms of melanin determines an individual’s overall colouring. Eumelanin is a brown-to-black coloured melanin particle while pheomelanin is more pink-to-red coloured. Individuals with darker skin or hair colour have a greater expression of eumelanin than those with lighter-coloured skin and blonde or red hair.

Adaptation: Melanogenesis
Although all humans have approximately the same number of melanocytes within their epidermis, the production of melanin by these melanocytes varies. There are two forms of melanogenesis (the process through which melanocytes generate melanin): basal and activated. As discussed previously, the expression of eumelanin and pheomelanin by the melanocytes is genetically regulated through the expression of specific receptors (e.g., MC1R) or other melanocyte components (e.g., MFSD12). Basal melanogenesis is dependent upon an individual’s inherent genetic composition and is not influenced by external factors. Activated melanogenesis occurs in response to ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure, specifically UV-B (short UV wave) exposure. Increased melanogenesis in response to UV-B exposure serves to provide protection to the skin’s innermost layer called the hypodermis, which lies below the epidermis and dermis (Figure 15.11). Melanin in the skin, specifically eumelanin, effectively absorbs UV-B radiation from light—meaning that it will not reach the hypodermal layer. This effect is often more apparent during periods of the year when people tend to be outside more and the weather is warmer, which leads to most donning fewer protective garments. The exposure of skin to sunlight is, of course, culturally mediated with some cultures encouraging the covering of skin at all times.

As previously noted in this chapter, hemoglobin is an iron-rich protein that binds with oxygen in the bloodstream. For individuals with lighter-coloured skin, blood vessels near the surface of the skin and the hemoglobin contained within those vessels is more apparent than in individuals with darker skin. The visible presence of hemoglobin coupled with the pink-to-red tone of the pheomelanin leads to lighter-skinned individuals having a pale pink skin tone. Individuals with lighter skin more readily absorb UV radiation as their basal melanin expression is directed more toward the production of pheomelanin than eumelanin. But why are there so many variations in skin tone in humans? To answer this question, we now turn toward an exploration of an evolutionary-based adaptation of skin tone as a function of the environment.
Adaptation: Evolutionary Basis for Skin Tone Variation

Skin cancer is a significant concern for many individuals with light skin tone as the cumulative exposure of the epidermis and underlying skin tissues to UV radiation may result in the development of abnormal cells within those tissues, leading to malignancies. Although darker-skinned individuals are at risk for skin cancer as well, they are less likely to develop it due to increased levels of melanin, specifically eumelanin, in their skin. Even though skin cancer is a serious health concern for some individuals, most skin cancers occur in the postreproductive years; therefore, it is improbable that evolutionary forces favouring varying melanin expression levels are related to a selective pressure to avoid such cancers. Furthermore, if avoiding skin cancer were the primary factor driving the evolution of various skin tones, then it reasons that everyone would have the most significant expression of eumelanin possible. So, why do we have different skin tones (Figure 15.12)?
The term cline (introduced in Chapter 14) refers to the continuum or spectrum of gradations (i.e., levels or degrees) from one extreme to another. With respect to skin tone, the various tonal shades occur clinally with darker skin being more prevalent near the equator and gradually decreasing in tone (i.e., decreased melanin production) in more distant latitudes. For individuals who are indigenous to equatorial regions, the increased levels of melanin within their skin provides them with a measure of protection against both sunburn and sunstroke because the melanin is more reflective of UV radiation than hemoglobin. In cases of severe sunburn, eccrine glands are affected, resulting in an individual’s ability to sweat being compromised. As sweat is the body’s most effective means of reducing its core temperature to maintain homeostasis, damage to the eccrine glands may lead to numerous physiological issues related to heat that may ultimately result in death.
Even though avoiding severe sunburn and sunstroke is of great importance to individuals within equatorial regions, this is likely not the primary factor driving the evolutionary selection of darker skin within these regions. It has been proposed that UV radiation’s destruction of folic acid, which is a form of B-complex vitamin, may have led to the selection of darker skin in equatorial regions. For pregnant people, low levels of folic acid within the body during gestation may lead to defects in the formation of the brain and spinal cord of the fetus. This condition, which is referred to as spina bifida (Figure 15.13), often significantly reduces an infant’s chances of survival without medical intervention. In people producing sperm, low levels of folic acid within the body reduce sperm quantity and quality. Thus, in geographic regions with high UV radiation levels (i.e., equatorial regions), there appears to be an evolutionarily driven correlation between darker skin and fertility.

If darker skin tone is potentially correlated to more successful reproduction, then why do lighter shades of skin exist? One hypothesis is that there is a relationship between lighter skin tone and vitamin D synthesis within the body. When skin is exposed to the UV-B radiation waves in sunlight, a series of chemical reactions occur within the epidermis leading to the production of vitamin D3, which is a fat-soluble vitamin that assists the body with absorbing calcium and phosphorus in the small intestine. These nutrients are among those that are critical for the proper growth and maintenance of bone tissue within the body. In the absence of adequate minerals, particularly calcium, bone structure and strength will be compromised, leading to the development of rickets during the growth phase. Rickets is a disease affecting children during their growth phase. It is characterized by inadequately calcified bones that are softer and more flexible than normal. Individuals with rickets will develop a true bowing of their legs, which may affect their mobility (Figure 15.14). In addition, deformation of pelvic bones in people who may become pregnant may occur as a result of rickets, leading to complications with reproduction. In adults, a deficiency in vitamin D3 will often result in osteomalacia, which is a general softening of the bones due to inadequate mineralization. As noted, a variety of maladies may occur due to the inadequate production or absorption of vitamin D3, as well as the destruction of folate within the human body. Therefore, from an evolutionary perspective, natural selection should favour a skin tone that is best suited to a given environment.

In general, the trend related to lighter skin pigmentation further from the equator follows a principle called Gloger’s Rule. This rule states that within the same species of mammals the more heavily pigmented individuals tend to originate near the equator while lighter-pigmented members of the species will be found in regions further from the equator. Gloger’s Rule applies latitudinally; however, it does not appear to hold for certain human populations near the poles. Specifically, it does not apply to the Inuit people (Figure 15.15), who are indigenous to regions near the North Pole and currently reside in portions of Canada, Greenland, Alaska, and Denmark. The Inuit have a darker skin tone that would not be anticipated under the provisions of Gloger’s Rule. The high reflectivity of light off of snow and ice, which is common in polar regions, necessitates the darker skin tone of these individuals to prevent folic acid degradation just as it does for individuals within equatorial regions. The consumption of vitamin D–rich foods, such as raw fish, permits the Inuit to reside at high latitudes with darker skin tone while preventing rickets.
Adaptation: Shape and Size Variations

In addition to natural selection playing a role in the determination of melanin expression, it plays a significant role in the determination of the shape and size of the human body. As previously discussed, the most significant thermodynamic mechanism of heat loss from the body is radiation. At temperatures below 20℃ (68℉), the human body loses around 65% of its heat to radiative processes; however, the efficiency of radiation is correlated to the overall body shape and size of the individual. There is a direct correlation between the ratio of an object’s surface area to mass and the amount of heat that may be lost through radiation. For example, two objects of identical composition and mass are heated to the same temperature. One object is a cube and the other is a sphere. Which object will cool the fastest? Geometrically, a sphere has the smallest surface area per unit mass of any three-dimensional object, so the sphere will cool more slowly than the cube. In other words, the smaller the ratio of the surface area to mass an object has, the more it will retain heat. With respect to the cube in our example, mass increases by the cube, but surface area may increase only by the square, so size will affect the mass to surface area ratio. This, in general, holds true for humans, as well.
In regions where temperatures are consistently cold, the body shape and size of individuals indigenous to the area tend to be more compact. These individuals have a relatively higher body mass to surface area (i.e., skin) than their counterparts from equatorial regions where the average temperatures are considerably warmer. Individuals from hot climates, such as the Fulani (Figure 15.16) of West Africa, have limbs that are considerably longer than those of individuals from cold climates, such as the Inuit of Greenland (Figure 15.16). Evolutionarily, the longer limbs of individuals from equatorial regions (e.g., the Fulani) provide a greater surface area (i.e., lower body mass to surface area ratio) for the dissipation of heat through radiative processes. In contrast, the relatively short limbs of Arctic-dwelling people, such as the Inuit, allows for the retention of heat because there is a decreased surface area through which heat may radiate away from the body.

As described above, there are certain trends related to the general shape and size of human bodies in relation to the thermal conditions. To better describe these trends, we turn to a couple of general principles that are applicable to a variety of species beyond humans. Bergmann’s Rule predicts that as average environmental temperature decreases, populations are expected to exhibit an increase in weight and a decrease in surface area (Figure 15.17a). Also, within the same species of homeothermic animals, the relative length of projecting body parts (e.g., nose, ears, and limbs) increases in relation to the average environmental temperature (Figure 15.17b). This principle, referred to as Allen’s Rule, notes that longer, thinner limbs are advantageous for the radiation of excess heat in hot environments and shorter, stockier limbs assist with the preservation of body heat in cold climates. A measure of the crural index (crural index = tibia length ÷ femur length) of individuals from various human populations provides support for Allen’s Rule since this value is lower in individuals from colder climates than it is for those from hot climates. The crural indices for human populations vary directly with temperature, so individuals with higher crural index values are generally from regions with a warmer average environmental temperature. Conversely, the crural indices are lower for individuals from regions where there are colder average temperatures.



Nasal shape and size (Figure 15.18) is another physiological feature affected by our ancestors’ environments. The selective role of climate in determining human nasal variation is typically approached by dividing climates into four adaptive zones: hot-dry, hot-wet, cold-dry, and cold-wet (Maddux Et al. 2016). A principal role of the nasal cavity is to condition (i.e., warm and humidify) ambient air prior to its reaching the lungs. Given this function of the nasal cavity, it is anticipated that different nasal shapes and sizes will be related to varying environments. In cold-dry climates, an individual’s nasal cavity must provide humidification and warmth to the dry air when breathing in through the nose (Noback Et al. 2011). Also, in that type of climate, the nasal cavity must conserve moisture and minimize heat loss during when the individual exhales through the nose (Noback Et al. 2011). From a physiological stress perspective, this is a stressful event.
Conversely, in hot-wet environments, there is no need for the nasal cavity to provide additional moisture to the inhaled air nor is there a need to warm the air or to preserve heat within the nasal cavity (Noback Et al. 2011). So, in hot-wet climates, the body is under less physiological stress related to the inhalation of ambient air than in cold-dry climates. As with most human morphological elements, the shape and size of the nasal cavity occurs along a cline. Due to the environmental stressors of cold-dry environments requiring the humidification and warming of air through the nasal cavity, individuals indigenous to such environments tend to have taller (longer) noses with a reduced nasal entrance (nostril opening) size (Noback Et al. 2011). This general shape is referred to as leptorrhine, and it allows for a larger surface area within the nasal cavity itself for the air to be warmed and humidified prior to entering the lungs (Maddux Et al. 2016). In addition, the relatively small nasal entrance of leptorrhine noses serves as a means of conserving moisture and heat (Noback Et al. 2011). Individuals indigenous to hot-wet climates tend to have platyrrhine nasal shapes, which are shorter with broader nasal entrances (Maddux Et al. 2016). Since individuals in hot-wet climates do not need to humidify and warm the air entering the nose, their nasal tract is shorter and the nasal entrance wider to permit the effective cooling of the nasal cavity during respiratory processes.
Adaptation: Infectious Disease
Throughout our evolutionary journey, humans have been exposed to numerous infectious diseases. In the following section, we will explore some of the evolutionary-based adaptations that have occurred in certain populations in response to the stressors presented by select infectious diseases. One of the primary examples of natural selection processes acting on the human genome in response to the presence of an infectious disease is the case of the relationship between the sickle-cell anemia trait and malaria, introduced in Chapter 5.
Malaria is a zoonotic disease (an infectious disease transmitted between animals and humans; it is covered in more detail in Chapter 17). It is caused by the spread of the parasitic protozoa from the genus Plasmodium (Figure 15.19). These unicellular, eukaryotic protozoa are transmitted through the bite of a female Anopheles mosquito. During the bite process, the protozoan parasites present within an infected mosquito’s saliva enter a host’s bloodstream where they are transported to the liver. Within the liver, the parasites multiply and are eventually released into the bloodstream, where they infect erythrocytes. Once inside the erythrocytes, the parasites reproduce until they exceed the cell’s storage capacity, causing it to burst and release the parasites into the bloodstream once again. This replication cycle continues as long as there are viable erythrocytes within the host to infect.

General complications from malaria infections include the following: enlargement of the spleen (due to destruction of infected erythrocytes); lower number of thrombocytes (also called platelets, required for coagulation/clotting of blood); high levels of bilirubin (a byproduct of hemoglobin breakdown in the liver) in the blood; jaundice (yellowing of the skin and eyes due to increased blood bilirubin levels); fever; vomiting; retinal (eye) damage; and convulsions (seizures). In 2020, there were 241 million cases of malaria reported globally, with 95% of those cases originating in Africa (World Health Organization 2021). In sub-Saharan Africa, where incidents of malaria are the highest in the world, 125 million pregnancies are affected by malaria, resulting in 200,000 infant deaths (Hartman, Rogerson, and Fischer 2013). Pregnant people who become infected during the gestational process are more likely to have low-birthweight infants due to prematurity or growth restriction inside the uterus (Hartman, Rogerson, and Fischer 2013). After birth, infants born to malaria-infected pregnant people are more likely to develop infantile anemia (low red-blood cell counts), a malaria infection that is not related to the maternal malarial infection, and they are more likely to die than infants born to non-malaria-infected pregnant people (Hartman, Rogerson, and Fischer 2013).
For children and adolescents whose brains are still developing, there is a risk of cognitive (intellectual) impairment associated with some forms of malaria infections (Fernando, Rodrigo, and Rajapakse 2010). Given the relatively high rates of morbidity (disease) and mortality (number of deaths) associated with malaria, it is plausible that this disease may have served as a selective pressure during human evolution. Support for natural selection related to malaria resistance is related to genetic mutations associated with sickle cell, thalassemia, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, and the absence of certain antigens (molecules capable of inducing an immune response from the host) on erythrocytes. For the purposes of this text, we will focus our discussion on the relationship between sickle cell disease and malaria.

Sickle cell disease is a group of genetically inherited blood disorders characterized by an abnormality in the shape of the hemoglobin within erythrocytes. It is important to note that there are multiple variants of hemoglobin, including, but not limited to the following: A, D, C, E, F, H, S, Barts, Portland, Hope, Pisa, and Hopkins. Each of these variants of hemoglobin may result in various conditions within the body; however, for the following explanation we will focus solely on variants A and S.
Individuals who inherit a mutated gene (hemoglobin with a sickled erythrocyte variety, HbS) on chromosome 11 from both parents will develop sickle cell anemia, which is the most severe form of the sickle cell disease family (Figure 15.20). The genotype of an individual with sickle cell anemia is HbSS; whereas, an individual without sickle cell alleles has a genotype of HbAA representing two normal adult hemoglobin type A variants. Manifestations of sickle cell anemia (HbSS) range from mild to severe, with some of the more common symptoms being anemia, blood clots, organ failure, chest pain, fever, and low blood-oxygen levels. In high-income countries with advanced medical care, the median life expectancy of an HbSS individual is around 60 years; however, in low-income countries where advanced medical care is scarce, as many as 90% of children with sickle cell disease perish before the age of five (Longo Et al. 2017).
Considering that advanced medical care was not available during much of human evolutionary history, it stands to reason that the majority of individuals with the HbSS genotype died before the age of reproduction. If that is the case though, why do we still have the HbS variant present in modern populations? As covered earlier in this textbook, the genotype of an individual is composed of genes from both biological parents. In the case of an individual with an HbSS genotype, the sickle cell allele (HbS) was inherited from each of the parents. For individuals with the heterozygous genotype of HbSA, they have inherited both a sickle cell allele (HbS) and a normal hemoglobin allele (HbA). Heterozygous (HbSA) individuals who reside in regions where malaria is endemic may have a selective advantage. They will experience a sickling of some, but not all, of their erythrocytes. As discussed in the following paragraph, HbSA heterozygous individuals are less likely to die from malaria infections than their HbAA counterparts. Unlike an individual with the HbSS genotype, someone with HbSA may experience some of the symptoms listed above; however, they are generally less severe.
As noted earlier, the mechanism through which Plasmodium protozoan parasites replicate involves human erythrocyte cells. However, due to their sickled shape, as well as the presence of an abnormally shaped protein within the cell, the parasites are unable to replicate effectively in the erythrocyte cells coded for by the HbS allele (Cyrklaff Et al. 2011). An individual who has an HbSA genotype and an active malaria infection will become ill with the disease to a lesser extent than someone with an HbAA genotype, which increases their chances of survival. Although normal erythrocytes (regulated by the HbA allele) allow for parasite replication, they are not able to replicate in HbS erythrocytes of the heterozygote. So, individuals with the HbSA genotype are more likely to survive a malaria infection than an individual who is HbAA. Although individuals with the HbSA genotype may endure some physiological complications related to the sickling of some of their erythrocytes, their morbidity and mortality rates are lower than they are for HbSS members of the population. The majority of individuals who are heterozygous or homozygous for the HbS trait have ancestors who originated in sub-Saharan Africa, India, Saudi Arabia, and regions in South and Central America, the Mediterranean (Turkey, Greece, and Italy), and the Caribbean (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017; Figure 15.21).

With respect to the history of these regions, during the early phases of settlement horticulture was the primary method of crop cultivation. Typically performed on a small scale, horticulture is based on manual labour and relatively simple hand tools rather than the use of draft animals or irrigation technologies. Common in horticulture is swidden, or the cutting and burning of plants in woodland and grassland regions. The swidden is the prepared field that results following a slash-and-burn episode. This practice fundamentally alters the soil chemistry, removes plants that provide shade, and increases the areas where water may pool. This anthropogenically altered landscape provides the perfect breeding ground for the Anopheles mosquito, as it prefers warm, stagnant pools of water (Figure 15.22).

Although swidden agriculture was historically practiced across the globe, it became most problematic in the regions where the Anopheles mosquito is endemic. These areas have the highest incidence rates of malaria infection. Over time, the presence of the Anopheles mosquito and the Plasmodium parasite that it transmitted acted as a selective pressure, particularly in regions where swidden agricultural practices were common, toward the selection of individuals with some modicum of resistance against the infection. In these regions, HbSS and HbSA individuals would have been more likely to survive and reproduce successfully. Although individuals and populations are far more mobile now than they have been throughout much of history, there are still regions where we can see higher rates of malaria infection as well as greater numbers of individuals with the HbS erythrocyte variant. The relationship between malaria and the selective pressure for the HbS variant is one of the most prominent examples of natural selection in the human species within recent evolutionary history.
Adaptation: Lactase Persistence
With the case of sickled erythrocytes and their resistance to infection by malaria parasites, there is strong support for a cause-and-effect-style relationship linked to natural selection. Although somewhat less apparent, there is a correlation between lactase persistence and environmental challenges. Lactase-phlorizin hydrolase (LPH) is an enzyme that is primarily produced in the small intestine and permits the proper digestion of lactose, a disaccharide (composed of two simple sugars: glucose and galactose) found in the milk of mammals. Most humans will experience a decrease in the expression of LPH following weaning, leading to an inability to properly digest lactose. Generally, LPH production decreases between the ages of two and five and is completely absent by the age of nine (Dzialanski Et al. 2016). For these individuals, the ingestion of lactose may lead to a wide variety of gastrointestinal ailments, including abdominal bloating, increased gas, and diarrhea. Although the bloating and gas are unpleasant, the diarrhea caused by a failure to properly digest lactose can be life-threatening if severe enough due to the dehydration it can cause. Some humans, however, are able to produce LPH far beyond the weaning period.
Individuals who continue to produce LPH have what is referred to as the lactase persistence trait. The lactase persistence trait is encoded for a gene called LCT, which is located on human chromosome 2 (Ranciaro Et al. 2014). From an evolutionary and historical perspective, this trait is most commonly linked to cultures that have practiced cattle domestication (Figure 15.23). For individuals in those cultures, the continued expression of LPH may have provided a selective advantage. During periods of environmental stress, such as a drought, if an individual is capable of successfully digesting cow’s milk, they have a higher chance of survival than someone who suffers from diarrhea-linked dehydration due to a lack of LPH. Although the frequency of the lactase persistence trait is relatively low among African agriculturalists, it is high among pastoralist populations that are traditionally associated with cattle domestication, such as the Tutsi and Fulani, who have frequencies of 90% and 50%, respectively (Tishkoff Et al. 2007).

Cattle domestication began around 11,000 years ago in Europe (Beja-Pereira Et al. 2006) and 7,500 to 9,000 years ago in the Middle East and North Africa (Tishkoff Et al. 2007). Based on human genomic studies, it is estimated that the mutation for the lactase persistence trait occurred around 2,000 to 20,000 years ago for European populations (Tishkoff Et al. 2007). For African populations, the lactase persistence trait emerged approximately 1,200 to 23,000 years ago (Gerbault Et al. 2011). This begs the question: Is this mutation the same for both populations? It appears that the emergence of the lactase persistence mutation in non-European populations, specifically those in East Africa (e.g., Tutsi and Fulani), is a case of convergent evolution. With convergent evolution events, a similar mutation may occur in species of different lineages through independent evolutionary processes. Based on our current understanding of the genetic mutation pathways for the lactase persistence trait in European and African populations, these mutations are not representative of a shared lineage. In other words, just because a person of European origin and a person of African origin can each digest milk due to the presence of the lactase-persistence trait in their genotypes, it does not mean that these two individuals inherited it due to shared common ancestry.
Is it possible that the convergent evolution of similar lactase-persistence traits in disparate populations is merely a product of genetic drift? Or is there evidence for natural selection? Even though 23,000 years may seem like a long time, it is but a blink of the proverbial evolutionary eye. From the perspective of human evolutionary pathways, mutations related to the LCT gene have occurred relatively recently. Similar genetic changes in multiple populations through genetic drift processes, which are relatively slow and directionless, fail to accumulate as rapidly as lactase-persistence traits (Gerbault Et al. 2011). The widespread accumulation of these traits in a relatively short period of time supports the notion that an underlying selective pressure must be driving this form of human evolution. Although to date no definitive factors have been firmly identified, it is thought that environmental pressures are likely to credit for the rapid accumulation of the lactase-persistence trait in multiple human populations through convergent evolutionary pathways.
Special Topic: Skin Tone Genetic Regulation
The melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene acts to control which types of melanin (eumelanin or pheomelanin) are produced by melanocytes. The MC1R receptor is located on the surface of the melanocyte cells (Quillen Et al. 2018). Activation of the MC1R receptors may occur through exposure to specific environmental stimuli or due to underlying genetic processes. Inactive or blocked MC1R receptors result in melanocytes producing pheomelanin. If the MC1R gene receptors are activated, then the melanocytes will produce eumelanin. Thus, individuals with activated MC1R receptors tend to have darker-pigmented skin and hair than individuals with inactive or blocked receptors.
The alleles of another gene, the major facilitator, superfamily domain-containing protein 12 (MFSD12) gene, affect the expression of melanocytes in a different way than the MC1R gene. Instead of affecting the activation of melanocyte receptors, the MFSD12 alleles indirectly affect the membranes of melanocyte lysosomes (Quillen Et al. 2018). The melanocyte’s lysosomes are organelles containing digestive enzymes, which ultimately correlate to varying degrees of pigmentation in humans. Variations in the membranes of the melanocyte lysosomes ultimately correlate to differing degrees of pigmentation in humans.
Ancestral MFSD12 allele variants are present in European and East Asian populations and are associated with lighter pigmentation of the skin (Crawford Et al. 2017; Quillen Et al. 2018). In addition, this ancestral variant is also associated with Tanzanian, San, and Ethiopian populations of Afro-Asiatic ancestry (Crawford Et al. 2017; Quillen Et al. 2018). In contrast, the more derived (i.e., more recent) allele variants that are linked to darker skin tones are more commonly present in East African populations, particularly those of Nilo-Saharan descent (Crawford Et al. 2017; Quillen Et al. 2018). The notion that ancestral alleles of MFSD12 are associated with lighter skin pigmentation is in opposition to the commonly accepted idea that our pigmentation was likely darker throughout early human evolution (Crawford Et al. 2017; Quillen Et al. 2018). Due to the complexity of the human genome, MFSD12 and MC1R are but two examples of alleles affecting human skin tone. Furthermore, there is genetic evidence suggesting that certain genomic variants associated with both darker and lighter skin colour have been subject to directional selection processes for as long as 600,000 years, which far exceeds the evolutionary span of Homo sapiens sapiens (Crawford Et al. 2017; Quillen Et al. 2018).
Summary
From the time that the first of our species left Africa, we have had to adjust and adapt to numerous environmental challenges. The remarkable ability of human beings to maintain homeostasis through a combination of both nongenetic (adjustments) and genetic (adaptations) means has allowed us to occupy a remarkable variety of environments, from high-altitude mountainous regions to the tropics near the equator. From adding piquant, pungent spices to our foods as a means of inhibiting food-borne illnesses due to bacterial growth to donning garments specially suited to local climates, behavioural adjustments have provided us with a nongenetic means of coping with obstacles to our health and well-being. Acclimatory adjustments, such as sweating when we are warm in an attempt to regulate our body temperature or experiencing increased breathing rates as a means of increasing blood oxygen levels in regions where the partial pressure of oxygen is low, have been instrumental in our survival with respect to thermal and altitudinal environmental challenges. For some individuals, developmental adjustments that were acquired during their development and growth phases (e.g., increased heart and lung capacities for individuals from high-altitude regions) provide them with a form of physiological advantage not possible for someone who ventures to such an environmentally challenging region as an adult. Genetically mediated adaptations, such as variations in the pigmentation of our skin, have ensured our evolutionary fitness across all latitudes. Taken together, these examples point to a broader question: will the human species continue to adjust and adapt to new environmental challenges in the future? If past performance is any measure of future expectations, then the human story will continue as long as we do not alter our environment to the point that the plasticity of our behaviour, physiological, and morphological boundaries is exceeded.
Review Questions
- Detail at least two examples of how natural selection has influenced human variation. Specifically, what was the selective pressure that may have led to a preference for a specific trait and how is that trait related to an increased level of fitness?
- Why is reduced pigmentation of the skin advantageous for individuals from northern latitudes? What role does darker skin pigmentation serve for individuals near the equator? What is the relationship between skin pigmentation and fitness?
- What are some of the risks associated with pregnancy at high altitude? Compare and contrast the various genetic mutations of the indigenous Tibetan and Ethiopian high-altitude populations. In your answer, specifically address the issue of pregnancy at high altitudes.
- What is the relationship between the sickle cell mutation and the Plasmodium parasite? Would having the HbSA genotype still be advantageous in a region where such parasites are not common? Why or why not?
Key Terms
Acclimatory adjustments: Processes by which an individual organism adjusts in order to maintain homeostasis in response to environmental challenges.
Activated melanogenesis: Increase in melanin production in response to ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure.
Adaptation: Alteration in population-level gene frequencies related to environmentally induced selective pressures; leads to a greater level of fitness for a population related to a specific environment.
Adjustment: Nongenetic-based ways in which organisms adjust to environmental stressors.
Allen’s Rule: Due to thermal adaptation, homeothermic animals have body volume-to-surface ratios that vary inversely with the average temperature of their environment. In cold climates, the anticipated ratio is high; in warm climates, it is low.
Basal melanogenesis: Genetically mediated, non-environmentally influenced base melanin level.
Behavioural adjustments: An individual’s culturally mediated responses to an environmental stressor in an effort to maintain homeostasis.
Bergmann’s Rule: For a broadly distributed monophyletic group, species and populations of smaller size tend to be found in environments with warmer climates and those of larger size tend to be found in ones that are colder.
Cline: A continuum of gradations (i.e., degrees or levels) of a specific trait.
Conduction: Mechanism of heat transfer between objects through direct contact.
Convection: Movement of heat away from a warm object to the cooler surrounding fluid (i.e., gas or liquid).
Convergent evolution: Evolutionary process whereby organisms that are not closely related independently evolve similar traits as a product of adaptation to similar evolutionary parameters.
Erythrocyte: Red blood cell; most common form of blood cell; the principle means of transporting oxygen throughout the circulatory system.
Evaporation: Mechanism of heat transfer whereby liquid is transformed into a gas, utilizing energy (e.g., heat).
Folic acid: Form of B complex vitamin necessary for proper fetal development.
Gloger’s Rule: For mammals of the same species, those with more darkly pigmented forms tend to be found closer to the equator and those with lighter forms are found in regions further from the equator.
Homeostasis: Condition of optimal functioning for an organism.
Hyperpnea: Increased depth and rate of respiration.
Hypothalamus: Small portion of the human brain responsible for body temperature regulation.
Lactase persistence: Genetic mutation permitting the continued production of lactase-phlorizin hydrolase enzyme in the small intestine past the weaning period.
Melanin: Black-brown pigment produced by melanocytes; one of the primary pigments in skin.
Melanocytes: Specialized cells that produce melanin.
Phenotypic plasticity: Ability of one genotype to produce more than one phenotype dependent on environmental conditions.
Radiation: Mechanism of heat transfer involving electromagnetic energy being emitted from an object.
Sickle cell disease: A group of genetically inherited blood disorders characterized by an abnormality in the shape of the hemoglobin within erythrocytes (red blood cells).
Stressor: Any stimulus resulting in an imbalance in an organism’s homeostatic balance.
Vasoconstriction: Narrowing of the blood vessels due to contractions of the muscular vessel walls.
Vasodilation: Dilation of the blood vessels due to relaxation of the muscular vessel walls.
For Further Exploration
Homeostasis
Baptista, Vander. 2006. “Starting Physiology: Understanding Homeostasis.” Advances in Physiology Education 30: 263–264.
Goldstein, David S., and Bruce McEwen. 2002. “Allostasis, Homeostats, and the Nature of Stress.” The International Journal on the Biology of Stress 5 (1): 55–58.
General Clinal Variation and Genetic Exchange
Delhey, Kaspar. 2019. “A Review of Gloger’s Rule, an Ecogeographical Rule of Colour: Definitions, Interpretations and Evidence.” Biological Reviews 94 (4): 1294–1316.
Feng, Yuanqing, Michael A. McQuillan, and Sarah A. Tishkoff. 2021. “Evolutionary Genetics of Skin Pigmentation in African Populations.” Human Molecular Genetics 30 (R1): R88–R97.
Hu, Hao, Nayia Petousi, Gustavo Glusman, Yao Yu, Ryan Bohlender, Tsewang Tashi, Jonathan M. Downie, et al. 2017. “Evolutionary History of Tibetans Inferred from Whole-Genome Sequencing.” PLoS Genetics 13 (4): e1006675. .
Jablonski, Nina G. 2021. “Skin Color and Race.” Special issue, “Race Reconciled II: Interpreting and Communicating Biological Variation and Race in 2021,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 175 (2): 437–447.
Pritchard, Jonathan K., Joseph K. Pickrell, and Graham Coop. 2010. “The Genetics of Human Adaptation: Hard Sweeps, Soft Sweeps, and Polygenic Adaptation.” Current Biology 20 (4): R208–R215.
Sankararaman, Sriram, Swapan Mallick, Nick Patterson, and David Reich. 2016. “The Combined Landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal Ancestry in Present-Day Humans.” Current Biology 26 (9): 1241–1247.
Lactase Persistence
HHMI BioInteractive. 2021. “The Making of the Fittest: Got Lactase? The Co-evolution of Genes and Culture.” Accessed April 7, 2023.
Malaria and Sickle Cell Anemia
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 2022. “Malaria.” Accessed April 7, 2023.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. “Malaria.” Accessed April 7, 2023.
HHMI BioInteractive. 2020. “The Making of the Fittest: Natural Selection in Humans.” 2020. Accessed April 7, 2023.
National Institutes of Health: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. “Sickle Cell Anemia.” Accessed April 7, 2023.
World Health Organization. 2022. “Malaria.” Accessed April 7, 2023.
Rickets and Bone Health
National Institutes of Health: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. “Rickets.” Accessed April 7, 2023.
Talmadge, D. W., and R. V. Talmadge. 2007. “Calcium Homeostasis: How Bone Solubility Relates to All Aspects of Bone Physiology.” Journal of Musculoskeletal and Neuronal Interactions 7 (2): 108–112.
Skin Colour
HHMI BioInteractive. 2020. “The Biology of Skin Color.” Accessed April 7, 2023
References
American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Infant Sleep Position and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. 2000. “Changing Concepts of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Implications for Infant Sleeping Environment and Sleep Position.” Pediatrics 105 (3): 650–656.
Beja-Pereira, Albano, David Caramelli, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Cristiano Vernesi, Nuno Ferrand, Antonella Casoli, Felix Goyache, et al. 2006. “The Origin of European Cattle: Evidence from Modern and Ancient DNA.” PNAS 103 (21): 8113–8118.
Best, Andre, Daniel E. Lieberman, and Jason M. Kamilar. 2019. “Diversity and Evolution of Human Eccrine Sweat Gland Density.” Journal of Thermal Biology 84: 331–338.
Bigham, Abigail W. 2016. “Genetics of Human Origin and Evolution: High-Altitude Adaptations.” Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 41: 8–13.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017. “Data & Statistics on Sickle Cell Disease.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, August 9. Accessed April 7, 2023. .
Crawford, Nicholas G., Derek E. Kelly, Matthew E. B. Hansen, Marcia H. Beltrame, Shaohua Fan, Shanna L. Bowman, Ethan Jewett, et al. 2017. “Loci Associated with Skin Pigmentation Identified in African Populations.” Science 358 (6365): 1–49.
Cyrkalff, Marek, Cecilia P. Sanchez, Nicole Kilian, Curille Bisseye, Jacques Simpore, Friedrich Frischknecht, and Michael Lanzer. 2011. “Hemoglobins S and C Interfere with Actin Remodeling in Plasmodium falciparum-Infected Erythrocytes.” Science 334 (6060): 1283–1286.
Dzialanski, Zbigniew, Michael Barany, Peter Engfeldt, Anders Magnuson, Lovisa A. Olsson, and Torbjӧrn K. Nilsson. 2016. “Lactase Persistence versus Lactose Intolerance: Is There an Intermediate Phenotype?” Clinical Biochemistry 49 (2016): 248–252.
Fernando, Sumadya D., Chaturaka Rodrigo, and Senaka Rajapakse. 2010. “The ‘Hidden’ Burden of Malaria: Cognitive Impairment Following Infection.” Malaria Journal 9 (366): 1–11.
Gerbault, Pascale, Anke Liebert, Yuval Itan, Adam Powell, Mathias Currat, Joachim Burger, Dallas M. Swallow, and Mark G. Thomas. 2011. “Evolution of Lactase Persistence: An Example of Human Niche Construction.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366 (1566): 863–877.
Gray, Olivia A., Jennifer Yoo, Débora R. Sobriera, Jordan Jousma, David Witnosky, Noboru J. Sakabe, Ying-Jie Ping, et al. 2022. “A Pleiotropic Hypoxia-Sensitive EPAS1 Enhancer Is Disrupted by Adaptive Alleles in Tibetans.” Science Advances 8 (47): 1–13.
Hartman, T. K., S. J. Rogerson, and P. R. Fischer. 2013. “The Impact of Maternal Malaria on Newborns.” Annals of Tropical Paediatrics 30 (4): 271–282.
Longo, Dan L., Frédéric B. Piel, Martin H. Steinberg, and David C. Rees. 2017. “Sickle Cell Disease.” The New England Journal of Medicine 376 (16): 1561–1573.
Maddux, Scott D., Todd R. Yokley, Bohumil M. Svoma, and Robert G. Franciscus. 2016. “Absolute Humidity and the Human Nose: A Reanalysis of Climate Zones and Their Influence on Nasal Form and Function.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 161 (2): 309–320.
Meyer, M. C., M. S. Alexander, Z. Wang, D. L. Hoffmann, J. A. Dahl, D. Degering, W. R. Haas, and F. Schlütz. 2017. “Permanent Human Occupation of the Central Tibetan Plateau in the Early Holocene.” Science 355 (6320): 64–67.
Moore, Lorna G., Susan Niermeyer, and Stacy Zamudio. 1998. “Human Adaptation to High Altitude: Regional and Life-Cycle Perspectives.” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 41: 25–64.
Noback, Marlijn L., Katerina Harvati, and Fred Spoor. 2011. “Climate-Related Variation of the Human Nasal Cavity.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145 (4): 599–614.
Peacock, A. J. 1998. “ABC of Oxygen: Oxygen at High Altitude.” BMJ 317 (7165): 1063–1066.
Pontzer, Herman, Mary H. Brown, Brian M. Wood, David A. Raichlen, Audax Z.P. Madbulla, Jacob A. Harris, Holly Dunsworth, et al. 2021. “Evolution of Water Conservation in Humans.” Current Biology 31 (8): 1804–1810.
Quillen, Ellen E., Heather L. Norton, Esteban J. Parra, Frida Loza-Durazo, Khai C. Ang, Florin Mircea Illiescu, Laurel N. Pearson, et al. 2019. “Shades of Complexity: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Genetic Architecture of Human Skin.” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 168 (S67): 4–26.
Ranciaro, Alessia, Michael C. Campbell, Jibril B. Hirbo, Wen-Ya Ko, Alain Froment,
Paolo Anagnostou, Maritha J. Kotze, et al. 2014. “Genetic Origins of Lactase Persistence and the Spread of Pastoralism in Africa.” American Journal of Human Genetics 94 (4): 496–510.
Roby, Brianne Barnett, Marsha Finkelstein, Robert J. Tibesar, and James D. Sidman. 2012. “Prevalence of Positional Plagiocephaly in Teens Born after the ‘Back to Sleep’ Campaign.” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery 146 (5): 823–828.
Sherman, Paul W., and Jennifer Billing. 1999. “Darwinian Gastronomy: Why We Use Spices.” BioScience 49 (6): 453–463.
Tishkoff, Sarah A., Floyd A. Reed, Alessia Ranciaro, Benjamin F. Voight, Courtney C. Babbitt, Jesse S. Silverman, Kweli Powell, et al. 2007. “Convergent Adaptation of Human Lactase Persistence in Africa and Europe.” Nature Genetics 39 (1): 31–40.
World Health Organization. 2021. “World Malaria Report 2021.” World Health Organization website, December 4, 2022. Accessed April 7, 2023.
Zhang, Xinjun, Kelsey E. Witt, Mayra M. Bañuelos, Amy Ko, Kai Yuan, Shuhua Xu, Rasmus Nielsen, and Emilia Huerta-Sanchez. 2021. “The History and Evolution of Denisovan-EPAS1 Haplotype in Tibetans.” PNAS Biological Sciences 118 (22): 1–9.
Introductory Statement
This preliminary section offers an overview of the discipline of Anthropology. Students who have previously completed an introductory course (such as ANTH 202 or its equivalent) will likely find the material familiar. Although reviewing this section is recommended, those confident in their understanding of Anthropology and its four subdisciplines may choose to proceed directly to Chapter 1. It is important to note that this textbook reflects an American approach to organizing the discipline; in other academic traditions, anthropological knowledge may be divided into different disciplinary frameworks.
Learning Objectives
- Describe anthropology and the four subdisciplines.
- Explain the main anthropological approaches.
- Define biological anthropology, describe its key questions, and identify major subfields
Diving in caves along the Caribbean coast of Mexico, archaeologist Octavio del Rio and his team spotted something unusual in the sand 26 feet below the ocean surface. As they swam closer, they suspected it could be a bone—and likely a very ancient one, as this cave system is inaccessible today without modern diving equipment. However, in the distant past, these caves were dry land formations high above the ocean. The divers ended up recovering not just one but many bones from the site. Eventually they were able to reconstruct an 80% complete human skeleton that they named “Eve of Naharon.” Dated to 13,600 years ago, she is (as of today) the oldest known North American skeleton (TANN 2018).
Who was Eve? What was her life like? How did she end up in the cave? What can we learn about her from the bones she left behind? Anthropologists have determined that Eve was 4.6 feet tall, had a broken back, and died in her early 20s. Although it is rare to find an ancient, nearly complete skeleton in the ocean depths, Eve is not the only such find. In underwater caves along Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, archaeologists have found eight well-preserved skeletons dated between 9,000 to 13,000 years old. With each new discovery—whether it is a skeleton in North America, fossil footprints in Tanzania, or a mandible with teeth in China—we come another step closer to understanding the evolution of our species.
Biological anthropologists study when and how human beings evolved; their intriguing findings are the focus of this book. Biological anthropology is one of four subdisciplines within anthropology; the others are cultural anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology. All anthropological subdisciplines seek to better understand what it means to be human.
What is Anthropology?
Why are people so diverse (Figure 1.1)? Some people live in the frigid Arctic tundra, others in the arid deserts of sub-Saharan Africa, and still others in the dense forests of Papua New Guinea. Human beings speak more than 6,000 distinct languages. Some people are barely five feet tall while others stoop to fit through a standard door frame. What makes people, around the world, look, speak, and behave differently from one another? And what do all humans share in common?

Anthropology is a discipline that explores human differences and similarities by investigating our biological and cultural complexity, past and present. Derived from Greek, the word -anthropos means “human” and -logy refers to the “study of.” Therefore, anthropology is, by definition, the study of humans. Anthropologists are not the only scholars to focus on the human condition; biologists, sociologists, psychologists, and others also examine human nature and societies. However, anthropology is a uniquely dynamic, multifaceted discipline that emerged from a deep-seated curiosity about who we are as a species.
The Subdisciplines
In the United States, the discipline of anthropology includes four subdisciplines: cultural anthropology, biological anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology. In addition, applied anthropology is sometimes called the fifth subdiscipline (Figure 1.2). Each of the subdisciplines provides a distinct perspective on the human experience. Some (like biological anthropology) use the scientific method to develop theories about human origins, evolution, material remains, or behaviours. Others (like cultural anthropology) use humanistic and interpretive approaches to understand human beliefs, languages, behaviours, cultures, and societies. Findings from all subdisciplines, together, contribute to a multifaceted appreciation of human biocultural experiences, past and present.
Cultural Anthropology

Cultural anthropologists focus on similarities and differences among living persons and societies. They suspend their sense of what is expected in their own culture in order to understand other perspectives without judging them (cultural relativism). They learn these perspectives through participant-observation fieldwork. Beyond describing another way of life, cultural anthropologists ask broader questions about humankind: Are human emotions universal or culturally distinct? Is maternal behaviour learned or innate? How and why do groups migrate to new places? For cultural anthropologists, no aspect of human life is outside their purview: They study art, religion, medicine, migration, natural disasters, even video gaming. While many cultural anthropologists are intrigued by human diversity, they recognize that people around the world share much in common.
One famous U.S. cultural anthropologist, Margaret Mead (1901–1978, Figure 1.3), conducted cross-cultural studies of gender and socialization. In the early twentieth century, people in the U.S. wondered if the emotional turbulence exhibited by American adolescents was caused by the biology of puberty, and thus natural and universal. To find out, Mead went to the Samoan Islands, where she lived for several months getting to know Samoan teenagers. She learned that Samoan adolescence was relatively tranquil and happy. Based on her fieldwork, Mead wrote Coming of Age in Samoa, a best-selling book that was both sensational and scandalous (Mead 1928). In it, she critiqued U.S. parenting as restrictive in contrast to Samoan parenting, which allowed teenagers to freely explore their community and even their sexuality. Ultimately, she argued that nurture (i.e., socialization) more than nature (i.e., biology) shaped adolescent development. Despite her expressed relativism, she has been critiqued recently for exploiting the people she studied.

Cultural anthropologists do not always travel far to learn about human experiences. In the 1980s, American anthropologist Philippe Bourgois (1956–) asked how pockets of extreme poverty persist in the United States, a country widely perceived as wealthy with an overall high quality of life compared to other countries. To answer this question, he lived with Puerto Rican drug dealers in East Harlem, contextualizing their experiences both historically and presently, in terms of ongoing social marginalization and institutional racism. Rather than blame drug dealers for their choices, Bourgois argued that both individual choices and social inequality can trap people in the overlapping worlds of drugs and poverty (Bourgois 2003).
Linguistic Anthropology
The study of people is incomplete without attending to language, a defining trait of human beings. While other animals have communication systems, only humans have complex symbolic languages—and more than 6,000 of them! Human language makes it possible to teach and learn, plan and think abstractly, coordinate our efforts, and contemplate our own demise. Linguistic anthropologists ask questions like: How did language first emerge? How has it evolved and diversified over time? How has language helped our species? How can linguistic style convey social identity? How does language influence our worldview? Some linguistic anthropologists track the emergence and diversification of languages, while others focus on language use in social context. Still others explore how language is crucial to socialization: children learn their culture and identities through language and nonverbal forms of communication (Ochs and Schieffelin 2017; Figure 1.4).

One line of linguistic anthropological research focuses on the relationships among language, thought, and culture. For example, Benjamin Whorf (1897–1941) observed that whereas the English language has grammatical tenses to indicate past, present, and future, the Hopi language does not; instead, it indicates whether or not something has “manifested.” Whorf argued that this grammatical difference causes English and Hopi speakers to think about time in distinct ways: English speakers think about time in a linear way, while Hopi think about time in terms of a cycle of things or events that have manifested or are manifesting (Whorf 1956). Based on his research, Whorf developed a strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (also known as linguistic relativity), which states that language shapes thought. Some critics, like German American linguist Ekkehart Malotki (1938–), recognized that English and Hopi tenses differ but argued against Whorf by claiming that the Hopi language does, in fact, have linguistic terms for time and that a linear sense of time may be universal (Malotki 1983). Nevertheless, anthropological linguists tend to see human languages as a unique form of communication, linked to our ability to think and process our world.
Archaeology
Archaeologists focus on material remains—tools, pottery, rock art, shelters, seeds, bones, and other objects—to better understand people and societies. Archaeologists ask specific questions like: How did people in a particular area live? How did they utilize their environment? What happened to their society? They also ask general questions about humankind: When did our ancestors begin to walk on two legs? How and why did they leave Africa? Why did humans first develop agriculture? How did the first cities develop?
One critical method that archaeologists use to answer these questions is excavation, which involves carefully digging and removing sediment to uncover material remains while recording their context. Take the example of Kathleen Kenyon (1906–1978), a British archaeologist and one of few female archaeologists in the 1940s. While excavating at Jericho, which dates back to 10,000 BCE (Figure 1.5), she discovered city structures and cemeteries built during the Early Bronze Age (3,200 YBP in Europe). Based on her findings, she argued that Jericho is the oldest city continuously occupied by different groups of people for thousands of years (Kenyon 1979).

While most archaeologists study the past, some excavate at contemporary sites to gain new perspectives on present-day societies. For example, participants in the Garbage Project, which began in the 1970s in Tucson, Arizona, excavate modern landfills as if they were a conventional dig site. They have found that what people say they throw out differs from what is actually in the trash. The landfill holds large amounts of paper products (that people claim to recycle) as well as construction debris (Rathje and Murphy 1992). This finding indicates the need to create more environmentally conscious waste-disposal practices.
Biological Anthropology
Biological anthropology—the focus of this book—is the study of human evolution and biological variation. Some biological anthropologists study our closest living relatives—monkeys and apes—to learn how nonhuman and human primates are alike and how they differ both biologically and behaviourally (Figure 1.6). Other biological anthropologists focus on extinct human species and subspecies, asking questions like: What did they look like? What did they eat? When did they start to speak? How did they adapt to new environments? Still other biological anthropologists focus on modern human diversity, asking questions about the evolution of traits, like lactose tolerance or skin colour, that differ between populations. Throughout this book, we will learn about biological anthropological research that explores our nonhuman primate cousins, the origins of hominins (i.e. humans and fossil human relatives), how they adapted over time, and how we – modern humans – continue to change.

Applied Anthropology
Sometimes considered the fifth subdiscipline, applied anthropology involves the practical application of anthropological theories, methods, and findings to solve real-world problems. Applied anthropologists span the subdisciplines. An applied archaeologist might work in cultural resource management to assess a potentially significant archaeological site unearthed during a construction project. An applied cultural anthropologist could work for a technology company that seeks to understand how people interact with their products in order to design them better. Applied anthropologists are employed outside of academic settings, in public and private sectors, including business firms, advertising companies, city government, law enforcement, hospitals, nongovernmental organizations, and even the military.

Trained as both a physician and anthropologist, Paul Farmer (1959–2022, Figure 1.7) demonstrated the potential of applied anthropology to improve lives. As a college student in North Carolina, Farmer became interested in the Haitian migrants working on nearby farms. This led him to visit Haiti, the most resource-poor country in the Western Hemisphere, where he was struck by the deprived state of its health care facilities. Years later, he would return to Haiti, as a physician, to treat diseases that had been largely eradicated in the United States, such as tuberculosis and cholera. Drawing on his anthropological training, he also did fieldwork and wrote books that contextualize the suffering of Haitians in relation to historical, social, and political conditions (Farmer 2006). Finally, as an applied anthropologist, he took action by co-founding Partners in Health, a nonprofit organization that establishes health clinics in resource-poor countries and trains local staff to administer care.
Anthropological Approaches
Each of the four main anthropological subdisciplines contributes to our understanding of humankind by exploring cultures, languages, material remains, and biological adaptations. To study these phenomena, anthropologists draw upon distinct research approaches, including holism, comparison, dynamism, and fieldwork.
Holism
Anthropologists are interested in the whole of humanity. We look at the interactions among several aspects of our complex bodies or societies, rather than focusing on a singular aspect (Figure 1.8). For example, a biological anthropologist studying the social behaviours of a monkey species in South America may not only observe how they interact with one another, but also how physical adaptations, foraging patterns, ecological conditions, and habitat changes also affect their behaviours. By focusing on only one factor, the anthropologist would attain an incomplete understanding of the species’ social life. A cultural anthropologist studying marriage in a small village in India would not only consider local gender norms but also family networks, laws regarding marriage, religious rules, and economic factors. All of these aspects can influence marital practices in a given context. In both examples, the anthropologist is using a holistic approach by considering the multiple interrelated and intersecting factors that comprise a given phenomena.

Comparison
Anthropologists use comparative approaches to compare and contrast data from different populations, from groups within a population, or from the same group over time. For example: How do humans today differ from prior Homo sapiens populations? How does Egyptian society today compare to ancient Egyptian society? How do male and female behaviours differ within a given human society or a particular primate group? Comparative analyses help us understand commonalities and differences within or across species, groups, or time.
Dynamism
Comparative analysis is facilitated by the fact that humans are extremely dynamic. Our ability to change, both biologically and culturally, has enabled us to persist over millions of years and to thrive in different environments. Anthropologists ask about all kinds of changes: short-term and long-term, temporary and permanent, cultural and biological. For example, a cultural anthropologist might look at how people in a relatively isolated society are affected by globalization. A linguistic anthropologist might explore how a hybrid form of language, like Spanglish, emerged. An archaeologist might study how climate change influenced the emergence of agriculture. A biological anthropologist might consider how diseases affecting our ancestors led to physical changes that persist today. All of these examples highlight the dynamic nature of human bodies and societies.

Fieldwork
Throughout this book, you will read examples of anthropological research from around the world. Anthropologists do not only work in laboratories, libraries, or offices. To collect data, they travel to where their data lives, whether it is a city, village, cave, tropical forest, or desert. At their field sites, anthropologists collect data that, depending on subdiscipline, may include interviews with local peoples (Figure 1.9), examples of language in use, skeletal features, or cultural remains like stone tools. While anthropologists ask an array of questions and use diverse methods to answer their research questions, they share this commitment to conducting research in the field.
What is Biological Anthropology?
Biological anthropology uses a scientific and evolutionary approach to answer many of the same questions that all anthropologists are concerned with: What does it mean to be human? Where do we come from? Who are we today? Biological anthropologists are concerned with exploring how humans vary biologically, how humans adapt to their changing environments, and how humans have evolved over time and continue to evolve today. Some biological anthropologists also study what humans and nonhuman primates have in common and how we differ.
You may have heard biological anthropology referred to by another name—physical anthropology. Physical anthropology is a discipline that dates to as far back as the eighteenth century, when it focused mostly on physical variation among humans. Some early physical anthropologists were also physicians or anatomists interested in comparing and contrasting the human form. These researchers dedicated themselves to measuring bodies and skulls (anthropometry and craniometry) in great detail (Figure 1.10). Many also acted under the misguided racist belief that human biological races existed and that it was possible to differentiate between, or even rank, such races by measuring differences in human anatomy. Anthropologists today agree that there are no biological human races and that all humans alive today are members of the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. We recognize that the differences we can see between peoples’ bodies are due to a wide variety of factors, including environment, diet, activities, and genetic makeup.

The subdiscipline has changed a great deal since these early years. Biological anthropologists no longer identify human differences in order to assign people to groups, like races. The focus is instead on understanding how and why human and primate variation developed through evolutionary processes. The name for the subdiscipline has transitioned in recent years (from physical anthropology to biological anthropology) to reflect these changes. Many believe the term biological anthropology better reflects the subdiscipline’s focus today, which includes genetic and molecular research.
The Scope of Biological Anthropology
Just as anthropology as a discipline is wide ranging and holistic, so too is the subdiscipline of biological anthropology. There are at least six subfields within biological anthropology (Figure 1.11): primatology, paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, bioarchaeology, forensic anthropology, and human biology. Each subfield focuses on a different dimension of what it means to be human from a biological perspective. Through their varied research in these subfields, biological anthropologists try to answer the following key questions:
- What is our place in nature? How are we related to other organisms? What makes us unique?
- What are our origins? What influenced our evolution?
- How and when did we move/migrate across the globe?
- How are humans around the world today different from and similar to each other? What influences these patterns of variation? What are the patterns of our recent evolution and how do we continue to evolve?
The terms subfield and subdiscipline are very similar and are often used interchangeably. In this book we use subdiscipline to refer to the four major areas of focus that make up the discipline of anthropology: biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, archaeological anthropology, and linguistic anthropology. When we use the term subfield we are referring to the different specializations within biological anthropology.

Primatology
Primatologists study the anatomy, behaviour, ecology, and genetics of living and extinct nonhuman primates, including apes, monkeys, tarsiers, lemurs, and lorises. Primatology research gives us insights into how evolution has shaped our species, since nonhuman primates are our closest living biological relatives. Through such studies, we have learned that all primates share a suite of traits. Primates, for instance, have nails instead of claws, possess hands that can grasp and manipulate objects (Figure 1.12), invest great amounts of time and energy in raising a small number of offspring, and employ complex social behaviours. Behavioural studies, such as those by Jane Goodall of wild chimpanzees and others, reveal that great apes are like humans in that they have families and form strong maternal-infant relationships. Gorillas mourn the deaths of their group members, and they exhibit behaviours similar to humans such as playing and tickling. Importantly, the work of Goodall, Karen B. Strier (see Appendix B), and others focus on primate conservation: They have brought attention to the fact that 60% of primates are currently threatened with extinction (Estrada et al. 2017).

Paleoanthropology
Paleoanthropologists study human ancestors from the distant past to learn how, why, and where they evolved. Because these ancestors lived before there were written records, paleoanthropologists have to rely on various types of physical evidence to come to their conclusions. This evidence includes fossilized remains (particularly fossilized bones; Figure 1.13), DNA, artifacts such as stone tools, and the contexts in which these items are found. In recent years, paleoanthropologists have made some monumental discoveries about hominin evolution.

These findings helped us learn that human evolution did not occur in a simple, straight line but, rather, branched out in many directions. Most branches were evolutionary “dead ends.” Humans are now the only living hominins left on planet Earth. Paleoanthropologists frequently work together with other scientists such as archaeologists, geologists, and paleontologists to interpret and understand the evidence they find. Paleoanthropology is a dynamic subfield of biological anthropology that contributes to our understanding of human origins and evolution.
Molecular Anthropology
Molecular anthropologists use molecular techniques (primarily genetics) to compare ancient and modern populations as well as to study living populations of humans or nonhuman primates. By examining DNA sequences, molecular anthropologists can estimate how closely related two populations are, as well as identify population events, like a population decline, that explain the observed genetic patterns. This information helps scientists trace patterns of migration and identify how people have adapted to different environments over time.
Several molecular anthropologists have recently attracted international recognition for their groundbreaking work. For instance, in 2022, Svante Pääbo won the Nobel Prize in physiology (medicine) for his work extracting the DNA from 40,000-year-old Neanderthal bones and producing the first complete genome of Homo neanderthalensis. This was a challenging task because ancient DNA does not preserve well and older extraction techniques tended to become contaminated by the researcher’s and other environmental DNA. Pääbo and his team designed specialized clean rooms for handling ancient DNA and made advances in DNA sequencing. Their research helped scientists identify genetic differences between modern humans and Neanderthals and analyse how those differences influence how diseases, such as COVID-19, affect our bodies. Molecular anthropology is a quickly changing field as new techniques and discoveries shape our understanding of ourselves, our ancestors, and our nonhuman primate relatives.
Bioarchaeology
Bioarchaeologists study human skeletal remains along with the surrounding soils and other materials. They use the research methods of skeletal biology, mortuary studies, osteology, and archaeology to answer questions about the lifeways of past populations. Through studying the bones and burials of past peoples, bioarchaeologists search for answers to how people lived and died, including their health, nutrition, diseases, and/or injuries. Most bioarchaeologists study not just individuals but entire populations to reveal biological and cultural patterns.
People have always been intrigued by the remains of the dead, however historically, human bodies were often studied isolated from the ground and location where they were found. Bioarchaeologists emphasize the context in and around where the remains are found, using a biocultural approach that studies humans through an understanding of the interconnectedness of biology, culture, and environment.
Forensic Anthropology
Forensic anthropologists use many of the same techniques as bioarchaeologists to develop a biological profile for unidentified individuals, including estimating sex, age at death, height, ancestry, or other unique identifying features such as skeletal trauma or diseases. They may also go to a crime or accident scene to assist in the search and recovery of human remains, aiding law enforcement teams (Figure 1.14). The popular television show Bones told the fictional story of a forensic anthropologist, Dr. Temperance Brennan, who brilliantly interpreted clues from victims' bones to help solve crimes. While the show includes forensic anthropology techniques and responsibilities, it also includes many inaccuracies. For example, forensic anthropologists do not collect trace evidence like hair or fibres, run DNA tests, carry weapons, or solve criminal cases.

Forensic anthropology is considered an applied area of biological anthropology, because it involves a practical application of anthropological theories, methods, and findings to solve real-world problems. While some forensic anthropologists are academics that work for colleges and universities, others are employed by public safety and law agencies.
Human Biology
Many biological anthropologists do work that falls under the label of “human biology.” This type of research explores how the human body is affected by different physical environments, cultural influences, and nutrition. These include studies of human variation or the physiological differences among humans around the world. Some of these anthropologists study human adaptations to extreme environments, which includes physiological responses and genetic advantages to help them survive. Others are interested in how nutrition and disease affect human growth and development. Biological anthropologists engage in a wide range of research that spans the breadth of human biological diversity.
The six subfields of biological anthropology—primatology, paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, bioarchaeology, forensic anthropology, and human biology—all help us to understand what it means to be biologically human. From molecular analyses of our cells to studies of our changing skeleton, to research on our nonhuman primate cousins, biological anthropology assists in answering the central question of anthropology: What does it mean to be human? Despite their different foci, all biological anthropologists share a commitment to using a scientific approach to study how we became the complex, adaptable species we are today.
Key Terms
Belief: A firmly held opinion or conviction typically based on spiritual apprehension rather than empirical proof.
Cultural relativism: The anthropological practice of suspending judgment and seeking to understand another culture on its own terms sympathetically enough so that the culture appears to be a coherent and meaningful design for living.
Holism: The idea that the parts of a system interconnect and interact to make up the whole.
Hominins: Species that are regarded as human, directly ancestral to humans, or very closely related to humans.
Human adaptation: The ways in which human bodies, people, or cultures change, often in ways better suited to the environment or social context.
Human variation: The range of forms of any human characteristic, such as body shape or skin colour.
Hypothesis: Explanation of observed facts; details how and why observed phenomena are the way they are. Scientific hypotheses rely on empirical evidence, are testable, and are able to be refuted.
Indigenous: Refers to people who are the original settlers of a given region and have deep ties to that place. Also known as First Peoples, Aboriginal Peoples, or Native Peoples, these populations are in contrast to other groups who have settled, occupied, or colonized the area more recently.
Law: A prediction about what will happen given certain conditions; typically mathematical.
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: The principle that the language you speak allows you to think about some things and not other things. This is also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis.
Subdisciplines: The four major areas that make up the discipline of anthropology: biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology. Applied anthropology is sometimes considered to be a fifth subdiscipline.
Subfield: In this textbook, subfield refers to the different specializations within biological anthropology, including primatology, paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, bioarchaeology, forensic anthropology, and human biology.
For Further Exploration
American Anthropological Association website.
American Association of Biological Anthropologists website.
8, 2023
References
Binford, Leigh. 2016. The El Mozote Massacre: Human Rights and Global Implications. Revised and expanded edition. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Estrada, Alejandro, Paul A. Garber, Anthony B. Rylands, Christian Roos, Eduardo Fernandez-Duque, Anthony Di Fiore, K. Anne-Isola Nekaris, et al. 2017. “Impending Extinction Crisis of the World’s Primates: Why Primates Matter.” Science Advances 3(229): 1–16.
Farmer, Paul. 2006. AIDS and Accusation: Haiti and the Geography of Blame. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Farmer, Paul, Matthew Basilico, Vanessa Kerry, Madeleine Ballard, Anne Becker, Gene Bukhman, Ophelia Dahl, et al. 2013. “Global Health Priorities for the Early Twenty-first Century.” In Reimagining Global Health: An Introduction, edited by Paul Farmer, Jim Yong Kim, Arthur Kleinman, and Matthew Basilico, 302–339. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kenyon, Kathleen. 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: W.W. Norton.
Malotki, Ekkehart. 1983. Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa. Oxford: Morrow.
Ochs, Elinor and Bambi Schieffelin. 2017. “Language Socialization: An Historical Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 8, edited by Patricia Duff, 3-16. New York: Springer.
Rathje, William and Cullen Murphy. 1992. "Five Major Myths about Garbage, and Why They're Wrong." Smithsonian 23, no. 4: 113-122.
TANN. 2018. “Mexican Anthropologists Put Face on Nearly 14,000-Year-Old Woman.” Archaeology News Network, August 19, 2018. Accessed on November 16, 2022.
Whorf, Benjamin. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their many insightful comments and suggestions.
Learning Objectives
- Explain key components of the scientific method.
- Differentiate between hypotheses, theories, and laws.
- Differentiate science from other ways of knowing.
Anthropologists as Scientists
Biological anthropologists use the scientific method as a way of learning about the world around them. Many people think of science as taking place in a sterile laboratory, but in biological anthropology it is just as likely to occur somewhere else, such as at a research station in Ethiopia, a field site in Tanzania, or a town in El Salvador. To understand how information in this field is established, it is important to recognize what science is and is not, as well as to understand how the scientific method actually works.
Recognizing Science
Science combines our natural curiosity with our ability to experiment so we can understand the world around us and address needs in our communities. Thanks to science, meteorologists can predict the weather, it takes a relatively small number of farmers to grow enough food to feed our large population, our medicine continues to improve, and over half of the world’s population owns a cell phone.
Anyone can participate in science—not just academics. In fact, children are often some of the best scientists (Figure 1.15). An early, well-known psychologist, Jean Piaget (1896–1980), argued that a child is a “little scientist,” internally motivated to experiment and explore their world. This can be seen when an infant repeatedly drops a toy to see if the parent will pick it up, or when a four-year-old sincerely asks “why” again and again. Maria Montessori (1870–1952), an Italian doctor and educator, was interested in how children learn. Through her research, she also recognized that children have natural scientific tendencies. Children have a desire to explore their environment, ask questions, use their imaginations, and learn by doing. In 1907, Montessori opened a school to foster children’s natural desire to learn this way. This developed a child-centreed teaching method that has spread around the world and is being used in over 22,000 schools today. In anthropology and other scientific fields, the process of learning is more formalized, but scientists still benefit from the curiosity that motivates children and still experience the thrill of discovery.

Science represents both a body of knowledge and the process for learning that knowledge (the scientific method). Scientific claims can, at times, be difficult to distinguish from other information. Science also incorporates a broad range of methods to collect data, adding to the difficulty of knowing what science really is. This section will address four key characteristics that help us define and recognize science: (1) science studies the physical and natural world and how it works, (2) scientific explanations must be testable and refutable, (3) science relies on empirical (observable) evidence, and (4) science involves the scientific community.
Science Studies the Physical and Natural World and How It Works
Our physical and natural universe ranges from very small (e.g., electrons) to very large (e.g., Earth itself and the galaxies beyond it). Scientists often design their research to address how and why natural forces influence our physical and natural world. In biological anthropology, we focus our questions on humans as well as other primate species, both living and extinct. We ask questions like: What influences a primate’s diet? Why do humans walk on two legs? And did Neanderthals and modern humans interbreed?
There are very few questions that are considered off-limits in science. That being said, the scope of scientific investigation is generally focused on natural phenomena and natural processes and excludes the supernatural. People often regard the supernatural, whether it be a ghost, luck, or god, as working outside the laws of the universe, which makes it difficult to study with a scientific approach. Science neither supports nor contradicts the existence of supernatural powers—it simply does not include the supernatural in its explanations.
Scientific Explanations Must Be Testable and Refutable
The goal of scientists is to identify a research question and then identify the best answer(s) to that question. For example, an excavation of a cemetery may reveal that many people buried there had unhealed fractures when they died, leading the anthropologist to ask: “Why did this population experience more broken bones than their neighbours?” There might be multiple explanations to address this question, such as a lack of calcium in their diets, participation in dangerous work, or violent conflict with neighbours; these explanations are considered hypotheses. In the past, you might have learned that a hypothesis is an “educated guess,” but in science, hypotheses are much more than that. A scientific hypothesis reflects a scientist’s knowledge-based experiences and background research. A hypothesis is better defined as an explanation of observed facts; hypotheses explain how and why observed phenomena are the way they are.
Scientific hypotheses should generate expectations that are testable. For example, if the best explanation regarding our cemetery population was that they were experiencing violent conflict with their neighbours, we should expect to find clues, like weapons or protective walls around their homes, in the anthropological record to support this. Alternatively, if this population did not experience violent conflict with their neighbours, we may eventually be able to gather enough evidence to rule out (refute) this explanation. An important part of science is rigorous testing. Science does not prove any hypothesis. However, a strong hypothesis is one that has strong supporting evidence and has not yet been disproven.
Science Relies on Empirical Evidence
The word empirical refers to experience that is verified by observation (rather than evidence that derives primarily from logic or theory). In anthropology, much evidence about our world is collected by observation through fieldwork or in a laboratory. The most reliable studies are based on accurately and precisely recorded observations. Scientists value studies that explain exactly what methods were used so that their data collection and analysis processes are reproducible. This allows for other scientists to expand the study or provide new insights into the observations.
Science Involves the Scientific Community
Contrary to many Hollywood science fiction films, good science is not carried out in isolation in a secret basement laboratory; rather, it is done as part of a community. Scientists pay attention to what others have done before them, present new ideas to each other, and publish in scientific journals. Most scientific research is collaborative, bringing together researchers with different types of specialized knowledge to work on a shared project. Today, thanks to technology, scientific projects can bring together researchers from different backgrounds, experiences, locations, and perspectives. Most big anthropological questions such as “Where did modern humans develop?,” “What genetic changes make us uniquely human?,” and “How did cooperative behaviour evolve?” cannot be addressed with one simple study but are tested with different lines of evidence and by different scientists over time.
Working within a scientific community supports one of the most valuable aspects of science: that science is self-correcting. Science that is openly communicated with others allows for a system with checks and balances: competing explanations can be proposed and questionable studies can be reevaluated. Ultimately, the goal is that through science the best explanations will stand the test of time.
How Science Works: The Scientific Method
Most students have learned the scientific method as a simple linear, or perhaps circular, process (see, e.g., Figure 1.16). Typically, the process is said to begin with making observations about the natural world. This leads to the development of a scientific hypothesis. From the hypothesis a set of predictions can be made, which are then tested by experimentation or by making additional observations. Scientific predictions are often phrased as “if... then…” statements, such as “If hypothesis A is true, then this experiment will show outcome B.” The results of a scientific study should then either support or reject the hypothesis.

This simple version of the scientific method is valuable because it highlights the key aspects that should be present in any scientific research experiment or scientific paper. However, this simplistic view does not accurately represent the dynamic and creative side of science, nor does it identify the complex steps that are incorporated into a scientist’s routine.

Figure 1.17 provides an alternative representation of the scientific method that emphasizes the many paths to scientific discovery. While still incorporating the key components of making observations, testing ideas, and interpreting results, this chart shows that scientific ideas have many possible starting points and influences, and scientists often repeat steps and circle back around. Gathering evidence does not always rest on experiments in the laboratory. Evaluating data is not always clear-cut, and results are sometimes surprising or inconclusive. Many important discoveries were in fact made by mistake. For example, engineer Percy Spencer accidentally melted a chocolate bar in his pocket with a magnetron, which became the first microwave, and Spencer Silver invented the adhesive for 3M Post-it ® notes while trying to develop a strong glue. The real scientific process is more similar to the philosophy of the animated television character Ms. Frizzle from The Magic School Bus, “Take chances, make mistakes, get messy.”
Two key components lacking in the simple version of the scientific method are exploration and discovery. There are many reasons that a scientist might choose a particular research question: they may be motivated by personal experience, struck by something they read, or inspired by a student’s question in class. Often scientific research reveals more questions than answers, so experienced researchers rarely lack problems to solve. But identifying a research question is just part of the process; most scientists spend more time exploring the literature, sharing ideas, asking questions, and planning their research project than conducting the test itself.
Science itself is a social enterprise that is influenced by cultural issues and values, as well as funding priorities. For example, corporations are the biggest funders of scientific research, followed by government agencies such as the National Science Foundation (which also fund many research projects done at colleges and universities). Those organizations have great influence on what is considered valuable research at any given time. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified many diseases as “neglected tropical diseases,” including dengue, leprosy, rabies, and hookworm. Together these diseases affect an estimated one billion people, mostly in impoverished areas. While these debilitating tropical diseases can be as deadly as diseases that receive more attention, like AIDS and tuberculosis, they receive comparatively little funding due to political priorities (Farmer et al. 2013).
Also important to the scientific process are interactions within the scientific community. Scientific collaboration can take place through informal discussion over a cup of coffee as well as more formal interactions, such as presenting at conferences and engaging in scholarly peer review. Scholarly peer review describes the process whereby an author’s work must pass the scrutiny of other experts in the field before being accepted for publication in a journal or book. This helps keep scientists accountable for ethically responsible research projects and papers. Additionally, presenting data at conferences and in articles and books allows researchers to receive critical feedback from academic peers and others to test these ideas and further the field of science toward identifying the best explanations. It is important that the scientific field include researchers with diverse identities, backgrounds, and experiences so that researchers ask new questions, innovate, and problem solve more effectively.
Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws
Scientific investigation occurs at many levels, from investigating individual cases (e.g., “What is causing this child’s mysterious illness?”) to understanding processes that affect most of us (“What is the ideal amount of sleep for an adult?”). All of these questions are important and will generate different types of testable scientific explanations. So far, we have used the term hypothesis to describe these scientific ideas about why observed phenomena are the way they are. Hypotheses are typically explanations that address a narrow set of phenomena, such as (in anthropology) a particular human population or primate species.
In science, a theory is an explanation of observations that addresses a wide range of phenomena. Like hypotheses, theories also explain how or why something occurs, rely on empirical evidence, and are testable and able to be refuted. Because the term theory is often used casually outside of science, you may hear people try to dismiss a scientific claim as “just a theory.” In science there are often multiple competing theories, but over time some are eliminated, leaving standing the theory or theories that best explain the most evidence. Scientific theories that have stood the test of time are thus supported by many lines of evidence and are usually reliable. Some well-tested theories accepted by most scientists include the theory of general relativity, which explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces, and evolutionary theory, which describes how heritable traits can change in a population over time.
While scientific hypotheses and theories share many characteristics, laws are quite different. A law is a prediction about what will happen given certain conditions, not an explanation for how or why it happens. A law is not a “mature” version of a theory. For example, Newton’s universal law of gravity allows us to predict the gravitational force (F) between any two objects using the equation F=G(m1m2)/r2, but it does not explain why gravity works. Laws are often mathematical, and some well-known laws include Newton’s three laws of motion and Mendel’s laws of genetic inheritance. Laws are important, and their discovery often promotes the development of theories.

To demonstrate how important laws can be—and to show how unusual things can inspire scientific discoveries—we can use the story of the ancient Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes (Figure 1.18). Archimedes’s buoyancy principle is a law that is useful for many things, including density calculations and designing ships. Purportedly, he made this discovery when he noticed the water level rise in the bathtub when he climbed in it. Realizing its importance, he is said to have shouted “Eureka” and proceeded to run naked through the city of Syracuse. While this fun story may or may not be true, it does remain that scientific laws, alongside scientific hypotheses and theories, have a very important role in the scientific process and in generating scientific explanations about our natural world.
Ways of Knowing: Science, Faith, and Anthropology
In anthropology, we recognize that there are many ways of knowing things. For instance, you might know that fingernails are softer than metal because as a child you accidentally stapled through your fingernail while doing an art project (a coauthor of this textbook once experienced this). This would be an example of knowledge you gained through experience. You might also know that inserting a knife into an electrical outlet is dangerous and could greatly harm you. Hopefully you learned this not from personal experience but through instruction from parents, teachers, and others in your social group. The degree to which humans rely on and benefit from the experiential knowledge of others is an important characteristic of what makes us human.
A unified way of knowing that is shared by a group of people and used to explain and predict phenomena is called a knowledge system. Human knowledge systems are diverse and reflect the wide range of cultures and societies throughout the world and through time.
Science and religion are both knowledge systems. Yet they differ in important ways. The type of knowledge gained from science is often called scientific understanding. As we have explored in the previous section, scientific understanding can change and relies on evidence and rigorous, repeated testing. Religious or spiritual ways of knowing are called belief, which is different from scientific understanding because they do not require repeated testing or validation (although they can rely on observations and experiences). Instead, belief relies on trust and faith.
Different individuals, cultures, and societies may place more value on one type of knowing than another, although most use a combination that includes science, empiricism, and religion. In fact, Bronisław Malinowski (1884–1942), an important anthropologist of the early twentieth century, concluded that all societies use both religion and science in some way or another, because they are both common ways that humans experience the world.
In contemporary societies such as the United States, science and (some) religions conflict on the topic of human origins. Nearly every culture and society has a unique origin story that explains where they came from and how they came to be who they are today. These stories are often integrated into the culture’s religious belief system. Many anthropologists are interested in faith-based origin stories and other beliefs because they show us how a particular group of people explain the world and their place in it. Anthropologists also value scientific understanding as the basis for how humans vary biologically and change over time. In other words, anthropologists value the multiple knowledge systems of different groups and use them to understand the human condition in a broad and inclusive way.
It is also important to note that scientists often depend on the local knowledge of the people with whom they work to understand elements of the natural or physical world that science has not yet investigated. Many groups, including Indigenous peoples, know about the world through prolonged relationships with the environment. Indigenous knowledge systems—specific to an Indigenous community or group—are informed by their own empirical observation of a specific environment and passed down over generations.
While religion and Indigenous knowledge systems may play a complementary role in helping anthropologists understand the human condition, they are distinct from science. The anthropological subdiscipline of biological anthropology is based on scientific ways of knowing about humans and human origins. In this volume, we will exclusively explore what science tells us about how humans came to be and why we are the way we are today. Therefore, you do not need to believe in evolution to master this material, because belief is not a scientific way of knowing. For this textbook, you only need to understand the scientific perspectives of evolution.
Throughout our lives, each of us work to reconcile our worldview with the different ways we have of knowing things. This is part of our lifelong intellectual journey. It is also, in our opinion, one of the most exciting parts of learning. We are pleased you have joined us on this journey of knowledge about humanity and yourself!
Summary
Biological anthropology relies on the scientific method to investigate humans and other primates across time and place. While research in this field begins with careful observation, hypotheses are more closely examined with empirical evidence from excavation, fieldwork, or laboratory study. Focusing on this scientific foundation, the discipline allows anthropologists to move beyond belief and speculation to produce knowledge that is testable and continually open to challenge.
Findings are continually debated, reviewed, and revised, ensuring that explanations improve and remain grounded in current and relevant evidence. If you have not caught on already, this textbook follows the same process, reflecting the evolving body of knowledge that is biological anthropology.
Review Questions
- What is science?
- What is the scientific method?
- How does science compare to other ways of knowing?
Key Terms
Empirical: Evidence that is verifiable by observation or experience instead of relying primarily on logic or theory.
Faith: Complete trust or confidence in the doctrines of a religion, typically based on spiritual apprehension rather than empirical proof.
Knowledge system: A unified way of knowing that is shared by a group of people and used to explain and predict phenomena.
Participant observation: A research method common in cultural anthropology that involves living with, observing, and participating in the same activities as the people one studies.
Scholarly peer review: The process whereby an author’s work must pass the scrutiny of other experts in the field before being published in a journal or book.
Scientific understanding: Knowledge accumulated by systematic scientific study, supported by rigorous testing and organized by general principles.
Theory: An explanation of observations that typically addresses a wide range of phenomena.
For Further Exploration
Understanding Science website (a project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Anticole, Matt. n.d. “What’s the Difference between a Scientific Law and Theory?" TedEd Lesson. Accessed January 28, 2023. 28, 2023.
Chan, Keith. 2021. “Icebreaker Science.” In Explorations: Lab and Activities Manual, edited by Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera, and Lara Braff. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Chizmeshya, Sydney Quinn, and Katherine E. Brent. 2021. “Knowing and Believing.” In Explorations: Lab and Activities Manual, edited by Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera, and Lara Braff. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Pfister, Anne E. 2021. “Science and Belief: Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Always Mean We Should.” In Explorations: Lab and Activities Manual edited by Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera, and Lara Braff. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
References
Binford, Leigh. 2016. The El Mozote Massacre: Human Rights and Global Implications. Revised and expanded edition. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Estrada, Alejandro, Paul A. Garber, Anthony B. Rylands, Christian Roos, Eduardo Fernandez-Duque, Anthony Di Fiore, K. Anne-Isola Nekaris, et al. 2017. “Impending Extinction Crisis of the World’s Primates: Why Primates Matter.” Science Advances 3(229): 1–16.
Farmer, Paul. 2006. AIDS and Accusation: Haiti and the Geography of Blame. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Farmer, Paul, Matthew Basilico, Vanessa Kerry, Madeleine Ballard, Anne Becker, Gene Bukhman, Ophelia Dahl, et al. 2013. “Global Health Priorities for the Early Twenty-first Century.” In Reimagining Global Health: An Introduction, edited by Paul Farmer, Jim Yong Kim, Arthur Kleinman, and Matthew Basilico, 302–339. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kenyon, Kathleen. 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: W.W. Norton.
Malotki, Ekkehart. 1983. Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa. Oxford: Morrow.
Ochs, Elinor and Bambi Schieffelin. 2017. “Language Socialization: An Historical Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 8, edited by Patricia Duff, 3-16. New York: Springer.
Rathje, William and Cullen Murphy. 1992. "Five Major Myths about Garbage, and Why They're Wrong." Smithsonian 23, no. 4: 113-122.
TANN. 2018. “Mexican Anthropologists Put Face on Nearly 14,000-Year-Old Woman.” Archaeology News Network, August 19, 2018. Accessed on November 16, 2022.
Whorf, Benjamin. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Learning Objectives
- Explain key components of the scientific method.
- Differentiate between hypotheses, theories, and laws.
- Differentiate science from other ways of knowing.
Anthropologists as Scientists
Biological anthropologists use the scientific method as a way of learning about the world around them. Many people think of science as taking place in a sterile laboratory, but in biological anthropology it is just as likely to occur somewhere else, such as at a research station in Ethiopia, a field site in Tanzania, or a town in El Salvador. To understand how information in this field is established, it is important to recognize what science is and is not, as well as to understand how the scientific method actually works.
Recognizing Science
Science combines our natural curiosity with our ability to experiment so we can understand the world around us and address needs in our communities. Thanks to science, meteorologists can predict the weather, it takes a relatively small number of farmers to grow enough food to feed our large population, our medicine continues to improve, and over half of the world’s population owns a cell phone.
Anyone can participate in science—not just academics. In fact, children are often some of the best scientists (Figure 1.15). An early, well-known psychologist, Jean Piaget (1896–1980), argued that a child is a “little scientist,” internally motivated to experiment and explore their world. This can be seen when an infant repeatedly drops a toy to see if the parent will pick it up, or when a four-year-old sincerely asks “why” again and again. Maria Montessori (1870–1952), an Italian doctor and educator, was interested in how children learn. Through her research, she also recognized that children have natural scientific tendencies. Children have a desire to explore their environment, ask questions, use their imaginations, and learn by doing. In 1907, Montessori opened a school to foster children’s natural desire to learn this way. This developed a child-centreed teaching method that has spread around the world and is being used in over 22,000 schools today. In anthropology and other scientific fields, the process of learning is more formalized, but scientists still benefit from the curiosity that motivates children and still experience the thrill of discovery.

Science represents both a body of knowledge and the process for learning that knowledge (the scientific method). Scientific claims can, at times, be difficult to distinguish from other information. Science also incorporates a broad range of methods to collect data, adding to the difficulty of knowing what science really is. This section will address four key characteristics that help us define and recognize science: (1) science studies the physical and natural world and how it works, (2) scientific explanations must be testable and refutable, (3) science relies on empirical (observable) evidence, and (4) science involves the scientific community.
Science Studies the Physical and Natural World and How It Works
Our physical and natural universe ranges from very small (e.g., electrons) to very large (e.g., Earth itself and the galaxies beyond it). Scientists often design their research to address how and why natural forces influence our physical and natural world. In biological anthropology, we focus our questions on humans as well as other primate species, both living and extinct. We ask questions like: What influences a primate’s diet? Why do humans walk on two legs? And did Neanderthals and modern humans interbreed?
There are very few questions that are considered off-limits in science. That being said, the scope of scientific investigation is generally focused on natural phenomena and natural processes and excludes the supernatural. People often regard the supernatural, whether it be a ghost, luck, or god, as working outside the laws of the universe, which makes it difficult to study with a scientific approach. Science neither supports nor contradicts the existence of supernatural powers—it simply does not include the supernatural in its explanations.
Scientific Explanations Must Be Testable and Refutable
The goal of scientists is to identify a research question and then identify the best answer(s) to that question. For example, an excavation of a cemetery may reveal that many people buried there had unhealed fractures when they died, leading the anthropologist to ask: “Why did this population experience more broken bones than their neighbours?” There might be multiple explanations to address this question, such as a lack of calcium in their diets, participation in dangerous work, or violent conflict with neighbours; these explanations are considered hypotheses. In the past, you might have learned that a hypothesis is an “educated guess,” but in science, hypotheses are much more than that. A scientific hypothesis reflects a scientist’s knowledge-based experiences and background research. A hypothesis is better defined as an explanation of observed facts; hypotheses explain how and why observed phenomena are the way they are.
Scientific hypotheses should generate expectations that are testable. For example, if the best explanation regarding our cemetery population was that they were experiencing violent conflict with their neighbours, we should expect to find clues, like weapons or protective walls around their homes, in the anthropological record to support this. Alternatively, if this population did not experience violent conflict with their neighbours, we may eventually be able to gather enough evidence to rule out (refute) this explanation. An important part of science is rigorous testing. Science does not prove any hypothesis. However, a strong hypothesis is one that has strong supporting evidence and has not yet been disproven.
Science Relies on Empirical Evidence
The word empirical refers to experience that is verified by observation (rather than evidence that derives primarily from logic or theory). In anthropology, much evidence about our world is collected by observation through fieldwork or in a laboratory. The most reliable studies are based on accurately and precisely recorded observations. Scientists value studies that explain exactly what methods were used so that their data collection and analysis processes are reproducible. This allows for other scientists to expand the study or provide new insights into the observations.
Science Involves the Scientific Community
Contrary to many Hollywood science fiction films, good science is not carried out in isolation in a secret basement laboratory; rather, it is done as part of a community. Scientists pay attention to what others have done before them, present new ideas to each other, and publish in scientific journals. Most scientific research is collaborative, bringing together researchers with different types of specialized knowledge to work on a shared project. Today, thanks to technology, scientific projects can bring together researchers from different backgrounds, experiences, locations, and perspectives. Most big anthropological questions such as “Where did modern humans develop?,” “What genetic changes make us uniquely human?,” and “How did cooperative behaviour evolve?” cannot be addressed with one simple study but are tested with different lines of evidence and by different scientists over time.
Working within a scientific community supports one of the most valuable aspects of science: that science is self-correcting. Science that is openly communicated with others allows for a system with checks and balances: competing explanations can be proposed and questionable studies can be reevaluated. Ultimately, the goal is that through science the best explanations will stand the test of time.
How Science Works: The Scientific Method
Most students have learned the scientific method as a simple linear, or perhaps circular, process (see, e.g., Figure 1.16). Typically, the process is said to begin with making observations about the natural world. This leads to the development of a scientific hypothesis. From the hypothesis a set of predictions can be made, which are then tested by experimentation or by making additional observations. Scientific predictions are often phrased as “if... then…” statements, such as “If hypothesis A is true, then this experiment will show outcome B.” The results of a scientific study should then either support or reject the hypothesis.

This simple version of the scientific method is valuable because it highlights the key aspects that should be present in any scientific research experiment or scientific paper. However, this simplistic view does not accurately represent the dynamic and creative side of science, nor does it identify the complex steps that are incorporated into a scientist’s routine.

Figure 1.17 provides an alternative representation of the scientific method that emphasizes the many paths to scientific discovery. While still incorporating the key components of making observations, testing ideas, and interpreting results, this chart shows that scientific ideas have many possible starting points and influences, and scientists often repeat steps and circle back around. Gathering evidence does not always rest on experiments in the laboratory. Evaluating data is not always clear-cut, and results are sometimes surprising or inconclusive. Many important discoveries were in fact made by mistake. For example, engineer Percy Spencer accidentally melted a chocolate bar in his pocket with a magnetron, which became the first microwave, and Spencer Silver invented the adhesive for 3M Post-it ® notes while trying to develop a strong glue. The real scientific process is more similar to the philosophy of the animated television character Ms. Frizzle from The Magic School Bus, “Take chances, make mistakes, get messy.”
Two key components lacking in the simple version of the scientific method are exploration and discovery. There are many reasons that a scientist might choose a particular research question: they may be motivated by personal experience, struck by something they read, or inspired by a student’s question in class. Often scientific research reveals more questions than answers, so experienced researchers rarely lack problems to solve. But identifying a research question is just part of the process; most scientists spend more time exploring the literature, sharing ideas, asking questions, and planning their research project than conducting the test itself.
Science itself is a social enterprise that is influenced by cultural issues and values, as well as funding priorities. For example, corporations are the biggest funders of scientific research, followed by government agencies such as the National Science Foundation (which also fund many research projects done at colleges and universities). Those organizations have great influence on what is considered valuable research at any given time. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified many diseases as “neglected tropical diseases,” including dengue, leprosy, rabies, and hookworm. Together these diseases affect an estimated one billion people, mostly in impoverished areas. While these debilitating tropical diseases can be as deadly as diseases that receive more attention, like AIDS and tuberculosis, they receive comparatively little funding due to political priorities (Farmer et al. 2013).
Also important to the scientific process are interactions within the scientific community. Scientific collaboration can take place through informal discussion over a cup of coffee as well as more formal interactions, such as presenting at conferences and engaging in scholarly peer review. Scholarly peer review describes the process whereby an author’s work must pass the scrutiny of other experts in the field before being accepted for publication in a journal or book. This helps keep scientists accountable for ethically responsible research projects and papers. Additionally, presenting data at conferences and in articles and books allows researchers to receive critical feedback from academic peers and others to test these ideas and further the field of science toward identifying the best explanations. It is important that the scientific field include researchers with diverse identities, backgrounds, and experiences so that researchers ask new questions, innovate, and problem solve more effectively.
Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws
Scientific investigation occurs at many levels, from investigating individual cases (e.g., “What is causing this child’s mysterious illness?”) to understanding processes that affect most of us (“What is the ideal amount of sleep for an adult?”). All of these questions are important and will generate different types of testable scientific explanations. So far, we have used the term hypothesis to describe these scientific ideas about why observed phenomena are the way they are. Hypotheses are typically explanations that address a narrow set of phenomena, such as (in anthropology) a particular human population or primate species.
In science, a theory is an explanation of observations that addresses a wide range of phenomena. Like hypotheses, theories also explain how or why something occurs, rely on empirical evidence, and are testable and able to be refuted. Because the term theory is often used casually outside of science, you may hear people try to dismiss a scientific claim as “just a theory.” In science there are often multiple competing theories, but over time some are eliminated, leaving standing the theory or theories that best explain the most evidence. Scientific theories that have stood the test of time are thus supported by many lines of evidence and are usually reliable. Some well-tested theories accepted by most scientists include the theory of general relativity, which explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces, and evolutionary theory, which describes how heritable traits can change in a population over time.
While scientific hypotheses and theories share many characteristics, laws are quite different. A law is a prediction about what will happen given certain conditions, not an explanation for how or why it happens. A law is not a “mature” version of a theory. For example, Newton’s universal law of gravity allows us to predict the gravitational force (F) between any two objects using the equation F=G(m1m2)/r2, but it does not explain why gravity works. Laws are often mathematical, and some well-known laws include Newton’s three laws of motion and Mendel’s laws of genetic inheritance. Laws are important, and their discovery often promotes the development of theories.

To demonstrate how important laws can be—and to show how unusual things can inspire scientific discoveries—we can use the story of the ancient Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes (Figure 1.18). Archimedes’s buoyancy principle is a law that is useful for many things, including density calculations and designing ships. Purportedly, he made this discovery when he noticed the water level rise in the bathtub when he climbed in it. Realizing its importance, he is said to have shouted “Eureka” and proceeded to run naked through the city of Syracuse. While this fun story may or may not be true, it does remain that scientific laws, alongside scientific hypotheses and theories, have a very important role in the scientific process and in generating scientific explanations about our natural world.
Ways of Knowing: Science, Faith, and Anthropology
In anthropology, we recognize that there are many ways of knowing things. For instance, you might know that fingernails are softer than metal because as a child you accidentally stapled through your fingernail while doing an art project (a coauthor of this textbook once experienced this). This would be an example of knowledge you gained through experience. You might also know that inserting a knife into an electrical outlet is dangerous and could greatly harm you. Hopefully you learned this not from personal experience but through instruction from parents, teachers, and others in your social group. The degree to which humans rely on and benefit from the experiential knowledge of others is an important characteristic of what makes us human.
A unified way of knowing that is shared by a group of people and used to explain and predict phenomena is called a knowledge system. Human knowledge systems are diverse and reflect the wide range of cultures and societies throughout the world and through time.
Science and religion are both knowledge systems. Yet they differ in important ways. The type of knowledge gained from science is often called scientific understanding. As we have explored in the previous section, scientific understanding can change and relies on evidence and rigorous, repeated testing. Religious or spiritual ways of knowing are called belief, which is different from scientific understanding because they do not require repeated testing or validation (although they can rely on observations and experiences). Instead, belief relies on trust and faith.
Different individuals, cultures, and societies may place more value on one type of knowing than another, although most use a combination that includes science, empiricism, and religion. In fact, Bronisław Malinowski (1884–1942), an important anthropologist of the early twentieth century, concluded that all societies use both religion and science in some way or another, because they are both common ways that humans experience the world.
In contemporary societies such as the United States, science and (some) religions conflict on the topic of human origins. Nearly every culture and society has a unique origin story that explains where they came from and how they came to be who they are today. These stories are often integrated into the culture’s religious belief system. Many anthropologists are interested in faith-based origin stories and other beliefs because they show us how a particular group of people explain the world and their place in it. Anthropologists also value scientific understanding as the basis for how humans vary biologically and change over time. In other words, anthropologists value the multiple knowledge systems of different groups and use them to understand the human condition in a broad and inclusive way.
It is also important to note that scientists often depend on the local knowledge of the people with whom they work to understand elements of the natural or physical world that science has not yet investigated. Many groups, including Indigenous peoples, know about the world through prolonged relationships with the environment. Indigenous knowledge systems—specific to an Indigenous community or group—are informed by their own empirical observation of a specific environment and passed down over generations.
While religion and Indigenous knowledge systems may play a complementary role in helping anthropologists understand the human condition, they are distinct from science. The anthropological subdiscipline of biological anthropology is based on scientific ways of knowing about humans and human origins. In this volume, we will exclusively explore what science tells us about how humans came to be and why we are the way we are today. Therefore, you do not need to believe in evolution to master this material, because belief is not a scientific way of knowing. For this textbook, you only need to understand the scientific perspectives of evolution.
Throughout our lives, each of us work to reconcile our worldview with the different ways we have of knowing things. This is part of our lifelong intellectual journey. It is also, in our opinion, one of the most exciting parts of learning. We are pleased you have joined us on this journey of knowledge about humanity and yourself!
Summary
Biological anthropology relies on the scientific method to investigate humans and other primates across time and place. While research in this field begins with careful observation, hypotheses are more closely examined with empirical evidence from excavation, fieldwork, or laboratory study. Focusing on this scientific foundation, the discipline allows anthropologists to move beyond belief and speculation to produce knowledge that is testable and continually open to challenge.
Findings are continually debated, reviewed, and revised, ensuring that explanations improve and remain grounded in current and relevant evidence. If you have not caught on already, this textbook follows the same process, reflecting the evolving body of knowledge that is biological anthropology.
Review Questions
- What is science?
- What is the scientific method?
- How does science compare to other ways of knowing?
Key Terms
Empirical: Evidence that is verifiable by observation or experience instead of relying primarily on logic or theory.
Faith: Complete trust or confidence in the doctrines of a religion, typically based on spiritual apprehension rather than empirical proof.
Knowledge system: A unified way of knowing that is shared by a group of people and used to explain and predict phenomena.
Participant observation: A research method common in cultural anthropology that involves living with, observing, and participating in the same activities as the people one studies.
Scholarly peer review: The process whereby an author’s work must pass the scrutiny of other experts in the field before being published in a journal or book.
Scientific understanding: Knowledge accumulated by systematic scientific study, supported by rigorous testing and organized by general principles.
Theory: An explanation of observations that typically addresses a wide range of phenomena.
For Further Exploration
Understanding Science website (a project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Anticole, Matt. n.d. “What’s the Difference between a Scientific Law and Theory?" TedEd Lesson. Accessed January 28, 2023. 28, 2023.
Chan, Keith. 2021. “Icebreaker Science.” In Explorations: Lab and Activities Manual, edited by Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera, and Lara Braff. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Chizmeshya, Sydney Quinn, and Katherine E. Brent. 2021. “Knowing and Believing.” In Explorations: Lab and Activities Manual, edited by Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera, and Lara Braff. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Pfister, Anne E. 2021. “Science and Belief: Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Always Mean We Should.” In Explorations: Lab and Activities Manual edited by Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera, and Lara Braff. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
References
Binford, Leigh. 2016. The El Mozote Massacre: Human Rights and Global Implications. Revised and expanded edition. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Estrada, Alejandro, Paul A. Garber, Anthony B. Rylands, Christian Roos, Eduardo Fernandez-Duque, Anthony Di Fiore, K. Anne-Isola Nekaris, et al. 2017. “Impending Extinction Crisis of the World’s Primates: Why Primates Matter.” Science Advances 3(229): 1–16.
Farmer, Paul. 2006. AIDS and Accusation: Haiti and the Geography of Blame. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Farmer, Paul, Matthew Basilico, Vanessa Kerry, Madeleine Ballard, Anne Becker, Gene Bukhman, Ophelia Dahl, et al. 2013. “Global Health Priorities for the Early Twenty-first Century.” In Reimagining Global Health: An Introduction, edited by Paul Farmer, Jim Yong Kim, Arthur Kleinman, and Matthew Basilico, 302–339. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kenyon, Kathleen. 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: W.W. Norton.
Malotki, Ekkehart. 1983. Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa. Oxford: Morrow.
Ochs, Elinor and Bambi Schieffelin. 2017. “Language Socialization: An Historical Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 8, edited by Patricia Duff, 3-16. New York: Springer.
Rathje, William and Cullen Murphy. 1992. "Five Major Myths about Garbage, and Why They're Wrong." Smithsonian 23, no. 4: 113-122.
TANN. 2018. “Mexican Anthropologists Put Face on Nearly 14,000-Year-Old Woman.” Archaeology News Network, August 19, 2018. Accessed on November 16, 2022.
Whorf, Benjamin. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Learning Objectives
- Identify and describe the major developments in scientific thought that led to the discovery of evolutionary processes.
- Explain how natural selection works and results in evolutionary change over time.
- Explain what is meant by the “Modern Synthesis” and its impacts on evolutionary thought.
- Discuss the teaching of human evolution in the U.S. and abroad.
The Beginnings of Evolutionary Thinking
Throughout our evolutionary history, humans have developed an understanding of the natural world as they interacted with and extracted resources from it. To survive, our earliest ancestors possessed an understanding of the physical environment, including weather patterns, animal behaviour, edible and medicinal plants, locations of water, and seasonal cycles. Many ancient cultures, including those of the Americas (Dunbar-Ortiz 2014), Mesopotamia, and Egypt, left writings, hieroglyphics, and stories passed down through oral tradition detailing their understanding of the natural environment, human and zoological anatomy, botany, and medical practices (Moore 1993).
There are also over 2,000 years of organized thought and writing regarding evolution, including contributions from Greek, Roman, and Islamic scholars. Three examples of note are included here. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) studied the natural world, publishing several volumes on animals based on systematic observations, rather than attributing what he observed to divine intervention, as his contemporaries were doing (Figure 2.1). Aristotle’s system for the biological classification of nearly 500 species of animals was based on his own observations and dissections, interviews with specialists such as beekeepers and fishermen, and accounts of travelers. His nine book History of Animals, published in the 4th century BC (n.d.), was one of the first zoological taxonomies ever created. Aristotle’s primary contribution to the classification of biological species was to recognize that natural groups are based on structure, physiology, mode of reproduction, and behaviour (Moore 1993, 39).



Aristotle’s History of Animals also placed animals in a hierarchy, ranking animals above plants due to what he claimed were their abilities to sense the world around them and to move. He also graded animals according to their modes of reproduction. Those giving birth to live young were placed above those who laid eggs. Warm-blooded animals ranked above invertebrates. This concept of “higher” and “lower” organisms was expanded upon by scholars in the Medieval period to form the Scala Naturae (Latin for “ladder of being”). This “Great Chain of Being,” depicting a hierarchy of beings with God at the top and minerals at the bottom (Figure 2.2), was thought by medieval Christians to have been decreed by God; in this Great Chain, humans were placed closer to God than other species. Aristotle’s works were rediscovered by Islamic scholars in the ninth century and translated into Arabic, Syriac, Persian, and later into Latin, becoming part of university curriculum in 13th-century Europe (Lindberg 1992), allowing Aristotle’s works and ideas to influence other thinkers for 2,000 years.

Science also owes a debt to many Arabic scholars. One such Islamic scholar and writer, who built upon the ideas of Aristotle, was Abū ʿUthman ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Kinānī al-Baṣrī / al-Jāḥiẓ, known as Al-Jahiz (776–868 CE), who authored over 200 books (El-Zaher 2018; Figure 2.3). His most well-known work was the seven-volume Kitab al-Hayawan or Book of Animals, in which he described over 350 species in zoological detail. Importantly, Al-Jahiz introduced the idea and mechanisms of biological evolution 1,000 years before Darwin proposed the concept of natural selection in 1859 (Love 2020). For instance, Al-Jahiz wrote about the struggle for existence, the transformation of species over time, and environmental factors that influence the process, all ideas that were later espoused by western European scientists in the 19th century. Al-Jahiz wrote:
Animals engage in a struggle for existing, and for resources, to avoid being eaten, and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming them into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to their offspring. [Masood 2009]

Another important early Islamic scientist is Ibn al-Haytham (965–1040), a 10th-century Islamic scholar who contributed a great deal to our understanding of optics and how human vision works (Figure 2.4; Lindberg 1992, 177–180). Born in what is now Iraq, al-Haytham was a scholar of many disciplines, including mathematics, physics, mechanics, astronomy, philosophy, and medicine. He authored some 200 books in his lifetime and was an expert on Aristotle’s natural philosophy, logic, and metaphysics. In relation to evolution, al-Haytham’s methodology of investigation—specifically, using experiments to verify theory—is similar to what later became known as the modern scientific method. He is most famous for discovering the laws of reflection and refraction over 1,000 years ago and inventing the camera obscura, which was incredibly important for the eventual development of photography. His work is credited for its influence on astronomy, mathematics, and optics, inspiring Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Sir Isaac Newton (Tasci 2020). As an inspirational scientific figure, al-Haytham was celebrated in 2016 by UNESCO as a trailblazer and the founder of modern optics (Figure 2.5). An International Year of Light was named in his honor and a scholarly conference on his contributions was held to coincide with the 1,000th anniversary of the publication of his Kitāb al-Manāẓir (Book of Optics; UNESCO.org 2015).

The writings of these Islamic scholars as well as similar scientific texts from other cultures were unknown to or unacknowledged by Western scientists until recently. Fortunately, many science teachers are now incorporating this content into their classes (Love 2020).
Western European Evolutionary Thought
Although there have been many different scientific traditions throughout world history, a new global discourse around science emerged in Western Europe in the 19th century. Europeans pointed to the continuing expansion of their colonial power—as well as their military and technological success—as evidence of the efficacy of Western science, which came to dominate on a global scale (Elshakry 2010). The movement toward a global science centred in Western Europe began with formulation of the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method was first codified by Francis Bacon (1561–1626), an English politician who was likely influenced by the methods of inquiry established by Ibn al-Haytham centuries prior (Tbakhi & Amr 2007). Bacon has been called the founder of empiricism for proposing a system for weighing the truthfulness of knowledge based solely on inductive reasoning and careful observations of natural phenomena. Ironically, he died as a result of trying to scientifically observe the effects of cold on the putrefaction of meat. On a journey out of London, he purchased a chicken and stuffed it with snow for observation, catching a chill in the process. One week later, he died of bronchitis (Urbach, Quinton, & Lea 2023).
The second important development with regard to evolution was the concept of a species. John Ray (1627–1705), an English parson and naturalist, was the first person to publish a biological definition of species in his Historia Plantarum (History of Plants), a three volume work published in 1686, 1688, and 1704. Ray defined a species as a group of morphologically similar organisms arising from a common ancestor. However, we now define a species as a group of similar organisms capable of producing fertile offspring. In keeping with the scientific method, Ray classified plants according to similarities and differences that emerged from observation. He claimed that any seed from the same plant was the same species, even if it had slightly different traits.
The modern period of biological classification began with the work of Carl von Linne (“Carolus Linnaeus”) (1707–1778), a Swedish scientist who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of taxonomy used today. He established the system of binomial nomenclature, in which a species of animal or plant receives a name consisting of two terms: the first term identifies the genus to which it belongs and the second term identifies the species. His original Systema Naturae, published in 1736, went through several editions. By the tenth edition in 1758, mammals incorporated primates, including apes and humans, and the term Homo sapiens was introduced to signify the latter (Paterlini 2007).
Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–1788), was a prominent French naturalist whose work influenced prominent scientists in the second half of the 18th century. Buffon's idea that species change over time became a cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory. His technique of comparing similar structures across different species, called comparative anatomy, is still in use today in the study of evolution. He published 36 volumes of Histoire Naturelle during his lifetime and heavily influenced two prominent French thinkers who were to have significant impacts on our understanding of evolution, Georges Cuvier and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) was a paleontologist and comparative anatomist (Figure 2.6). One of his first major contributions to the field of evolution was proof that some species had become extinct through detailed and comprehensive analyses of large fossil quadrupeds (Moore 1993, 111). The idea of extinction was not new, but it was challenging to demonstrate if a fossil species was truly extinct or still had living relatives elsewhere. It was also challenging in that it ran counter to religious beliefs of the time. The Bible’s Book of Genesis was interpreted as saying that all species had been created by God in the seven days it took to create the world and that all created species have survived to this day. Extinction was interpreted as implying imperfection, suggesting God’s work was flawed. Also, given that the Earth was calculated to have been created in 4004 B.C.E., based on biblical genealogies, there would not have been enough time for species to disappear (Moore 1993, 112).
Cuvier was so knowledgeable in this field that he became famous for his ability to reconstruct what an extinct animal looked like from fragmentary remains. He demonstrated that fossil mammoths differed from similar living creatures, such as elephants. His many examples of fossils telling the stories of animals that lived and then disappeared were taken as incontrovertible proof of extinctions (PBS 2001). Where Cuvier went awry was his hypothesis of how extinction worked and its causes. As part of his study of comparative anatomy, Cuvier made observations of stratified layers of rock, or sediment, each containing different species. From this, he drew conclusions that species were “fixed” and did not evolve, but then went extinct, and that different assemblages of fossils occurred at different times in the past, as evidenced by the sedimentary layers (Moore 1993, 118). Cuvier explained this through a theory of catastrophism, which stated that successive catastrophic deluges (akin to Biblical floods) swept over parts of the Earth periodically, exterminating all life. When the waters receded from a particular region, lifeforms from unaffected regions would repopulate the areas that were destroyed, giving rise to a new layer of species that looked different from the layer below it. This theory implied that species were fixed in place and did not evolve and that the Earth was young. In fact, Cuvier postulated that the last catastrophe was a deluge he believed occurred five to six thousand years ago, paving the way for the advent of humans (Moore 1993, 118). Cuvier’s catastrophism became part of an ongoing and vociferous debate between two schools of geology. The catastrophists believed the present state of the earth was the consequence of a series of violent catastrophes of short duration, while the uniformitarians thought it was the result of slow acting geological forces that continue to shape the earth.

James Hutton (1726–1797) was one prominent proponent of uniformitarianism. Based on evidence he found at sites in his native Scotland, Hutton argued that the Earth was much older than previously thought. Examining the geology of Siccar Point, a cliff site on the eastern coast of Scotland (Figure 2.7), Hutton concluded that the intersection of the vertical and horizontal rocks represented a gap in time of many millions of years, during which the lower rocks had been deformed and eroded before the upper layers were deposited on top. From this, Hutton argued sediments are deposited primarily in the oceans, where they become strata, or layers of sedimentary rock. Volcanic action uplifts these strata to form mountains, which are then subject to erosion from rain, rivers, and wind, returning sediment to the oceans (Moore 1993, 121). Hutton’s Theory of the Earth (1788) demanded vast periods of time (known as “deep time”) for such slow-working forces to shape the earth. At the time, he was heavily criticized for this view, as it contradicted the biblical version of the history of creation.

Another Scotsman, who was to become a highly influential geologist and a close friend of Darwin, was Charles Lyell (1797–1875). Lyell was originally a lawyer who began his studies of Geology at Oxford under the tutelage of catastrophist William Buckland, from whom he diverged when Buckland tried to find physical evidence of Noah’s flood from the Christian Bible. Lyell was instead intent on establishing geology as a science based on observation. Building upon Hutton’s ideas (published 50 years earlier), Lyell traveled throughout Europe, documenting evidence of uniformitarianism. During his travels, he catalogued evidence of sea level rise and fall and of volcanoes positioned atop much older rocks. He also found evidence of valleys formed through erosion, mountains resulting from earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that had been witnessed or documented in the past (University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology n.d.). Lyell also espoused the principle that “rocks and strata (layers of rock) increase in age the further down they are in a geological sequence. Barring obvious upheavals or other evidence of disturbance, the same principle must apply to any fossils contained within the rock. The lower down in a sequence of rocks a fossil is, the older it is likely to be (Wood 2005, 12).”
Lyell published the first edition of his three-volume Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 (Figure 2.8). It established geology as a science, underwent constant revisions as new scientific evidence was discovered, and was published in 12 editions during Lyell’s lifetime. In it, he espoused the key concept of uniformitarianism—that "the present is the key to the past.” What this meant was that geological remains from the distant past can be explained by reference to geological processes now in operation and directly observable.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) was the first Western scientist to propose a mechanism explaining why and how traits changed in species over time, as well as to recognize the importance of the physical environment in acting on and shaping physical characteristics. Lamarck’s view of how and why species changed through time, known as the “Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics,” was first presented in the introductory lecture to students in his invertebrate zoology class at the Museum of Natural History in Paris in 1802 (Burkhardt 2013). It was based on the idea that as animals adapted to their environments through the use and disuse of characteristics, their adaptations were passed on to their offspring through reproduction (Figure 2.9). Lamarck was right about the environment having an influence on characteristics of species, as well as about variations being passed on through reproduction. He simply had the mechanism wrong.


Lamarck’s theory involved a three-step process. Step one involves an animal experiencing a radical change in its environment. Step two is the animal (either individual or species) responding with a new kind of behaviour. Step three is how the behavioural change results in morphological (meaning physical) changes to the animal that are successfully passed on to subsequent generations (Ward 2018, 8). Lamarck’s most famous example was the proposition that giraffes actively stretched their necks to reach leaves on tall trees to eat. Over their lifetimes, the continuation of this habit resulted in gradual lengthening of the neck. These longer necks were then passed on to their offspring. Lamarck's theory was disproved when evolutionary biologist August Weismann published the results of an experiment involving mice (Figure 2.10). Weismann amputated the tails of 68 mice and then successively bred five generations of them, removing the tails of all offspring in each generation, eventually producing 901 mice, all of whom had perfectly healthy long tails in spite of having parents whose tails were missing (Weismann 1889).

How giraffes actually ended up with long necks is a different story. In an environment where the food supply is higher off the ground, and perhaps less available to competing species, giraffes who happened to have slightly longer necks (due to random individual variation and genetic mutation) would be more likely to survive. These giraffes would then be able to reproduce, passing along the slight variation in neck length that would allow their offspring to do the same. Over time, individuals with longer necks would be overrepresented in the population, and neck lengths overall would increase among giraffes. Unfortunately, Lamarck’s ideas challenged the scientific establishment of the time and were rejected. He was discredited and harassed “to the point of loss of money, reputation, and then health” (Ward 2018, 9).
The final piece in the evolutionary puzzle leading up to the theory of natural selection was put forth by Thomas Malthus (1766–1834), who published An Essay on Population in 1798. Malthus lived in England during the time of the Industrial Revolution. It was a time of great poverty and misery when many people migrated from the countryside to squalid, disease-ridden cities to work extremely long hours in dangerous conditions in factories, coal mines, and other industrial workplaces. Birth rates were high and starvation and disease were rampant. Malthus struggled to explain why. His answer was basically the idea of carrying capacity, an ecological concept still in use today. Malthus suggested the rate of population growth exceeded the rate of increase of the human food supply. In other words, people were outgrowing the available food crops. He also suggested that populations of animals and plants were naturally constrained by the food supply, resulting in reductions in population in times of scarcity, “restraining them within the prescribed bounds” (Moore 1993, 147). But, despite significant challenges, some individuals always survived. This was the key to later understandings of evolutionary change in species over time.
The Journey to Natural Selection
In Western European thought, the individual most closely associated with evolution is Charles Darwin (1809–1882). However, as one can see from the individuals and ideas presented in the prior section, he was not the first person to explore evolution and how it might work. In fact, Darwin built upon and synthesized many of the ideas—from geology to biology, ecology, and economy—discussed above. He was simply in the right place at the right time. If he had not worked out his ideas when he did, someone else would have. As a matter of fact, as noted below, someone else did, forcing Darwin to publicly reveal his theory.
Darwin continued his observations and experiments during his formal education, culminating in his graduation from Cambridge in 1831, at which point he was invited to become a gentleman naturalist for a British Royal Navy surveying mission of the globe aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. It is worth noting that Darwin was only 22 years old and the captain’s third choice for the position (Costa 2017), but he proved extremely curious and methodical. The mission departed in December of 1831 and returned five years later (Figure 2.11). During this time, Darwin produced copious notebooks, observations, drawings, and reflections on the natural phenomena he encountered and the experiments he performed.

Discussing all of Darwin’s work aboard the Beagle is beyond the scope of this chapter, but his primary interests were in cataloguing new varieties of plant and animal life and examining the geology of the places the ship made landfall. Part of Darwin’s success with regard to both ventures was due to his extreme seasickness, which began before the ship even left Plymouth Harbour. It never let up, encouraging Darwin to go ashore at every available opportunity. “In fact, of the nearly five years of the voyage, Darwin was actually on board the ship for just a year and a half altogether” (Costa 2017, 18).
During the voyage, the young Darwin tried to make sense of what he saw through the lens of the scientific paradigms he held when he left England, but he continually made observations that challenged these paradigms. For example, while the Beagle crewmen were charting the coast of Argentina, Darwin conducted fieldwork on land. There he observed species that were new to him, like armadillos. He also collected fossils, including those of extinct armadillos. Meaning, he had found both extant and extinct members of the same species in the same geographic location, which challenged the theory of catastrophism put forth by Cuvier, who argued that each variant of an animal, living or extinct, was its own distinct species (Moore 1993, 144). Darwin also observed geographic variation in the same species all along the east coast of South America, from Brazil to the southern tip of Argentina. He noted that some species were found in multiple localities and differed from place to place. Those living closer to each other exhibited only slight variations, while those living further apart might be catalogued as entirely different species if one did not know better.
He made similar observations in the Galapagos Islands located off the northwest coast of Ecuador, with regard to giant tortoises and finches (Figure 2.12). A local resident of the islands explained to Darwin that each island had its own variety of tortoise and that locals could discern which island a tortoise came from simply by looking at it. Darwin noted other such examples in both plants and animals, meaning geographic variation was occurring on separate, neighbouring islands.

Prevailing views of time argued that variations in living species, and even the fossil armadillos and the living armadillos, were the result of separate creation events. According to this view, each variation, no matter how slight, was a different species. Challenging these ideas would mean challenging not only catastrophism, but the Fixity of Species and other well-accepted ideas of the time. Darwin was aware that he was a young, unestablished naturalist. He was also aware of the ruin that befell Lamarck when his theories were rejected. Lastly, Lyell, who was a good friend of Darwin’s, rejected evolution altogether. It is no wonder that Darwin published a great deal about the geological and fossil data he collected when he returned from the voyage, but not his early hypotheses about evolution.
Upon Darwin’s return to England, it took another twenty years of data collection and experimentation before he was ready to share his conclusions about evolution. Much of this work was conducted at Down House, his home of forty years, where he performed all sorts of experiments that laid the groundwork for his ideas about evolution. Darwin’s home was his laboratory, and he engaged the help of his children, neighbours, friends, and servants in collecting, dissecting, and experimenting. At one point in the 1850s, sheets of moistened paper covered with frogs eggs lined the hallways of the house, while flocks of sixteen different pigeon breeds cooed outside, glass jars filled with salt water and floating seeds filled the cellar, and the smell of dissected pigeon skeletons pervaded the air inside the house. There were also ongoing experiments in the yard, including piles of dissected flowers, beekeeping, and fenced-off plots of land where seedlings were under study. Darwin was a keen experimental scientist, observer, and a prolific writer and presenter of scientific papers. He regarded his work as “one long argument” that never really ended. In fact, Darwin published ten books after On the Origin of Species, addressing such far-ranging topics as animal behaviour, orchids, and domestication, among others (Costa 2017).
Darwin may not have published Origins in 1859 had it not been for receiving a paper in June of 1858 from Alfred Russel Wallace, an English naturalist working in Malaysia, espousing the same ideas. Wallace had sent the paper to Darwin asking if it was worthy of publication and requesting he forward it to Lyell and the English botanist, Joseph Hooker. Darwin wrote to Lyell and Hooker about Wallace’s paper, entitled On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type. In recognition that both Wallace and Darwin had arrived at the same discovery, a “joint” paper composed of four parts (none of them actually coauthored) was read to the Linnaean Society by Lyell, then secretary of the Society, on July 1, 1858, and published on August 20. Darwin published On the Origin of Species 15 months later. (The original composite paper read before the Linnaean society is available to read for free from the Alfred Russell Wallace Website, on the 1858 Darwin-Wallace paper page.)
The Mechanism of Natural Selection
Let us take a moment here to explore the mechanism of natural selection in more detail. Before we begin, it is important to recognize that Darwin defined evolution as descent with modification, by which he meant that species share a common ancestor yet change over time, giving rise to new species. Descent with modification refers to the fact that offspring from two parents look different from each of their parents, and from each other, meaning they descend with slight differences (“modifications”). If you have ever observed a litter of puppies or a field of flowers and stopped to examine each individual closely, you have seen that each differs from the next, and none look exactly like their parents. These variations are random, not specific, and may or may not be present in the following generations.
Darwin struggled to explain why some slight differences were preserved over time, while others were not. He turned to what he knew of animal breeding (artificial selection) for an explanation (Richards 1998). Darwin bred different breeds of pigeons at Down House, carefully documenting phenotypic differences across generations, including slight anatomical variations he observed through dissection. He also grew and crossbred species of flowers and dissected those too. Darwin was also very fond of hunting and of hunting dogs. In an early draft of his theory on speciation, he used greyhounds as an example of adaptation and selection, “noting how its every bone and muscle, instinct and habit, were fitted to run down hare (rabbits) (University of Cambridge n.d.).” In each case of plant and animal breeding Darwin observed, he noted that humans were selecting variants in each generation that had characteristics humans desired (i.e., sweetness of fruits, colours of flowers, fur type and colour of animals). Breeders then continually bred plants and animals with the desired variants, over and over again. These small changes added up over time to create new species of plants and breeds of animals. Darwin also noted that artificial selection does not necessarily render plants or animals better adapted to their original environments. The characteristics humans desire often result in plants less likely to survive in the wild and animals more likely to suffer from certain behavioural or health problems. One has only to examine high rates of hip dysplasia in several modern breeds of dogs to observe what Darwin was referring to.
From his studies of artificial selection, Darwin drew the conclusion that nature also acts upon variations among members of the same species. Instead of human intervention, the forces of nature, such as heat, cold, predation, disease, and now climate change, determine which offspring, with which variants, survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass down these favourable variants to their own offspring. In this way, nature selects for traits that are beneficial within a particular environment and selects against traits that are disadvantageous within a particular environment. Over many generations, populations of a species become more and more adapted (or, in evolutionary terms, “fit”) for their specific environments. Darwin named this process natural selection.
This theory explained the variations in tortoises Darwin had observed years earlier in the Galapagos Islands (see Figure 2.12). Tortoises who lived on larger islands with lush vegetation to feed on were larger than those on smaller islands. They also had shorter necks and dome-shaped shells as their food was close to the ground. Tortoises on smaller, drier islands fed on cacti, which grew much taller. These tortoises had longer necks, longer front legs, and saddle-shaped shells, which allowed them to successfully stretch to reach the edible cactus pads that grew on the tops of the plants. How did these observable differences in the two tortoise populations emerge? Darwin would argue that, over time, small, random variations in the tortoises were differentially selected for by the distinct natural environments on different islands.
In addition to the biogeographical evidence Darwin offered from his research aboard the Beagle, as well as the evidence he documented from the artificial selection of plants and animals, he also relied, where possible, on fossil evidence. One example, mentioned above, were the fossil findings of extinct armadillos in Argentina in the same locations as living armadillos. Unfortunately, as Darwin himself noted, the geological record was incomplete, most often missing the transitional fossil forms that bridge extinct and living species. That issue has since been resolved with scientific research in geochronology and paleontology, among other fields. It is now well-established that life is far more ancient than was believed in Darwin’s time and that these ancient forms of life were the ancestors to all life on this planet (Kutschera & Niklas 2004).
What Darwin was Missing
Although the theory of evolution by natural selection gained traction in scientific circles in the decades after Darwin’s publication of Origins, he was never able to discover the mechanisms that caused variation within members of the same species or the means by which traits were inherited. This began later in 1892 with the publication of The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity by August Weismann, the same Weismann of the mouse tail experiment presented earlier in this chapter. In his book, Weissman proposed a theory of germ-plasm, which was a precursor to the later discovery and understanding of DNA. Weismann specialized in cytology, a branch of biology devoted to understanding the function of plant and animal cells. Germ-plasm, he proposed, was a substance in the germ cells (what we would call gametes, or sex cells, today) that carried hereditary information. He predicted that an offspring inherits half of its germ-plasm from each of its parents, and claimed that other cells (e.g. somatic, or body, cells) could not transmit genetic information from parents to offspring. This thereby erased the possibility that acquired traits (which he argued resided in somatic cells) could be inherited (Zou 2015). This contribution to evolutionary theory was an important step toward understanding genetic inheritance, but a connection between genetics and evolution was still lacking.
A series of lectures by a deceased Augustinian monk named Gregor Mendel (1822–1884), originally published in 1865, changed that perspective (Moore 1993, 285). Although Darwin was unknown to Mendel, he began a series of experiments with pea plants shortly after the publication of Darwin’s Origins, aiming to add to evolutionary understandings of heredity. As Mendel bred different generations of pea plants that had differences in seed shape and colour, pod shape and colour, flower position, and stem length, he documented consistent expression of some variations over others in subsequent generations. He meticulously documented the statistics of each crossing of plants and the percentages of phenotypes that resulted, eventually discovering the concept of dominance and recessiveness of characteristics, as will be seen in chapter 3. The recognition of the importance of Mendel’s work began with its rediscovery by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, both of whom were working on hypotheses regarding heredity in plants and had arrived at conclusions similar to Mendel’s. Both published papers supporting Mendel’s conclusions in 1900 (Moore 1993). Research into the inheritance of characteristics continued through the next three decades, and by the close of the 1930s, no major scientific questions remained regarding the transmission of heredity through genes, although what genes did and what chemicals they were made of were still under investigation.
The Modern Synthesis refers to the merging of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that took place between 1930 and 1950. The basic principles of the synthetic theory were influenced by scientists working in many different fields, including genetics, zoology, biology, paleontology, botany, and statistics. Although there were differences of opinion among them, evolution came to be defined as changes in allele frequencies within populations. Genetic mutations, changes in the genetic code that are the original source of variation in every living thing, were believed to be random, the sources of phenotypic variation, and transmitted through sexual reproduction. These assertions were supported by a growing body of field and laboratory research, as well as new work in mathematics in the field of population genetics that defined evolution as numerical changes in gene frequencies within an interbreeding population from one generation to the next (Corning 2020). These changes in gene frequencies were argued to be the result of natural selection, mutation, migration (gene flow), and genetic drift, or random chance. Empirical research and mathematics demonstrated that very small selective forces acting over a relatively long time were able to generate substantial evolutionary change, including speciation (Plutynski 2009). Thus, the Modern Synthesis encompassed both microevolution, which refers to changes in gene frequencies between generations within a population, and macroevolution, longer-term changes in a population that can eventually result in speciation, wherein individuals from different populations are no longer able to successfully interbreed and produce viable offspring.

Genetics and the Origin of Species, published in 1937 by Theodosius Dobzhansky (Figure 2.13), was a cornerstone of the modern synthesis, applying genetics to the study of natural selection in wild populations, appealing to both geneticists and field biologists. Dobzhansky was interested in speciation, particularly in finding out what kept one species distinct from another and how speciation occurred. His research involved fruit flies, the species Drosophila pseudoobscura. At the time he began in the 1920s, biologists assumed all members of the same species had nearly identical genes. Dobzhansky traveled from Canada to Mexico capturing wild members of D.pseudoobscura, discovering that different populations had different combinations of alleles (forms of a gene) that distinguished them from other populations, even though they were all members of the same species. What, then, led to the creation of new species? Dobzhansky realized it was sexual selection. Members of the same species are more likely to live among their own kind and to recognize, and prefer, them as mates. Over time, as a result of random mutations, natural selection in a given environment, and genetic drift, meaning random changes in allele frequencies, members of the same population accumulate mutations distinct to their own gene pool, eventually becoming genetically distinct from other populations. What this means is that they have become a new species.
From these studies, Dobzhansky and others developed the Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller model, also known as Dobzhansky-Muller model (Figure 2.14). It is a model of the evolution of genetic incompatibility. Combining genetics with natural selection, the model is important in understanding the role of reproductive isolation during speciation and the role of natural selection in bringing it about. Due to sexual selection (mate preference), populations can become reproductively isolated from one another. Eventually, novel mutations may arise and be selected for in one or both populations, rendering members of each genetically incompatible with the other, resulting in two distinct species.

Special Topic: Evolution and Natural Selection Observable Today

Although this chapter primarily focuses on the past, it is important to remember that natural selection and evolution are still ongoing processes. Climate change, deforestation, urbanization, and other human impacts on the planet are influencing evolution among many contemporary species of plants and animals. One such example occurs among crested anoles (Anolis cristatellus), small lizards of the Caribbean jungle that are increasingly making their home in cities (Figure 2.15).
As urban sprawl continues across the planet, shrinking the availability of wilderness habitat, many wild species have come to make their homes in cities. “Urbanization has dramatically transformed landscapes around the world—changing how animals interact with nature, creating "heat islands" with higher temperatures, and hurting local biodiversity. Yet many organisms survive and even thrive in these urban environments, taking advantage of new habitats created by humans (National Science Foundation 2023). A recent example of lizards in Puerto Rico demonstrates evolution happening quickly in both behaviour and genes that has come about as a result of the pressures of urban life (Winchell Et al. 2023). Crested anoles, who once lived only in forests, now scurry around towns and cities throughout the Caribbean. As a result of having to sprint across large open spaces, like hot streets and parking lots, they have developed longer limbs. City-living lizards also now sport longer toe pads with special scales that allow them to cling to smooth surfaces, like windows and walls (as well as the plastic patio furniture pictured in Figure 2.15), rather than to the rough surfaces of bark and rock that their forest-living relatives climb. These adaptations enhance their ability to escape predators and survive in cities.
Researchers were curious to see if these changes were the result of genetic changes in urban populations, so they captured 96 male lizards in three Puerto Rican regions and compared their genomes to each other and to forest specimens in each location. They found that members of the three city-living populations were genetically distinct from each other, as well as from forest populations in their respective regions. In total, 33 genes in the urban lizards’ genomes were different from their forest-living counterparts and were linked to urbanization. These changes are estimated to have occurred just within the last 30 to 80 generations, suggesting that selective pressures related to survival in urban environments is strong. As study coauthor Kristen Winchell put it, “We are watching evolution as it is unfolding” (National Public Radio 2023). (If you are interested in hearing more about the study, see “How Lizards Adapt to Urban Living,” an episode of Science Sessions, a free podcast from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS 2023) featuring Dr. Winchell and her work.)
Misconceptions About Evolution Through Natural Selection
After many years of teaching about evolution and natural selection, it continues to surprise me how many misconceptions exist about how the process works. If you do a web image search for “human evolution,” the following image is likely to appear (Figure 2.16).

What is wrong with this picture? First, it implies that humans evolved from chimpanzees, which is incorrect. Although, as primates, we share a common ancestor very far back in time, we split from other primates, including our closest relatives, the nonhuman apes, several million years ago. This image also suggests that evolution is gradual and progressive; that it is intentional and directional; and that there is an end to it—a stopping point. As you will be learning, evolution takes place in fits and starts, depending on the physical environment, changes in climate, food supply, predation, reproductive success, and other factors. It is also not intentional, in the sense that there is no predetermined end; in fact, if environmental conditions change, species can evolve in different directions or even go extinct. Evolution also does not necessarily progress in the same direction over time. One example is the eel-like creature Qikiqtania wakei that lived 375 million years ago. It was originally a fish that evolved to walk on land, then evolved to live back in the water. Early tetrapods like Qikiqtania were likely spending more and more time out of the water during this period. The arrangement of bones and joints in their fins was starting to resemble arms and legs, which would have allowed them to prop themselves up in shallow water and survive on mudflats. Qikiqtania’s skeletal morphology, however, suggests that it then evolved from having rudimentary fingers and toes back to fins that allowed them to again swim in open water (Stewart Et al. 2022).
There is also the misperception that natural selection can create entirely new anatomical structures out of thin air in response to changes in environmental pressures. For example, when asked if they can think of ways in which modern humans are continuing to evolve biologically, students often postulate that, as a result of climate change, humans might rapidly develop gills, webbed hands and feet, and learn to breathe underwater in response to rising sea levels. Unfortunately, natural selection can only act on slight variations in anatomy that are already present, and we have no rudimentary physiological system for breathing underwater. Given that natural selection can only act upon existing variation, humans have evolved in such a way that many parts of our bodies are prone to injury. Our knees are one example. The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in our knees is “vulnerable to tearing in humans because our upright bipedal posture forces it to endure much more strain than it is designed to” (Lents 2018, 23). When our ancestors made the transition from quadrupedalism to upright walking, we shifted from four bent legs to two straight legs, relying more on our bones than our muscles to support our weight. This is functional for normal walking and running in a straight line, but sudden shifts in direction and momentum, combined with the sizes and weights of modern humans, result in tears in an ACL that is simply not strong enough to bear the stress. If evolution had the capability to engineer a knee from scratch, it would look quite different, and any ligaments involved would likely be larger, stronger, and more flexible. For an interesting look at what anatomically modern humans might look like if we had evolved to withstand the stresses our bodies undergo in our present environment, see “This is what the perfect body looks like - according to science,” which was proposed by biological anthropologist Alice Roberts (Harrison 2018).
Another misperception about evolution is that some species are “more evolved” than others. Every species currently alive on the planet today is the result of millennia of natural selection that has rendered current members of that species well-adapted to their respective environments. Humans are no more “evolved” than fruit flies or yeast. What sets us apart are our cultural and technological abilities, which have allowed us to successfully survive in a wide variety of physical environments, many of which are now becoming too hot, too wet, or too dry to sustain human life without a great deal of technological intervention (IPCC 2022).

There is also some confusion about what “fitness” actually means and a failure to grasp that it changes as environmental conditions change. Evolutionary “fitness” is different from physical fitness. “Fitness” in evolutionary terms refers to an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce viable offspring who also survive and reproduce. Evolutionary fitness and reproductive success are highly dependent on specific environmental conditions, which can shift over time, greatly affecting the relative fitness of individuals in a population. Recent research on the impacts of climate change on dragonflies will serve to illustrate the point (Figure 2.17).
Pictured here is a male dragonfly, who, you will notice, has distinctive black markings on its wings. This is due to melanization. Males control breeding, and those with more ornamentation tend to attract more mates and to successfully ward off male competitors. Higher levels of melanization, however, have negative consequences for males in warming climates. The black markings absorb heat, elevating body temperatures, which can cause overheating, reduce male fighting ability, and even lead to death (Moore Et al. 2021). Females are not as adversely affected because they spend more time in shaded areas, while males are more often flying in sunlit areas, fending off rivals. However, as highly melanized males become less viable, wing colouration is undergoing selection in males. In other words, what constitutes being “fit” for males has changed, favouring those who have fewer of the black markings and, therefore, are less negatively impacted by warming temperatures. Note that natural selection acts on individuals, “selecting” those who happen to be fit for particular environmental conditions at a particular point in time. Evolution, though, happens at the level of the population. If the climate continues to warm, populations of dragonflies who inhabit warming areas will increasingly exhibit less ornamentation in males.
Lastly, natural selection can only act on characteristics that influence reproductive success. Deleterious traits that have nothing to do with one’s ability to reproduce and successfully rear offspring to reproductive age will continue to be passed on. For example, the author of this chapter is a natural redhead, and redheads are predisposed genetically to a number of conditions that can negatively affect health (Colliss Harvey 2015), but some of these conditions are not diagnosed until later in life. One example is Parkinson’s disease (Chen Et al. 2017), which is a degenerative neurological disorder. The average age of diagnosis of Parkinson’s is 60 years of age, meaning redheads may encounter such a diagnosis well past childbearing age, having already passed on the genetic predisposition. Thus, Parkinson’s disease cannot be selected out from the redhead family tree.
Are We Still Evolving?
After reading this chapter, many students are curious to know if humans are still evolving. The answer is yes. As a species, we continue to respond to selective pressures biologically and culturally. This final section will focus on three contemporary examples of human evolution. Before beginning, let’s review the conditions necessary for natural selection to operate on a trait. First, the trait must be heritable, meaning it is transmitted genetically from generation to generation. There must also be variation of the trait within the population and the trait must influence reproductive success. Three examples of traits that meet these criteria are immunity to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), height, and wisdom teeth (Andrews, Kalinowski, & Leonard 2011).
AIDS is a potentially fatal infectious disease caused by HIV, a zoonosis believed to be derived from Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses (SIVs) found in chimpanzees and monkeys and most likely transmitted to humans through the butchering of infected animals (Sharp & Hahn 2011). In total, 40 million people have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the global epidemic in the 1980s. There were 38.4 million people around the world living with AIDS as of 2021, including 1.5 million new cases and 650,000 deaths in that year alone (UNAIDS 2021). A disease causing this level of morbidity and mortality represents a major selective pressure, especially given that infection can occur before birth (Goulder Et al. 2016), thereby affecting future reproductive success.

The majority of people in the world are highly susceptible to HIV infection, but some are not. These latter individuals are homozygous for a rare, recessive allele at the CCR5 locus that makes them immune to HIV. Heterozygotes who inherit a single copy of this allele are more resistant to infection and, when infected, the disease takes longer to progress in the event that they are infected. The mechanism by which the allele prevents infection involves a 32-base pair deletion in the DNA sequence of the CCR5 gene, creating a nonfunctioning receptor on the surface of the cell that prevents HIV from infecting the cell. The allele is inherited as a simple Mendelian trait, and there is variation in its prevalence, ranging as high as 14% of the population in northern Europe and Russia (Novembre, Galvani, and Slatkin 2005; see Figure 2.19). What is interesting about the allele’s geographic distribution is that it does not map onto parts of the world with the highest rates of HIV infection (Figure 2.20), suggesting that AIDS was not the original selective pressure favouring this allele.

Given its current geographic distribution, the bubonic plague, which ravaged Europe repeatedly from the 14th to the 19th centuries (Pamuk 2007), was initially proposed as the selective agent. Subsequent research suggests smallpox, which killed up to 400,000 people annually in 18th-century Europe (Hays 2005), was more likely the selective pressure (Novembre, Galvani, & Slatkin 2005). Given the mortality rates for smallpox (Crosby 2003), an allele that conferred immunity was highly advantageous, as it is for those faced with the threat of HIV infection today.
Height is another example of a trait experiencing selective pressure. If you have ever toured a historical site, you have likely hit your head on a doorframe or become claustrophobic trying to squeeze down a narrow hallway under a lower-than-average ceiling. It is not your imagination. Humans have gotten taller in recent centuries. In fact, the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimetres in the past 150 years. This increase has been attributed to improvements in nutrition, sanitation, and access to medical care (Hatton 2014). But this is only part of the story.
Height is highly heritable. Studies indicate 80% of variation in height within populations is due to genetics, with 697 different genetic variances identified as having an effect on adult stature (Devuyst 2014). Multiple studies also demonstrate a positive relationship between height and reproductive success for men (Andrews, Kalinowsky, & Leonard 2011). This is primarily due to sexual selection and nonrandom mating, namely women’s preferences for taller men, which may explain why height is one characteristic men often lie about on dating websites (Guadagno, Okdie, & Kruse 2012). Sexual selection also plays out with regard to economic success in Western cultures, with taller men more likely to be in higher-level positions that pay well. Research demonstrates an inch of height is worth an additional $789 per year in salary, meaning a man who is six feet tall will earn on average $5,525 more per year than an identical man who is five foot five purely due to heightism bias (Gladwell 2007). Over the course of a career, this can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, likely allowing taller men to attract more potential mates, increasing their reproductive success.
Wisdom teeth are also undergoing evolutionary pressure. Have you or anyone in your family had their wisdom teeth removed? While it can be a painful and expensive process, it is a common experience in Western nations. It begs the question as to why there is no longer room in our mouths for all of our teeth? Biological anthropologist Daniel Lieberman offers several reasons, including that modern humans are growing faster and maturing earlier, which could be leading to impaction if skeletal growth takes place faster than dental growth. He also argues that the soft diets many modern humans consume generate insufficient strain to stimulate enough growth in our jaws to accommodate all of our teeth. Lastly, as the human brain has expanded over the past hundreds of thousands of years, it is taking up more space in the skull, causing the jaw to shrink, leaving no room for third molars (Lieberman 2011).
Conversely, do you know anyone whose wisdom teeth never came in? That is fairly common in some populations, suggesting evolutionary pressure favouring the absence of wisdom teeth has been culturally influenced. The oldest fossil evidence of skulls missing third molars was found in China and is 300,000 to 400,000 years old, suggesting the earliest mutation selecting against the eruption of wisdom teeth arose in Asia (Main 2013). Since that time, jaws have continued to decrease in size to the point they often cannot accommodate third molars, which can become impacted, painful, and even infected, a condition physical anthropologist Alan Main argues might have interfered with the ability to survive and reproduce in ancestral populations (Main 2013). As we have learned, a mutation that positively influences reproductive success—such as being born without the trait to develop wisdom teeth—would likely be selected for over time. Evidence in modern humans suggests that this is the case, with 40% of modern Asians and 45% of Native Alaskans and Greenlanders (populations descended from Asian populations) lacking wisdom teeth. The percentage among those of European descent ranges from 10 to 25% and for African Americans is 11% (Main 2013). Later chapters of this textbook emphasize that directional selection progresses along a particular path until the environment changes and a trait is no longer advantageous. In the case of wisdom teeth, the ability of modern dentistry to preempt impaction through surgery may, in fact, be what is preventing natural selection from doing away with wisdom teeth altogether.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
By the end of the Renaissance, knowledge inherited from Greek and Islamic scholars profoundly influenced how humans perceived nature and the scientific method itself. This period marked a major epistemic shift where the way of understanding and studying the natural world was evolving. Historical and religious worldviews were closely intertwined during this time: ancient ideas were often incorporated into theological frameworks, as exemplified by Archbishop James Ussher’s famous calculation that the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC.
The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries introduced rapid technological development and new philosophies of science. However, it also brought challenges. While curiosity about nature expanded, many thinkers continued to treat knowledge as fixed and immutable, anchored by biblical interpretation, which was often deemed too sacred to question.
The second major scientific revolution emerged during the Industrial Era, influenced by European thinkers such as Charles Darwin, John Ray, Robert Hooke, James Hutton, and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. This era saw groundbreaking advances in geology, paleontology, and biology. Concepts such as catastrophism, uniformitarianism, inheritance, and acquired characteristics reshaped humanity's understanding of the earth’s history and the continuity of life.
Yet, scientific ideas never exist in isolation as they are deeply interwoven with social and cultural life. As these thinkers sought to explain nature, evolution, and, by extension, human existence, their ideas inevitably intersected with religious worldviews. This long-standing entanglement and occasional tension between science and religion continue to shape how societies understand the origins of life today. For example, a 2023 Gallup Poll measuring Americans’ beliefs about human origins revealed that 37% believed God created humans in their present form, 34% argued that humans developed through evolution with God’s guidance, and only 24% of U.S. adults accepted the scientific theory of evolution. A similar reality exists in Canada, where 1 in 5 Canadians believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Consequently, these perspectives reflect two distinct ways of reconstructing the past. Science pursues truth through observation, testing, and empirical evidence, while religion offers meaning through faith, belief, and spiritual interpretation. As a result, attempts to understand the origins of humanity often follow divergent paths. But what happens when desire or ideology, rather than evidence, drives our reconstructions of the past of both nature and ourselves?
Discussion Questions
- Can religion and science work collaboratively to deepen our understanding of life and the universe?
- What social tensions arise between human culture and scientific advancement?Can you provide some examples?
- How is modern society influencing our understanding of evolution happening today?
- Beyond religion, what other socio-cultural factors influence scientific understanding? Can you provide some examples?
- What does it mean when a culture limits the next generation’s understanding to its own worldview? Is it possible for us to think or move beyond our cultural boundaries?
Key Developments in Evolutionary Thought
|
4th century BCE |
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) |
“Founder of Biology.” Publishes History of Animals, a biological classification system of over 500 animals based on structure, physiology, reproduction, and behaviour. Also creates the “Great Chain of Being,” ranking species and placing humans closest to God. |
|
8th–9th century CE |
Al-Jahiz (776–868 CE) |
Writes seven-volume Book of Animals, which includes animal classifications and food chains. Introduces concept of biological evolution and its mechanisms. |
|
1011–1021 |
Ibn al-Haythem (965–1040 CE) |
“Father of Modern Optics.” Uses experimental science to catalogue how vision works and discovers laws of reflection and refraction. Publishes Book of Optics and invents camera obscura, the foundation for modern photography. |
|
1620 |
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) |
“Father of Empiricism.” Publishes The Novum Annum, formulating the scientific method based on observation and inductive reasoning. |
|
1686 |
John Ray (1627–1705) |
First to publish a biological definition of species in History of Plants. |
|
1749 |
Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) |
Publishes Histoire Naturelle, comparing anatomical structures across species using methods still in use today. Inspires Lamarck and Cuvier. |
|
1758 |
Carl von Linne (Carolus Linnaeus) (1707–1778) |
Introduces system of binomial nomenclature. Publishes Systema Naturae, the tenth edition of which introduces the designation Homo sapiens for humans. |
|
1788 |
James Hutton (1726–1797) |
“Father of Geology.” Publishes Theory of the Earth; introduces idea of Deep Time; explains how features of the earth were formed through the actions of rain, wind, rivers, and volcanic eruptions. |
|
1798 |
Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) |
Economist and “Father of Statistics.” Publishes An Essay on Population; introduces concept of carrying capacity; explains how populations outstrip the food supply, leaving some individuals to die off; inspires Darwin’s idea of “natural selection.” |
|
1809 |
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) |
Publishes theory of the Inheritance of acquired characteristics; is the first Western scientist to propose a mechanism explaining how traits change in species over time and to recognize the importance of the physical environment in acting on species and their survival. |
|
1810 |
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) |
Paleontologist/comparative anatomist; proved species went extinct; proposed the Theory of Catastrophism. |
|
1830 |
Charles Lyell (1797–1875) |
Establishes geology as a science. Publishes first edition of The Principles of Geology (1830–33); issuing 12 total editions in his lifetime, each updated according to new scientific data. |
|
1858 |
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) |
Sends scientific paper to Darwin titled “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type,” essentially espousing the concept of natural selection; a reading of the papers by both Wallace and Darwin to the Linnaean Society is conducted by Lyell. |
|
1859 |
Charles Darwin (1809–1882) |
Publishes On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). |
|
1865 |
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) |
Publishes Experiments in Plant Hybridization (1865), outlining the fundamentals of genetic inheritance. |
|
1889 |
August Weismann (1834–1914) |
Publishes Essays Upon Heredity (1889), disproving the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Publishes The Germ Plasm (1892), postulating an early idea of inheritance through sexual reproduction. |
|
1937 |
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975) |
One of the founders of the Modern Synthesis of biology and genetics. Publishes Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937). Documents a genetic model of speciation through reproductive isolation. |
Summary
Firstly, it is important to recognize that the global discourse on evolutionary thought emerged from a Western European colonial legacy; often centring eurocentric perspectives while overlooking other intellectual traditions. This legacy has resulted in a lasting influence in how the knowledge was–and continues to be–structured and understood.
From its earliest ideas to today’s genomic research, evolutionary thought has demonstrated that species, including our own, are not static, but are part of ongoing processes shaped by variation, natural selection, and shifting conditions. A persistent misconception is that evolution implies progress toward more advanced or ‘better’ forms; in reality, it reflects context-specific adaptations that enhance survival and reproduction. Humans exemplify this ongoing process, adapting through traits such as resistance to disease, tolerance of new foods, and responses to rapidly changing modern environments.
Review Questions
- Summarize the major scientific developments that led to the formulation of the theory of natural selection.
- Explain how natural selection operates and how it leads to evolution in populations.
- Explain the importance of genetics to an understanding of human evolution.
- Have you observed current examples of evolution taking place where you live? In which species? Which forces of evolution are involved?
Key Terms
Allele: A nonidentical DNA sequence found in the same gene location on a homologous chromosome, or gene copy, that codes for the same trait but produces a different phenotype.
Artificial selection: The identification by humans of desirable traits in plants and animals, and the subsequent steps taken to enhance and perpetuate those traits in future generations.
Binomial nomenclature: A system of classification in which a species of animal or plant receives a name consisting of two terms: the first identifies the genus to which it belongs, and the second identifies the species.
Carrying capacity: The number of living organisms, including animals, crops, and humans, that a geographic area can support without environmental degradation.
Catastrophism: The theory that the Earth’s geology has largely been shaped by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. Compare to uniformitarianism.
Comparative anatomy: Georges-Louis Leclerc’s technique of comparing similar anatomical structures across different species.
Creationism: The belief that the universe and all living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the Biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
Empiricism: The idea that all learning and knowledge derives from experience and observation. It became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries in western Europe due to the rise of experimental science.
Evolution: In a biological sense, this term refers to cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time. More specifically, evolution is defined as a change in allele (gene) frequencies from one generation to the next among members of an interbreeding population.
Extant: Still in existence; surviving.
Extinct: Said of a species, family, or other group of animals or plants that has no living members; no longer in existence.
Fixity of Species: The idea that a species, once created, remains unchanged over time.
Gene: A sequence of DNA that provides coding information for the construction of proteins.
Genetic drift: Random changes in allele frequencies within a population from one generation to the next.
Gene flow: The introduction of new genetic material into a population through interbreeding between two distinct populations.
Gene pool: The entire collection of genetic material in a breeding community that can be passed from one generation to the next.
Genotype: The genotype of an organism is its complete set of genetic material—its unique sequence of DNA. Genotype also refers to the alleles or variants an individual carries in a particular gene or genetic location.
Hybrid: Offspring of parents that differ in genetically determined traits.
Intelligent design: A pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.
Macroevolution: Large and often-complex changes in biological populations, such as species formation.
Microevolution: Changes in the frequency of a gene or allele in an interbreeding population.
Modern synthesis: The mid–20th century merging of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution.
Natural selection: The natural process by which the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups within an interbreeding population that are best adjusted to their environment leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment at that point in time.
Phenotype: The detectable or visible expression of an organism’s genotype.
Scientific method: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting of systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Speciation: The process by which new genetically distinct species evolve from the main population, usually through geographic isolation or other barriers to gene flow.
Species: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial (e.g., Homo sapiens).
Uniformitarianism: The theory that changes in the earth's crust during geologic history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes—such as wind, precipitation, evaporation, condensation, erosion, and volcanic action—that continue to act in the present. Compare to catastrophism.
For Further Exploration
Costa, James T. 2017. Darwin’s Backyard: How Small Experiments Led to a Big Theory. New York: W.W. Norton.
Darwin, Charles. 1905. The Voyage of the Beagle. (Originally published in 1839 as Journal and Remarks). [Author’s note: Several editions exist with different publishers, including illustrated editions, paperback editions, and e-books.]
Moore, John A. 1993. Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
References
Al-Haytham, Ibn. 1011-1021. Kitāb al-Manāẓir (Book of Optics). Cairo, Egypt.
Al-Jahiz. 776–868 CE. Kitab al-Hayawan (Book of Animals).
Andrews, Tessa M., Steven T. Kalinowski, and Mary J. Leonard. 2011. “Are Humans Evolving? A Classroom Discussion to Change Students’ Misconceptions Regarding Natural Selection.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 4 (3): 456–466.
Aristotle. 384-322 BCE. History of Animals.
Asghar, Anila, Salman Hameed, and Najme Kashani Farahani. 2014. “Evolution in Biology Textbooks: A Comparative Analysis of Five Muslim Countries.” Religion & Education 41 (1). Accessed February 12, 2023. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15507394.2014.855081.
Associated Press. January 10, 2023. “Forest Lizards Have Genetically Morphed To Survive Life In The City, Researchers Say.” National Public Radio (NPR). Retrieved February 19, 2023 from https://www.npr.org/2023/01/10/1148150056/forest-lizards-genetically-morphed-cities.
Burkhardt, Richard W. 2013. “Lamarck, Evolution, and the Inheritance of Acquired Characters.” Genetics 194 (4): 793–805.
Chen, Xiqun, Danielle Feng, Michael A. Schwartzchild, and Xiang Gao. 2017. “Red Hair, MC1R Variants, and Risk for Parkinson’s Disease—A Meta-Analysis.” Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology 4 (3): 212–216.https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.381.
Colliss Harvey, Jacky. 2015. Red: A History of the Redhead. New York: Black Dog & Levanthal.
Corning, Peter A. 2020. “Beyond the Modern Synthesis: A Framework for a More Inclusive Biological Synthesis.” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 153: 5–12.
Costa, James T. 2017. Darwin’s Backyard: How Small Experiments Led to a Big Theory. New York: W. W. Norton.
Crosby, Alfred W., Jr. 2003. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. 30th Anniversary Edition. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. First Edition. London: John Murray.
Darwin, Francis, ed. 2001[1897]. The Life & Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.
Desilver, Drew. 2017. “U.S. Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags That of Their Peers in Many Other Countries.” Pew Research Center, February 15. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/.
Devuyst, Olivier. 2014. “High Time for Human Height.” Peritoneal Dialysis International 34 (7):685–686.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Biological Series (Volume 11). New York: Columbia University Press.
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. 2014. An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. Boston: Beacon.
El-Zaher, Sumaya. 2018. “The Father of the Theory of Evolution: Al-Jahiz and His Book of Animals.” MVSLIM.com, October 9. Accessed August 27, 2022. https://mvslim.com/the-father-of-the-theory-of-evolution-al-jahiz-and-his-book-of-animals/.
Elshakry, Marwa. 2010. “When Science Became Western: Historiographical Reflections.” ISIS 101 (1). Accessed November 20, 2022. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/652691.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2007. Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking. New York: Back Bay
Guadagno, Rosanna E., Bradley M. Okdie, and Sara A. Kruse. 2012. “Dating Deception: Gender, Online Dating, and Exaggerated Self-Presentation.” Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2): 642–647.
Harmon, Katherine. 2011. “Evolution Abroad: Creationism Evolves in Science Classrooms around the Globe.” Scientific American, March 3. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-education-abroad/.
Harrison, Ellie. 2018. “This is What the Perfect Body Looks Like - According to Science.” Radiotimes.com. Accessed June 14, 2023. https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/documentaries/this-is-what-the-perfect-body-looks-like-according-to-science/.
Hatton, Tim. 2014. “Why Did Humans Grow Four Inches in 100 Years? It Wasn’t Just Diet.” The Conversation, May 1. https://theconversation.com/why-did-humans-grow-four-inches-In-100-years-it-wasnt-just-diet-25919.
Hays, J. N. 2005. Epidemics and Pandemics: Their Impacts on Human History. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Hutton, James. 1788. Theory of the Earth. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Volume 1. Scotland: Royal Society of Edinburgh.
IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/.
Jones, Stephen. 2017. “Religion, Science, and Evolutionary Theory”[an interview with Salman Hameed]. Podcast, The Religious Studies Project, January 30. Accessed May 29, 2023. https://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/religion-science-and-evolutionary-theory/.
Kutschera, Ulrich, and Karl J. Niklas. 2004. “The Modern Theory of Biological Evolution: An Expanded Synthesis.” Naturwissenschaften 91: 255–276.
Leclerc, Georges-Louis, Comte de Buffon. 1749-1804. Histoire Naturelle. Volumes 1-36. Paris: Imprimerie Royale (Royal Printing House).
Lents, Nathan H. 2018. Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Lerner, Lawrence S. 2000. Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Lieberman, Daniel E. 2011. The Evolution of the Human Head. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lindberg, David C. 1992. The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Linnaeus, Carl. 1736. Systema Naturae. First Edition. Stockholm: Laurentius Salvius.
Love, Shayla. 2020. “A Thousand Years before Darwin, Islamic Scholars Were Writing about Evolution.” VICE World News, October 5. Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4ykn/a-thousand-years-before-darwin-islamic-scholars-were-writing-about-natural-selection.
Main, Douglas. 2013. “Ancient Mutation Explains Missing Wisdom Teeth.” Live Science, March 13. https://www.livescience.com/27529-missing-wisdom-teeth.html.
Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. London: J. Johnson.
Masci, David. 2019. “For Darwin Day, 6 Facts About the Evolution Debate.” Pew Research Center. Accessed June 14, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/11/darwin-day/.
Masood, Ehsan. 2009. “Islam’s Evolutionary Legacy.” The Guardian, March 1. Accessed February 13, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/27/islam-religion-evolution-science.
Miller, Jon D., Eugenie C. Scott, Mark S. Ackerman, Belen Laspra, Glenn Branch, Carmelo Polino, and Jordan S. Huffaker. 2022. “Public Acceptance of Evolution in the United States, 1985–2020.” Public Understanding of Science 31 (2): 223–238.
Miller, Jon D., Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto. 2006, August 11. “Public Acceptance of Evolution.” Science 313 (5788): 765-766. DOI: 10.1126/science.1126746.
Moore, John A. 1993. Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore, Michael P., Kaitlyn Hersch, Chanont Sricharoen, Sarah Lee, Caitlin Reice, Paul Rice, Sophie Kronick, Kim A. Medley, and Kasey D. Fowler-Finn. 2021. “Sex-Specific Ornament Evolution Is a Consistent Feature of Climatic Adaptation across Space and Time in Dragonflies.” PNAS 118 (28): e2101458118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.210145818.
National Public Radio. 2023. “Forest Lizards Have Genetically Morphed to Survive Life in the City, Researchers Say.” National Public Radio (NPR), January 10. Accessed February 19, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/10/1148150056/forest-lizards-genetically-morphed-cities.
National Science Foundation. 2023. “Urban Lizards Share Genomic Markers Not Found in Forest-Dwellers.” National Science Foundation, February 7. Accessed May 25, 2023. https://beta.nsf.gov/news/urban-lizards-share-genomic-markers-not-found.
Novembre, John, Alison P. Galvani, and Montgomery Slatkin. 2005. “The Geographic Spread of the CCR5 Δ32 HIV-Resistance Allele.” PLoS Biology 3 (11): e339.
Pamuk, Şevket. 2007. “The Black Death and the Origins of the ‘Great Divergence’ across Europe, 1300–1600.” European Review of Economic History 11 (3): 289–317.
Paterlini, Marta. 2007. “There Shall Be Order: The Legacy of Linnaeus in the Age of Molecular Biology.” EMBO Reports 8 (9): 814–816. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401061.
Pew Research Center. 2019. “Darwin in America: The Evolution Debate in the United States.” Pew Research Center, February 6, 2019. Accessed June 13, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/darwin-in-america-2/.
Pew Research Center. 2014. “Fighting Over Darwin, State by State.” Pew Research Center, February 4, 2009; updated February 3, 2014. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/02/04/fighting-over-darwin-state-by-state/.
Plutynski, Anya. 2009. “The Modern Synthesis.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, November 15 (updated December 14, 2009). Accessed November 27, 2022. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15335/.
Plutzer, Eric, Glenn Branch, and Ann Reid. 2020. “Teaching Evolution in the U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge.” Evolution: Education and Outreach13: Article 14. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-020-00126-8.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 2023. “How Lizards Adapt to Urban Living.” Science Sessions Podcast, February 13, . Accessed February 19, 2023. https://www.pnas.org/post/podcast/lizards-adapt-urban-living.
Public Broadcasting System. 2001. “Georges Cuvier.” WGBH Evolution Library. Accessed May 26, 2022. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/1/l_021_01.html# :~:text=With%20elegant%20studies%20of%20the,as%20incontrovertible%20proof%20of %20extinctions.
Ray, John. 1686-1704. Historia plantarum. London: Clark. Volume 1 (1686), Volume II (1688), Volume III (1704).
Richards, Richard A. 1998. “Darwin, Domestic Breeding, and Artificial Selection.” Endeavour 22 (3): 106–109.
Solloch, Ute V., Kathrin Lang, Vinzenz Lange, and Irena Böhme. 2017. “Frequencies of Gene Variant CCR5-Δ32 in 87 Countries Based on Next-Generation Sequencing of 1.3 Million Individuals Sampled from 3 National DKMS Donor Centers.” Human Immunology 78 (11–12): 701-717.
Stewart, Thomas A., Justin B. Lemberg, Ailis Daly, Edward B. Daeschler, and Neil H. Shubin. 2022. “A New Epistostegalian from the Late Devonian of the Canadian Arctic.” Nature 608 (7923): 563–568.
Tasci, Ufuk Necat. 2020. “How a 10-Century Muslim Physicist Discovered How Humans See.” TRT World, May 25. Accessed May 18, 2022. https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/how-a-10th-century-muslim-physicist-discovered-how-humans-see-36620.
Tbakhi, Abdelghani, and Samir S. Amr. 2007. “Ibn Al-Haytham: Father of Modern Optics.” Annals of Saudi Medicine 27 (6): 464–467. UNAIDS. 2021. “Global HIV & AIDS Statistics—Fact Sheet.” https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet.
UNESCO.org. 2015. “International Year of Light: Ibn al Haytham, Pioneer of Modern Optics celebrated at UNESCO.” UNESCO, September 8. Accessed May 18, 2022. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/international-year-light-ibn-al-haytham-pioneer-modern-optics-celebrated-unesco.
University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology. N.d. “The History of Evolutionary Thought—Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell.” Understanding Evolution website. Accessed February 13, 2023. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/uniformitarianism-charles-lyell/.
University of Cambridge. N.d. “Darwin and Dogs.” The Darwin Correspondence Project website. Accessed February 17, 2023. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/curious/darwin-and-dogs.
Urbach, Peter Michael, Anthony M. Quinton, and Kathleen Marguerite Lea. “Francis Bacon: British Author, Philosopher, and Statesman.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last updated May 12, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francis-Bacon-Viscount-Saint-Alban.
Ward, Peter. 2018. Lamarck’s Revenge: How Epigenetics Is Revolutionizing Our Understanding of Evolution’s Past and Present. New York: Bloomsbury.
Weismann, August. 1892. Das Keimplasma: Eine Theorie der Vererbung (The Germ Plasm: a Theory of Inheritance). Jena (Germany): Fischer.
Weismann, August. 1889. Translations. Essays upon Heredity. Oxford: Clarendon. Accessed November 27, 2022. E-copy available at https://www.esp.org/books/weismann/essays/facsimile/.
Winchell, Kristen M., Shane C. Campbell-Staton, Jonathan B. Losos, and Anthony Geneva. 2023. “Genome-Wide Parallelism Underlies Contemporary Adaptation In Urban Lizards.” PNAS 120 (3): e2216789120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216789120.
Wood, Bernard. 2005. Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zou, Yawen. 2015. "The Germ-Plasm: a Theory of Heredity (1893), by August Weismann." Embryo Project Encyclopedia, January 26. Accessed February 18, 2023. https://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/8284.
Learning Objectives
- Identify and describe the major developments in scientific thought that led to the discovery of evolutionary processes.
- Explain how natural selection works and results in evolutionary change over time.
- Explain what is meant by the “Modern Synthesis” and its impacts on evolutionary thought.
- Discuss the teaching of human evolution in the U.S. and abroad.
The Beginnings of Evolutionary Thinking
Throughout our evolutionary history, humans have developed an understanding of the natural world as they interacted with and extracted resources from it. To survive, our earliest ancestors possessed an understanding of the physical environment, including weather patterns, animal behaviour, edible and medicinal plants, locations of water, and seasonal cycles. Many ancient cultures, including those of the Americas (Dunbar-Ortiz 2014), Mesopotamia, and Egypt, left writings, hieroglyphics, and stories passed down through oral tradition detailing their understanding of the natural environment, human and zoological anatomy, botany, and medical practices (Moore 1993).
There are also over 2,000 years of organized thought and writing regarding evolution, including contributions from Greek, Roman, and Islamic scholars. Three examples of note are included here. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) studied the natural world, publishing several volumes on animals based on systematic observations, rather than attributing what he observed to divine intervention, as his contemporaries were doing (Figure 2.1). Aristotle’s system for the biological classification of nearly 500 species of animals was based on his own observations and dissections, interviews with specialists such as beekeepers and fishermen, and accounts of travelers. His nine book History of Animals, published in the 4th century BC (n.d.), was one of the first zoological taxonomies ever created. Aristotle’s primary contribution to the classification of biological species was to recognize that natural groups are based on structure, physiology, mode of reproduction, and behaviour (Moore 1993, 39).



Aristotle’s History of Animals also placed animals in a hierarchy, ranking animals above plants due to what he claimed were their abilities to sense the world around them and to move. He also graded animals according to their modes of reproduction. Those giving birth to live young were placed above those who laid eggs. Warm-blooded animals ranked above invertebrates. This concept of “higher” and “lower” organisms was expanded upon by scholars in the Medieval period to form the Scala Naturae (Latin for “ladder of being”). This “Great Chain of Being,” depicting a hierarchy of beings with God at the top and minerals at the bottom (Figure 2.2), was thought by medieval Christians to have been decreed by God; in this Great Chain, humans were placed closer to God than other species. Aristotle’s works were rediscovered by Islamic scholars in the ninth century and translated into Arabic, Syriac, Persian, and later into Latin, becoming part of university curriculum in 13th-century Europe (Lindberg 1992), allowing Aristotle’s works and ideas to influence other thinkers for 2,000 years.

Science also owes a debt to many Arabic scholars. One such Islamic scholar and writer, who built upon the ideas of Aristotle, was Abū ʿUthman ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Kinānī al-Baṣrī / al-Jāḥiẓ, known as Al-Jahiz (776–868 CE), who authored over 200 books (El-Zaher 2018; Figure 2.3). His most well-known work was the seven-volume Kitab al-Hayawan or Book of Animals, in which he described over 350 species in zoological detail. Importantly, Al-Jahiz introduced the idea and mechanisms of biological evolution 1,000 years before Darwin proposed the concept of natural selection in 1859 (Love 2020). For instance, Al-Jahiz wrote about the struggle for existence, the transformation of species over time, and environmental factors that influence the process, all ideas that were later espoused by western European scientists in the 19th century. Al-Jahiz wrote:
Animals engage in a struggle for existing, and for resources, to avoid being eaten, and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming them into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to their offspring. [Masood 2009]

Another important early Islamic scientist is Ibn al-Haytham (965–1040), a 10th-century Islamic scholar who contributed a great deal to our understanding of optics and how human vision works (Figure 2.4; Lindberg 1992, 177–180). Born in what is now Iraq, al-Haytham was a scholar of many disciplines, including mathematics, physics, mechanics, astronomy, philosophy, and medicine. He authored some 200 books in his lifetime and was an expert on Aristotle’s natural philosophy, logic, and metaphysics. In relation to evolution, al-Haytham’s methodology of investigation—specifically, using experiments to verify theory—is similar to what later became known as the modern scientific method. He is most famous for discovering the laws of reflection and refraction over 1,000 years ago and inventing the camera obscura, which was incredibly important for the eventual development of photography. His work is credited for its influence on astronomy, mathematics, and optics, inspiring Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Sir Isaac Newton (Tasci 2020). As an inspirational scientific figure, al-Haytham was celebrated in 2016 by UNESCO as a trailblazer and the founder of modern optics (Figure 2.5). An International Year of Light was named in his honor and a scholarly conference on his contributions was held to coincide with the 1,000th anniversary of the publication of his Kitāb al-Manāẓir (Book of Optics; UNESCO.org 2015).

The writings of these Islamic scholars as well as similar scientific texts from other cultures were unknown to or unacknowledged by Western scientists until recently. Fortunately, many science teachers are now incorporating this content into their classes (Love 2020).
Western European Evolutionary Thought
Although there have been many different scientific traditions throughout world history, a new global discourse around science emerged in Western Europe in the 19th century. Europeans pointed to the continuing expansion of their colonial power—as well as their military and technological success—as evidence of the efficacy of Western science, which came to dominate on a global scale (Elshakry 2010). The movement toward a global science centred in Western Europe began with formulation of the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method was first codified by Francis Bacon (1561–1626), an English politician who was likely influenced by the methods of inquiry established by Ibn al-Haytham centuries prior (Tbakhi & Amr 2007). Bacon has been called the founder of empiricism for proposing a system for weighing the truthfulness of knowledge based solely on inductive reasoning and careful observations of natural phenomena. Ironically, he died as a result of trying to scientifically observe the effects of cold on the putrefaction of meat. On a journey out of London, he purchased a chicken and stuffed it with snow for observation, catching a chill in the process. One week later, he died of bronchitis (Urbach, Quinton, & Lea 2023).
The second important development with regard to evolution was the concept of a species. John Ray (1627–1705), an English parson and naturalist, was the first person to publish a biological definition of species in his Historia Plantarum (History of Plants), a three volume work published in 1686, 1688, and 1704. Ray defined a species as a group of morphologically similar organisms arising from a common ancestor. However, we now define a species as a group of similar organisms capable of producing fertile offspring. In keeping with the scientific method, Ray classified plants according to similarities and differences that emerged from observation. He claimed that any seed from the same plant was the same species, even if it had slightly different traits.
The modern period of biological classification began with the work of Carl von Linne (“Carolus Linnaeus”) (1707–1778), a Swedish scientist who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of taxonomy used today. He established the system of binomial nomenclature, in which a species of animal or plant receives a name consisting of two terms: the first term identifies the genus to which it belongs and the second term identifies the species. His original Systema Naturae, published in 1736, went through several editions. By the tenth edition in 1758, mammals incorporated primates, including apes and humans, and the term Homo sapiens was introduced to signify the latter (Paterlini 2007).
Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–1788), was a prominent French naturalist whose work influenced prominent scientists in the second half of the 18th century. Buffon's idea that species change over time became a cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory. His technique of comparing similar structures across different species, called comparative anatomy, is still in use today in the study of evolution. He published 36 volumes of Histoire Naturelle during his lifetime and heavily influenced two prominent French thinkers who were to have significant impacts on our understanding of evolution, Georges Cuvier and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) was a paleontologist and comparative anatomist (Figure 2.6). One of his first major contributions to the field of evolution was proof that some species had become extinct through detailed and comprehensive analyses of large fossil quadrupeds (Moore 1993, 111). The idea of extinction was not new, but it was challenging to demonstrate if a fossil species was truly extinct or still had living relatives elsewhere. It was also challenging in that it ran counter to religious beliefs of the time. The Bible’s Book of Genesis was interpreted as saying that all species had been created by God in the seven days it took to create the world and that all created species have survived to this day. Extinction was interpreted as implying imperfection, suggesting God’s work was flawed. Also, given that the Earth was calculated to have been created in 4004 B.C.E., based on biblical genealogies, there would not have been enough time for species to disappear (Moore 1993, 112).
Cuvier was so knowledgeable in this field that he became famous for his ability to reconstruct what an extinct animal looked like from fragmentary remains. He demonstrated that fossil mammoths differed from similar living creatures, such as elephants. His many examples of fossils telling the stories of animals that lived and then disappeared were taken as incontrovertible proof of extinctions (PBS 2001). Where Cuvier went awry was his hypothesis of how extinction worked and its causes. As part of his study of comparative anatomy, Cuvier made observations of stratified layers of rock, or sediment, each containing different species. From this, he drew conclusions that species were “fixed” and did not evolve, but then went extinct, and that different assemblages of fossils occurred at different times in the past, as evidenced by the sedimentary layers (Moore 1993, 118). Cuvier explained this through a theory of catastrophism, which stated that successive catastrophic deluges (akin to Biblical floods) swept over parts of the Earth periodically, exterminating all life. When the waters receded from a particular region, lifeforms from unaffected regions would repopulate the areas that were destroyed, giving rise to a new layer of species that looked different from the layer below it. This theory implied that species were fixed in place and did not evolve and that the Earth was young. In fact, Cuvier postulated that the last catastrophe was a deluge he believed occurred five to six thousand years ago, paving the way for the advent of humans (Moore 1993, 118). Cuvier’s catastrophism became part of an ongoing and vociferous debate between two schools of geology. The catastrophists believed the present state of the earth was the consequence of a series of violent catastrophes of short duration, while the uniformitarians thought it was the result of slow acting geological forces that continue to shape the earth.

James Hutton (1726–1797) was one prominent proponent of uniformitarianism. Based on evidence he found at sites in his native Scotland, Hutton argued that the Earth was much older than previously thought. Examining the geology of Siccar Point, a cliff site on the eastern coast of Scotland (Figure 2.7), Hutton concluded that the intersection of the vertical and horizontal rocks represented a gap in time of many millions of years, during which the lower rocks had been deformed and eroded before the upper layers were deposited on top. From this, Hutton argued sediments are deposited primarily in the oceans, where they become strata, or layers of sedimentary rock. Volcanic action uplifts these strata to form mountains, which are then subject to erosion from rain, rivers, and wind, returning sediment to the oceans (Moore 1993, 121). Hutton’s Theory of the Earth (1788) demanded vast periods of time (known as “deep time”) for such slow-working forces to shape the earth. At the time, he was heavily criticized for this view, as it contradicted the biblical version of the history of creation.

Another Scotsman, who was to become a highly influential geologist and a close friend of Darwin, was Charles Lyell (1797–1875). Lyell was originally a lawyer who began his studies of Geology at Oxford under the tutelage of catastrophist William Buckland, from whom he diverged when Buckland tried to find physical evidence of Noah’s flood from the Christian Bible. Lyell was instead intent on establishing geology as a science based on observation. Building upon Hutton’s ideas (published 50 years earlier), Lyell traveled throughout Europe, documenting evidence of uniformitarianism. During his travels, he catalogued evidence of sea level rise and fall and of volcanoes positioned atop much older rocks. He also found evidence of valleys formed through erosion, mountains resulting from earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that had been witnessed or documented in the past (University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology n.d.). Lyell also espoused the principle that “rocks and strata (layers of rock) increase in age the further down they are in a geological sequence. Barring obvious upheavals or other evidence of disturbance, the same principle must apply to any fossils contained within the rock. The lower down in a sequence of rocks a fossil is, the older it is likely to be (Wood 2005, 12).”
Lyell published the first edition of his three-volume Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 (Figure 2.8). It established geology as a science, underwent constant revisions as new scientific evidence was discovered, and was published in 12 editions during Lyell’s lifetime. In it, he espoused the key concept of uniformitarianism—that "the present is the key to the past.” What this meant was that geological remains from the distant past can be explained by reference to geological processes now in operation and directly observable.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) was the first Western scientist to propose a mechanism explaining why and how traits changed in species over time, as well as to recognize the importance of the physical environment in acting on and shaping physical characteristics. Lamarck’s view of how and why species changed through time, known as the “Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics,” was first presented in the introductory lecture to students in his invertebrate zoology class at the Museum of Natural History in Paris in 1802 (Burkhardt 2013). It was based on the idea that as animals adapted to their environments through the use and disuse of characteristics, their adaptations were passed on to their offspring through reproduction (Figure 2.9). Lamarck was right about the environment having an influence on characteristics of species, as well as about variations being passed on through reproduction. He simply had the mechanism wrong.


Lamarck’s theory involved a three-step process. Step one involves an animal experiencing a radical change in its environment. Step two is the animal (either individual or species) responding with a new kind of behaviour. Step three is how the behavioural change results in morphological (meaning physical) changes to the animal that are successfully passed on to subsequent generations (Ward 2018, 8). Lamarck’s most famous example was the proposition that giraffes actively stretched their necks to reach leaves on tall trees to eat. Over their lifetimes, the continuation of this habit resulted in gradual lengthening of the neck. These longer necks were then passed on to their offspring. Lamarck's theory was disproved when evolutionary biologist August Weismann published the results of an experiment involving mice (Figure 2.10). Weismann amputated the tails of 68 mice and then successively bred five generations of them, removing the tails of all offspring in each generation, eventually producing 901 mice, all of whom had perfectly healthy long tails in spite of having parents whose tails were missing (Weismann 1889).

How giraffes actually ended up with long necks is a different story. In an environment where the food supply is higher off the ground, and perhaps less available to competing species, giraffes who happened to have slightly longer necks (due to random individual variation and genetic mutation) would be more likely to survive. These giraffes would then be able to reproduce, passing along the slight variation in neck length that would allow their offspring to do the same. Over time, individuals with longer necks would be overrepresented in the population, and neck lengths overall would increase among giraffes. Unfortunately, Lamarck’s ideas challenged the scientific establishment of the time and were rejected. He was discredited and harassed “to the point of loss of money, reputation, and then health” (Ward 2018, 9).
The final piece in the evolutionary puzzle leading up to the theory of natural selection was put forth by Thomas Malthus (1766–1834), who published An Essay on Population in 1798. Malthus lived in England during the time of the Industrial Revolution. It was a time of great poverty and misery when many people migrated from the countryside to squalid, disease-ridden cities to work extremely long hours in dangerous conditions in factories, coal mines, and other industrial workplaces. Birth rates were high and starvation and disease were rampant. Malthus struggled to explain why. His answer was basically the idea of carrying capacity, an ecological concept still in use today. Malthus suggested the rate of population growth exceeded the rate of increase of the human food supply. In other words, people were outgrowing the available food crops. He also suggested that populations of animals and plants were naturally constrained by the food supply, resulting in reductions in population in times of scarcity, “restraining them within the prescribed bounds” (Moore 1993, 147). But, despite significant challenges, some individuals always survived. This was the key to later understandings of evolutionary change in species over time.
The Journey to Natural Selection
In Western European thought, the individual most closely associated with evolution is Charles Darwin (1809–1882). However, as one can see from the individuals and ideas presented in the prior section, he was not the first person to explore evolution and how it might work. In fact, Darwin built upon and synthesized many of the ideas—from geology to biology, ecology, and economy—discussed above. He was simply in the right place at the right time. If he had not worked out his ideas when he did, someone else would have. As a matter of fact, as noted below, someone else did, forcing Darwin to publicly reveal his theory.
Darwin continued his observations and experiments during his formal education, culminating in his graduation from Cambridge in 1831, at which point he was invited to become a gentleman naturalist for a British Royal Navy surveying mission of the globe aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. It is worth noting that Darwin was only 22 years old and the captain’s third choice for the position (Costa 2017), but he proved extremely curious and methodical. The mission departed in December of 1831 and returned five years later (Figure 2.11). During this time, Darwin produced copious notebooks, observations, drawings, and reflections on the natural phenomena he encountered and the experiments he performed.

Discussing all of Darwin’s work aboard the Beagle is beyond the scope of this chapter, but his primary interests were in cataloguing new varieties of plant and animal life and examining the geology of the places the ship made landfall. Part of Darwin’s success with regard to both ventures was due to his extreme seasickness, which began before the ship even left Plymouth Harbour. It never let up, encouraging Darwin to go ashore at every available opportunity. “In fact, of the nearly five years of the voyage, Darwin was actually on board the ship for just a year and a half altogether” (Costa 2017, 18).
During the voyage, the young Darwin tried to make sense of what he saw through the lens of the scientific paradigms he held when he left England, but he continually made observations that challenged these paradigms. For example, while the Beagle crewmen were charting the coast of Argentina, Darwin conducted fieldwork on land. There he observed species that were new to him, like armadillos. He also collected fossils, including those of extinct armadillos. Meaning, he had found both extant and extinct members of the same species in the same geographic location, which challenged the theory of catastrophism put forth by Cuvier, who argued that each variant of an animal, living or extinct, was its own distinct species (Moore 1993, 144). Darwin also observed geographic variation in the same species all along the east coast of South America, from Brazil to the southern tip of Argentina. He noted that some species were found in multiple localities and differed from place to place. Those living closer to each other exhibited only slight variations, while those living further apart might be catalogued as entirely different species if one did not know better.
He made similar observations in the Galapagos Islands located off the northwest coast of Ecuador, with regard to giant tortoises and finches (Figure 2.12). A local resident of the islands explained to Darwin that each island had its own variety of tortoise and that locals could discern which island a tortoise came from simply by looking at it. Darwin noted other such examples in both plants and animals, meaning geographic variation was occurring on separate, neighbouring islands.

Prevailing views of time argued that variations in living species, and even the fossil armadillos and the living armadillos, were the result of separate creation events. According to this view, each variation, no matter how slight, was a different species. Challenging these ideas would mean challenging not only catastrophism, but the Fixity of Species and other well-accepted ideas of the time. Darwin was aware that he was a young, unestablished naturalist. He was also aware of the ruin that befell Lamarck when his theories were rejected. Lastly, Lyell, who was a good friend of Darwin’s, rejected evolution altogether. It is no wonder that Darwin published a great deal about the geological and fossil data he collected when he returned from the voyage, but not his early hypotheses about evolution.
Upon Darwin’s return to England, it took another twenty years of data collection and experimentation before he was ready to share his conclusions about evolution. Much of this work was conducted at Down House, his home of forty years, where he performed all sorts of experiments that laid the groundwork for his ideas about evolution. Darwin’s home was his laboratory, and he engaged the help of his children, neighbours, friends, and servants in collecting, dissecting, and experimenting. At one point in the 1850s, sheets of moistened paper covered with frogs eggs lined the hallways of the house, while flocks of sixteen different pigeon breeds cooed outside, glass jars filled with salt water and floating seeds filled the cellar, and the smell of dissected pigeon skeletons pervaded the air inside the house. There were also ongoing experiments in the yard, including piles of dissected flowers, beekeeping, and fenced-off plots of land where seedlings were under study. Darwin was a keen experimental scientist, observer, and a prolific writer and presenter of scientific papers. He regarded his work as “one long argument” that never really ended. In fact, Darwin published ten books after On the Origin of Species, addressing such far-ranging topics as animal behaviour, orchids, and domestication, among others (Costa 2017).
Darwin may not have published Origins in 1859 had it not been for receiving a paper in June of 1858 from Alfred Russel Wallace, an English naturalist working in Malaysia, espousing the same ideas. Wallace had sent the paper to Darwin asking if it was worthy of publication and requesting he forward it to Lyell and the English botanist, Joseph Hooker. Darwin wrote to Lyell and Hooker about Wallace’s paper, entitled On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type. In recognition that both Wallace and Darwin had arrived at the same discovery, a “joint” paper composed of four parts (none of them actually coauthored) was read to the Linnaean Society by Lyell, then secretary of the Society, on July 1, 1858, and published on August 20. Darwin published On the Origin of Species 15 months later. (The original composite paper read before the Linnaean society is available to read for free from the Alfred Russell Wallace Website, on the 1858 Darwin-Wallace paper page.)
The Mechanism of Natural Selection
Let us take a moment here to explore the mechanism of natural selection in more detail. Before we begin, it is important to recognize that Darwin defined evolution as descent with modification, by which he meant that species share a common ancestor yet change over time, giving rise to new species. Descent with modification refers to the fact that offspring from two parents look different from each of their parents, and from each other, meaning they descend with slight differences (“modifications”). If you have ever observed a litter of puppies or a field of flowers and stopped to examine each individual closely, you have seen that each differs from the next, and none look exactly like their parents. These variations are random, not specific, and may or may not be present in the following generations.
Darwin struggled to explain why some slight differences were preserved over time, while others were not. He turned to what he knew of animal breeding (artificial selection) for an explanation (Richards 1998). Darwin bred different breeds of pigeons at Down House, carefully documenting phenotypic differences across generations, including slight anatomical variations he observed through dissection. He also grew and crossbred species of flowers and dissected those too. Darwin was also very fond of hunting and of hunting dogs. In an early draft of his theory on speciation, he used greyhounds as an example of adaptation and selection, “noting how its every bone and muscle, instinct and habit, were fitted to run down hare (rabbits) (University of Cambridge n.d.).” In each case of plant and animal breeding Darwin observed, he noted that humans were selecting variants in each generation that had characteristics humans desired (i.e., sweetness of fruits, colours of flowers, fur type and colour of animals). Breeders then continually bred plants and animals with the desired variants, over and over again. These small changes added up over time to create new species of plants and breeds of animals. Darwin also noted that artificial selection does not necessarily render plants or animals better adapted to their original environments. The characteristics humans desire often result in plants less likely to survive in the wild and animals more likely to suffer from certain behavioural or health problems. One has only to examine high rates of hip dysplasia in several modern breeds of dogs to observe what Darwin was referring to.
From his studies of artificial selection, Darwin drew the conclusion that nature also acts upon variations among members of the same species. Instead of human intervention, the forces of nature, such as heat, cold, predation, disease, and now climate change, determine which offspring, with which variants, survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass down these favourable variants to their own offspring. In this way, nature selects for traits that are beneficial within a particular environment and selects against traits that are disadvantageous within a particular environment. Over many generations, populations of a species become more and more adapted (or, in evolutionary terms, “fit”) for their specific environments. Darwin named this process natural selection.
This theory explained the variations in tortoises Darwin had observed years earlier in the Galapagos Islands (see Figure 2.12). Tortoises who lived on larger islands with lush vegetation to feed on were larger than those on smaller islands. They also had shorter necks and dome-shaped shells as their food was close to the ground. Tortoises on smaller, drier islands fed on cacti, which grew much taller. These tortoises had longer necks, longer front legs, and saddle-shaped shells, which allowed them to successfully stretch to reach the edible cactus pads that grew on the tops of the plants. How did these observable differences in the two tortoise populations emerge? Darwin would argue that, over time, small, random variations in the tortoises were differentially selected for by the distinct natural environments on different islands.
In addition to the biogeographical evidence Darwin offered from his research aboard the Beagle, as well as the evidence he documented from the artificial selection of plants and animals, he also relied, where possible, on fossil evidence. One example, mentioned above, were the fossil findings of extinct armadillos in Argentina in the same locations as living armadillos. Unfortunately, as Darwin himself noted, the geological record was incomplete, most often missing the transitional fossil forms that bridge extinct and living species. That issue has since been resolved with scientific research in geochronology and paleontology, among other fields. It is now well-established that life is far more ancient than was believed in Darwin’s time and that these ancient forms of life were the ancestors to all life on this planet (Kutschera & Niklas 2004).
What Darwin was Missing
Although the theory of evolution by natural selection gained traction in scientific circles in the decades after Darwin’s publication of Origins, he was never able to discover the mechanisms that caused variation within members of the same species or the means by which traits were inherited. This began later in 1892 with the publication of The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity by August Weismann, the same Weismann of the mouse tail experiment presented earlier in this chapter. In his book, Weissman proposed a theory of germ-plasm, which was a precursor to the later discovery and understanding of DNA. Weismann specialized in cytology, a branch of biology devoted to understanding the function of plant and animal cells. Germ-plasm, he proposed, was a substance in the germ cells (what we would call gametes, or sex cells, today) that carried hereditary information. He predicted that an offspring inherits half of its germ-plasm from each of its parents, and claimed that other cells (e.g. somatic, or body, cells) could not transmit genetic information from parents to offspring. This thereby erased the possibility that acquired traits (which he argued resided in somatic cells) could be inherited (Zou 2015). This contribution to evolutionary theory was an important step toward understanding genetic inheritance, but a connection between genetics and evolution was still lacking.
A series of lectures by a deceased Augustinian monk named Gregor Mendel (1822–1884), originally published in 1865, changed that perspective (Moore 1993, 285). Although Darwin was unknown to Mendel, he began a series of experiments with pea plants shortly after the publication of Darwin’s Origins, aiming to add to evolutionary understandings of heredity. As Mendel bred different generations of pea plants that had differences in seed shape and colour, pod shape and colour, flower position, and stem length, he documented consistent expression of some variations over others in subsequent generations. He meticulously documented the statistics of each crossing of plants and the percentages of phenotypes that resulted, eventually discovering the concept of dominance and recessiveness of characteristics, as will be seen in chapter 3. The recognition of the importance of Mendel’s work began with its rediscovery by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, both of whom were working on hypotheses regarding heredity in plants and had arrived at conclusions similar to Mendel’s. Both published papers supporting Mendel’s conclusions in 1900 (Moore 1993). Research into the inheritance of characteristics continued through the next three decades, and by the close of the 1930s, no major scientific questions remained regarding the transmission of heredity through genes, although what genes did and what chemicals they were made of were still under investigation.
The Modern Synthesis refers to the merging of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that took place between 1930 and 1950. The basic principles of the synthetic theory were influenced by scientists working in many different fields, including genetics, zoology, biology, paleontology, botany, and statistics. Although there were differences of opinion among them, evolution came to be defined as changes in allele frequencies within populations. Genetic mutations, changes in the genetic code that are the original source of variation in every living thing, were believed to be random, the sources of phenotypic variation, and transmitted through sexual reproduction. These assertions were supported by a growing body of field and laboratory research, as well as new work in mathematics in the field of population genetics that defined evolution as numerical changes in gene frequencies within an interbreeding population from one generation to the next (Corning 2020). These changes in gene frequencies were argued to be the result of natural selection, mutation, migration (gene flow), and genetic drift, or random chance. Empirical research and mathematics demonstrated that very small selective forces acting over a relatively long time were able to generate substantial evolutionary change, including speciation (Plutynski 2009). Thus, the Modern Synthesis encompassed both microevolution, which refers to changes in gene frequencies between generations within a population, and macroevolution, longer-term changes in a population that can eventually result in speciation, wherein individuals from different populations are no longer able to successfully interbreed and produce viable offspring.

Genetics and the Origin of Species, published in 1937 by Theodosius Dobzhansky (Figure 2.13), was a cornerstone of the modern synthesis, applying genetics to the study of natural selection in wild populations, appealing to both geneticists and field biologists. Dobzhansky was interested in speciation, particularly in finding out what kept one species distinct from another and how speciation occurred. His research involved fruit flies, the species Drosophila pseudoobscura. At the time he began in the 1920s, biologists assumed all members of the same species had nearly identical genes. Dobzhansky traveled from Canada to Mexico capturing wild members of D.pseudoobscura, discovering that different populations had different combinations of alleles (forms of a gene) that distinguished them from other populations, even though they were all members of the same species. What, then, led to the creation of new species? Dobzhansky realized it was sexual selection. Members of the same species are more likely to live among their own kind and to recognize, and prefer, them as mates. Over time, as a result of random mutations, natural selection in a given environment, and genetic drift, meaning random changes in allele frequencies, members of the same population accumulate mutations distinct to their own gene pool, eventually becoming genetically distinct from other populations. What this means is that they have become a new species.
From these studies, Dobzhansky and others developed the Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller model, also known as Dobzhansky-Muller model (Figure 2.14). It is a model of the evolution of genetic incompatibility. Combining genetics with natural selection, the model is important in understanding the role of reproductive isolation during speciation and the role of natural selection in bringing it about. Due to sexual selection (mate preference), populations can become reproductively isolated from one another. Eventually, novel mutations may arise and be selected for in one or both populations, rendering members of each genetically incompatible with the other, resulting in two distinct species.

Special Topic: Evolution and Natural Selection Observable Today

Although this chapter primarily focuses on the past, it is important to remember that natural selection and evolution are still ongoing processes. Climate change, deforestation, urbanization, and other human impacts on the planet are influencing evolution among many contemporary species of plants and animals. One such example occurs among crested anoles (Anolis cristatellus), small lizards of the Caribbean jungle that are increasingly making their home in cities (Figure 2.15).
As urban sprawl continues across the planet, shrinking the availability of wilderness habitat, many wild species have come to make their homes in cities. “Urbanization has dramatically transformed landscapes around the world—changing how animals interact with nature, creating "heat islands" with higher temperatures, and hurting local biodiversity. Yet many organisms survive and even thrive in these urban environments, taking advantage of new habitats created by humans (National Science Foundation 2023). A recent example of lizards in Puerto Rico demonstrates evolution happening quickly in both behaviour and genes that has come about as a result of the pressures of urban life (Winchell Et al. 2023). Crested anoles, who once lived only in forests, now scurry around towns and cities throughout the Caribbean. As a result of having to sprint across large open spaces, like hot streets and parking lots, they have developed longer limbs. City-living lizards also now sport longer toe pads with special scales that allow them to cling to smooth surfaces, like windows and walls (as well as the plastic patio furniture pictured in Figure 2.15), rather than to the rough surfaces of bark and rock that their forest-living relatives climb. These adaptations enhance their ability to escape predators and survive in cities.
Researchers were curious to see if these changes were the result of genetic changes in urban populations, so they captured 96 male lizards in three Puerto Rican regions and compared their genomes to each other and to forest specimens in each location. They found that members of the three city-living populations were genetically distinct from each other, as well as from forest populations in their respective regions. In total, 33 genes in the urban lizards’ genomes were different from their forest-living counterparts and were linked to urbanization. These changes are estimated to have occurred just within the last 30 to 80 generations, suggesting that selective pressures related to survival in urban environments is strong. As study coauthor Kristen Winchell put it, “We are watching evolution as it is unfolding” (National Public Radio 2023). (If you are interested in hearing more about the study, see “How Lizards Adapt to Urban Living,” an episode of Science Sessions, a free podcast from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS 2023) featuring Dr. Winchell and her work.)
Misconceptions About Evolution Through Natural Selection
After many years of teaching about evolution and natural selection, it continues to surprise me how many misconceptions exist about how the process works. If you do a web image search for “human evolution,” the following image is likely to appear (Figure 2.16).

What is wrong with this picture? First, it implies that humans evolved from chimpanzees, which is incorrect. Although, as primates, we share a common ancestor very far back in time, we split from other primates, including our closest relatives, the nonhuman apes, several million years ago. This image also suggests that evolution is gradual and progressive; that it is intentional and directional; and that there is an end to it—a stopping point. As you will be learning, evolution takes place in fits and starts, depending on the physical environment, changes in climate, food supply, predation, reproductive success, and other factors. It is also not intentional, in the sense that there is no predetermined end; in fact, if environmental conditions change, species can evolve in different directions or even go extinct. Evolution also does not necessarily progress in the same direction over time. One example is the eel-like creature Qikiqtania wakei that lived 375 million years ago. It was originally a fish that evolved to walk on land, then evolved to live back in the water. Early tetrapods like Qikiqtania were likely spending more and more time out of the water during this period. The arrangement of bones and joints in their fins was starting to resemble arms and legs, which would have allowed them to prop themselves up in shallow water and survive on mudflats. Qikiqtania’s skeletal morphology, however, suggests that it then evolved from having rudimentary fingers and toes back to fins that allowed them to again swim in open water (Stewart Et al. 2022).
There is also the misperception that natural selection can create entirely new anatomical structures out of thin air in response to changes in environmental pressures. For example, when asked if they can think of ways in which modern humans are continuing to evolve biologically, students often postulate that, as a result of climate change, humans might rapidly develop gills, webbed hands and feet, and learn to breathe underwater in response to rising sea levels. Unfortunately, natural selection can only act on slight variations in anatomy that are already present, and we have no rudimentary physiological system for breathing underwater. Given that natural selection can only act upon existing variation, humans have evolved in such a way that many parts of our bodies are prone to injury. Our knees are one example. The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in our knees is “vulnerable to tearing in humans because our upright bipedal posture forces it to endure much more strain than it is designed to” (Lents 2018, 23). When our ancestors made the transition from quadrupedalism to upright walking, we shifted from four bent legs to two straight legs, relying more on our bones than our muscles to support our weight. This is functional for normal walking and running in a straight line, but sudden shifts in direction and momentum, combined with the sizes and weights of modern humans, result in tears in an ACL that is simply not strong enough to bear the stress. If evolution had the capability to engineer a knee from scratch, it would look quite different, and any ligaments involved would likely be larger, stronger, and more flexible. For an interesting look at what anatomically modern humans might look like if we had evolved to withstand the stresses our bodies undergo in our present environment, see “This is what the perfect body looks like - according to science,” which was proposed by biological anthropologist Alice Roberts (Harrison 2018).
Another misperception about evolution is that some species are “more evolved” than others. Every species currently alive on the planet today is the result of millennia of natural selection that has rendered current members of that species well-adapted to their respective environments. Humans are no more “evolved” than fruit flies or yeast. What sets us apart are our cultural and technological abilities, which have allowed us to successfully survive in a wide variety of physical environments, many of which are now becoming too hot, too wet, or too dry to sustain human life without a great deal of technological intervention (IPCC 2022).

There is also some confusion about what “fitness” actually means and a failure to grasp that it changes as environmental conditions change. Evolutionary “fitness” is different from physical fitness. “Fitness” in evolutionary terms refers to an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce viable offspring who also survive and reproduce. Evolutionary fitness and reproductive success are highly dependent on specific environmental conditions, which can shift over time, greatly affecting the relative fitness of individuals in a population. Recent research on the impacts of climate change on dragonflies will serve to illustrate the point (Figure 2.17).
Pictured here is a male dragonfly, who, you will notice, has distinctive black markings on its wings. This is due to melanization. Males control breeding, and those with more ornamentation tend to attract more mates and to successfully ward off male competitors. Higher levels of melanization, however, have negative consequences for males in warming climates. The black markings absorb heat, elevating body temperatures, which can cause overheating, reduce male fighting ability, and even lead to death (Moore Et al. 2021). Females are not as adversely affected because they spend more time in shaded areas, while males are more often flying in sunlit areas, fending off rivals. However, as highly melanized males become less viable, wing colouration is undergoing selection in males. In other words, what constitutes being “fit” for males has changed, favouring those who have fewer of the black markings and, therefore, are less negatively impacted by warming temperatures. Note that natural selection acts on individuals, “selecting” those who happen to be fit for particular environmental conditions at a particular point in time. Evolution, though, happens at the level of the population. If the climate continues to warm, populations of dragonflies who inhabit warming areas will increasingly exhibit less ornamentation in males.
Lastly, natural selection can only act on characteristics that influence reproductive success. Deleterious traits that have nothing to do with one’s ability to reproduce and successfully rear offspring to reproductive age will continue to be passed on. For example, the author of this chapter is a natural redhead, and redheads are predisposed genetically to a number of conditions that can negatively affect health (Colliss Harvey 2015), but some of these conditions are not diagnosed until later in life. One example is Parkinson’s disease (Chen Et al. 2017), which is a degenerative neurological disorder. The average age of diagnosis of Parkinson’s is 60 years of age, meaning redheads may encounter such a diagnosis well past childbearing age, having already passed on the genetic predisposition. Thus, Parkinson’s disease cannot be selected out from the redhead family tree.
Are We Still Evolving?
After reading this chapter, many students are curious to know if humans are still evolving. The answer is yes. As a species, we continue to respond to selective pressures biologically and culturally. This final section will focus on three contemporary examples of human evolution. Before beginning, let’s review the conditions necessary for natural selection to operate on a trait. First, the trait must be heritable, meaning it is transmitted genetically from generation to generation. There must also be variation of the trait within the population and the trait must influence reproductive success. Three examples of traits that meet these criteria are immunity to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), height, and wisdom teeth (Andrews, Kalinowski, & Leonard 2011).
AIDS is a potentially fatal infectious disease caused by HIV, a zoonosis believed to be derived from Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses (SIVs) found in chimpanzees and monkeys and most likely transmitted to humans through the butchering of infected animals (Sharp & Hahn 2011). In total, 40 million people have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the global epidemic in the 1980s. There were 38.4 million people around the world living with AIDS as of 2021, including 1.5 million new cases and 650,000 deaths in that year alone (UNAIDS 2021). A disease causing this level of morbidity and mortality represents a major selective pressure, especially given that infection can occur before birth (Goulder Et al. 2016), thereby affecting future reproductive success.

The majority of people in the world are highly susceptible to HIV infection, but some are not. These latter individuals are homozygous for a rare, recessive allele at the CCR5 locus that makes them immune to HIV. Heterozygotes who inherit a single copy of this allele are more resistant to infection and, when infected, the disease takes longer to progress in the event that they are infected. The mechanism by which the allele prevents infection involves a 32-base pair deletion in the DNA sequence of the CCR5 gene, creating a nonfunctioning receptor on the surface of the cell that prevents HIV from infecting the cell. The allele is inherited as a simple Mendelian trait, and there is variation in its prevalence, ranging as high as 14% of the population in northern Europe and Russia (Novembre, Galvani, and Slatkin 2005; see Figure 2.19). What is interesting about the allele’s geographic distribution is that it does not map onto parts of the world with the highest rates of HIV infection (Figure 2.20), suggesting that AIDS was not the original selective pressure favouring this allele.

Given its current geographic distribution, the bubonic plague, which ravaged Europe repeatedly from the 14th to the 19th centuries (Pamuk 2007), was initially proposed as the selective agent. Subsequent research suggests smallpox, which killed up to 400,000 people annually in 18th-century Europe (Hays 2005), was more likely the selective pressure (Novembre, Galvani, & Slatkin 2005). Given the mortality rates for smallpox (Crosby 2003), an allele that conferred immunity was highly advantageous, as it is for those faced with the threat of HIV infection today.
Height is another example of a trait experiencing selective pressure. If you have ever toured a historical site, you have likely hit your head on a doorframe or become claustrophobic trying to squeeze down a narrow hallway under a lower-than-average ceiling. It is not your imagination. Humans have gotten taller in recent centuries. In fact, the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimetres in the past 150 years. This increase has been attributed to improvements in nutrition, sanitation, and access to medical care (Hatton 2014). But this is only part of the story.
Height is highly heritable. Studies indicate 80% of variation in height within populations is due to genetics, with 697 different genetic variances identified as having an effect on adult stature (Devuyst 2014). Multiple studies also demonstrate a positive relationship between height and reproductive success for men (Andrews, Kalinowsky, & Leonard 2011). This is primarily due to sexual selection and nonrandom mating, namely women’s preferences for taller men, which may explain why height is one characteristic men often lie about on dating websites (Guadagno, Okdie, & Kruse 2012). Sexual selection also plays out with regard to economic success in Western cultures, with taller men more likely to be in higher-level positions that pay well. Research demonstrates an inch of height is worth an additional $789 per year in salary, meaning a man who is six feet tall will earn on average $5,525 more per year than an identical man who is five foot five purely due to heightism bias (Gladwell 2007). Over the course of a career, this can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, likely allowing taller men to attract more potential mates, increasing their reproductive success.
Wisdom teeth are also undergoing evolutionary pressure. Have you or anyone in your family had their wisdom teeth removed? While it can be a painful and expensive process, it is a common experience in Western nations. It begs the question as to why there is no longer room in our mouths for all of our teeth? Biological anthropologist Daniel Lieberman offers several reasons, including that modern humans are growing faster and maturing earlier, which could be leading to impaction if skeletal growth takes place faster than dental growth. He also argues that the soft diets many modern humans consume generate insufficient strain to stimulate enough growth in our jaws to accommodate all of our teeth. Lastly, as the human brain has expanded over the past hundreds of thousands of years, it is taking up more space in the skull, causing the jaw to shrink, leaving no room for third molars (Lieberman 2011).
Conversely, do you know anyone whose wisdom teeth never came in? That is fairly common in some populations, suggesting evolutionary pressure favouring the absence of wisdom teeth has been culturally influenced. The oldest fossil evidence of skulls missing third molars was found in China and is 300,000 to 400,000 years old, suggesting the earliest mutation selecting against the eruption of wisdom teeth arose in Asia (Main 2013). Since that time, jaws have continued to decrease in size to the point they often cannot accommodate third molars, which can become impacted, painful, and even infected, a condition physical anthropologist Alan Main argues might have interfered with the ability to survive and reproduce in ancestral populations (Main 2013). As we have learned, a mutation that positively influences reproductive success—such as being born without the trait to develop wisdom teeth—would likely be selected for over time. Evidence in modern humans suggests that this is the case, with 40% of modern Asians and 45% of Native Alaskans and Greenlanders (populations descended from Asian populations) lacking wisdom teeth. The percentage among those of European descent ranges from 10 to 25% and for African Americans is 11% (Main 2013). Later chapters of this textbook emphasize that directional selection progresses along a particular path until the environment changes and a trait is no longer advantageous. In the case of wisdom teeth, the ability of modern dentistry to preempt impaction through surgery may, in fact, be what is preventing natural selection from doing away with wisdom teeth altogether.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
By the end of the Renaissance, knowledge inherited from Greek and Islamic scholars profoundly influenced how humans perceived nature and the scientific method itself. This period marked a major epistemic shift where the way of understanding and studying the natural world was evolving. Historical and religious worldviews were closely intertwined during this time: ancient ideas were often incorporated into theological frameworks, as exemplified by Archbishop James Ussher’s famous calculation that the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC.
The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries introduced rapid technological development and new philosophies of science. However, it also brought challenges. While curiosity about nature expanded, many thinkers continued to treat knowledge as fixed and immutable, anchored by biblical interpretation, which was often deemed too sacred to question.
The second major scientific revolution emerged during the Industrial Era, influenced by European thinkers such as Charles Darwin, John Ray, Robert Hooke, James Hutton, and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. This era saw groundbreaking advances in geology, paleontology, and biology. Concepts such as catastrophism, uniformitarianism, inheritance, and acquired characteristics reshaped humanity's understanding of the earth’s history and the continuity of life.
Yet, scientific ideas never exist in isolation as they are deeply interwoven with social and cultural life. As these thinkers sought to explain nature, evolution, and, by extension, human existence, their ideas inevitably intersected with religious worldviews. This long-standing entanglement and occasional tension between science and religion continue to shape how societies understand the origins of life today. For example, a 2023 Gallup Poll measuring Americans’ beliefs about human origins revealed that 37% believed God created humans in their present form, 34% argued that humans developed through evolution with God’s guidance, and only 24% of U.S. adults accepted the scientific theory of evolution. A similar reality exists in Canada, where 1 in 5 Canadians believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Consequently, these perspectives reflect two distinct ways of reconstructing the past. Science pursues truth through observation, testing, and empirical evidence, while religion offers meaning through faith, belief, and spiritual interpretation. As a result, attempts to understand the origins of humanity often follow divergent paths. But what happens when desire or ideology, rather than evidence, drives our reconstructions of the past of both nature and ourselves?
Discussion Questions
- Can religion and science work collaboratively to deepen our understanding of life and the universe?
- What social tensions arise between human culture and scientific advancement?Can you provide some examples?
- How is modern society influencing our understanding of evolution happening today?
- Beyond religion, what other socio-cultural factors influence scientific understanding? Can you provide some examples?
- What does it mean when a culture limits the next generation’s understanding to its own worldview? Is it possible for us to think or move beyond our cultural boundaries?
Key Developments in Evolutionary Thought
|
4th century BCE |
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) |
“Founder of Biology.” Publishes History of Animals, a biological classification system of over 500 animals based on structure, physiology, reproduction, and behaviour. Also creates the “Great Chain of Being,” ranking species and placing humans closest to God. |
|
8th–9th century CE |
Al-Jahiz (776–868 CE) |
Writes seven-volume Book of Animals, which includes animal classifications and food chains. Introduces concept of biological evolution and its mechanisms. |
|
1011–1021 |
Ibn al-Haythem (965–1040 CE) |
“Father of Modern Optics.” Uses experimental science to catalogue how vision works and discovers laws of reflection and refraction. Publishes Book of Optics and invents camera obscura, the foundation for modern photography. |
|
1620 |
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) |
“Father of Empiricism.” Publishes The Novum Annum, formulating the scientific method based on observation and inductive reasoning. |
|
1686 |
John Ray (1627–1705) |
First to publish a biological definition of species in History of Plants. |
|
1749 |
Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) |
Publishes Histoire Naturelle, comparing anatomical structures across species using methods still in use today. Inspires Lamarck and Cuvier. |
|
1758 |
Carl von Linne (Carolus Linnaeus) (1707–1778) |
Introduces system of binomial nomenclature. Publishes Systema Naturae, the tenth edition of which introduces the designation Homo sapiens for humans. |
|
1788 |
James Hutton (1726–1797) |
“Father of Geology.” Publishes Theory of the Earth; introduces idea of Deep Time; explains how features of the earth were formed through the actions of rain, wind, rivers, and volcanic eruptions. |
|
1798 |
Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) |
Economist and “Father of Statistics.” Publishes An Essay on Population; introduces concept of carrying capacity; explains how populations outstrip the food supply, leaving some individuals to die off; inspires Darwin’s idea of “natural selection.” |
|
1809 |
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) |
Publishes theory of the Inheritance of acquired characteristics; is the first Western scientist to propose a mechanism explaining how traits change in species over time and to recognize the importance of the physical environment in acting on species and their survival. |
|
1810 |
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) |
Paleontologist/comparative anatomist; proved species went extinct; proposed the Theory of Catastrophism. |
|
1830 |
Charles Lyell (1797–1875) |
Establishes geology as a science. Publishes first edition of The Principles of Geology (1830–33); issuing 12 total editions in his lifetime, each updated according to new scientific data. |
|
1858 |
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) |
Sends scientific paper to Darwin titled “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type,” essentially espousing the concept of natural selection; a reading of the papers by both Wallace and Darwin to the Linnaean Society is conducted by Lyell. |
|
1859 |
Charles Darwin (1809–1882) |
Publishes On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). |
|
1865 |
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) |
Publishes Experiments in Plant Hybridization (1865), outlining the fundamentals of genetic inheritance. |
|
1889 |
August Weismann (1834–1914) |
Publishes Essays Upon Heredity (1889), disproving the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Publishes The Germ Plasm (1892), postulating an early idea of inheritance through sexual reproduction. |
|
1937 |
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975) |
One of the founders of the Modern Synthesis of biology and genetics. Publishes Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937). Documents a genetic model of speciation through reproductive isolation. |
Summary
Firstly, it is important to recognize that the global discourse on evolutionary thought emerged from a Western European colonial legacy; often centring eurocentric perspectives while overlooking other intellectual traditions. This legacy has resulted in a lasting influence in how the knowledge was–and continues to be–structured and understood.
From its earliest ideas to today’s genomic research, evolutionary thought has demonstrated that species, including our own, are not static, but are part of ongoing processes shaped by variation, natural selection, and shifting conditions. A persistent misconception is that evolution implies progress toward more advanced or ‘better’ forms; in reality, it reflects context-specific adaptations that enhance survival and reproduction. Humans exemplify this ongoing process, adapting through traits such as resistance to disease, tolerance of new foods, and responses to rapidly changing modern environments.
Review Questions
- Summarize the major scientific developments that led to the formulation of the theory of natural selection.
- Explain how natural selection operates and how it leads to evolution in populations.
- Explain the importance of genetics to an understanding of human evolution.
- Have you observed current examples of evolution taking place where you live? In which species? Which forces of evolution are involved?
Key Terms
Allele: A nonidentical DNA sequence found in the same gene location on a homologous chromosome, or gene copy, that codes for the same trait but produces a different phenotype.
Artificial selection: The identification by humans of desirable traits in plants and animals, and the subsequent steps taken to enhance and perpetuate those traits in future generations.
Binomial nomenclature: A system of classification in which a species of animal or plant receives a name consisting of two terms: the first identifies the genus to which it belongs, and the second identifies the species.
Carrying capacity: The number of living organisms, including animals, crops, and humans, that a geographic area can support without environmental degradation.
Catastrophism: The theory that the Earth’s geology has largely been shaped by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. Compare to uniformitarianism.
Comparative anatomy: Georges-Louis Leclerc’s technique of comparing similar anatomical structures across different species.
Creationism: The belief that the universe and all living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the Biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
Empiricism: The idea that all learning and knowledge derives from experience and observation. It became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries in western Europe due to the rise of experimental science.
Evolution: In a biological sense, this term refers to cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time. More specifically, evolution is defined as a change in allele (gene) frequencies from one generation to the next among members of an interbreeding population.
Extant: Still in existence; surviving.
Extinct: Said of a species, family, or other group of animals or plants that has no living members; no longer in existence.
Fixity of Species: The idea that a species, once created, remains unchanged over time.
Gene: A sequence of DNA that provides coding information for the construction of proteins.
Genetic drift: Random changes in allele frequencies within a population from one generation to the next.
Gene flow: The introduction of new genetic material into a population through interbreeding between two distinct populations.
Gene pool: The entire collection of genetic material in a breeding community that can be passed from one generation to the next.
Genotype: The genotype of an organism is its complete set of genetic material—its unique sequence of DNA. Genotype also refers to the alleles or variants an individual carries in a particular gene or genetic location.
Hybrid: Offspring of parents that differ in genetically determined traits.
Intelligent design: A pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.
Macroevolution: Large and often-complex changes in biological populations, such as species formation.
Microevolution: Changes in the frequency of a gene or allele in an interbreeding population.
Modern synthesis: The mid–20th century merging of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution.
Natural selection: The natural process by which the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups within an interbreeding population that are best adjusted to their environment leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment at that point in time.
Phenotype: The detectable or visible expression of an organism’s genotype.
Scientific method: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting of systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Speciation: The process by which new genetically distinct species evolve from the main population, usually through geographic isolation or other barriers to gene flow.
Species: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial (e.g., Homo sapiens).
Uniformitarianism: The theory that changes in the earth's crust during geologic history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes—such as wind, precipitation, evaporation, condensation, erosion, and volcanic action—that continue to act in the present. Compare to catastrophism.
For Further Exploration
Costa, James T. 2017. Darwin’s Backyard: How Small Experiments Led to a Big Theory. New York: W.W. Norton.
Darwin, Charles. 1905. The Voyage of the Beagle. (Originally published in 1839 as Journal and Remarks). [Author’s note: Several editions exist with different publishers, including illustrated editions, paperback editions, and e-books.]
Moore, John A. 1993. Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
References
Al-Haytham, Ibn. 1011-1021. Kitāb al-Manāẓir (Book of Optics). Cairo, Egypt.
Al-Jahiz. 776–868 CE. Kitab al-Hayawan (Book of Animals).
Andrews, Tessa M., Steven T. Kalinowski, and Mary J. Leonard. 2011. “Are Humans Evolving? A Classroom Discussion to Change Students’ Misconceptions Regarding Natural Selection.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 4 (3): 456–466.
Aristotle. 384-322 BCE. History of Animals.
Asghar, Anila, Salman Hameed, and Najme Kashani Farahani. 2014. “Evolution in Biology Textbooks: A Comparative Analysis of Five Muslim Countries.” Religion & Education 41 (1). Accessed February 12, 2023. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15507394.2014.855081.
Associated Press. January 10, 2023. “Forest Lizards Have Genetically Morphed To Survive Life In The City, Researchers Say.” National Public Radio (NPR). Retrieved February 19, 2023 from https://www.npr.org/2023/01/10/1148150056/forest-lizards-genetically-morphed-cities.
Burkhardt, Richard W. 2013. “Lamarck, Evolution, and the Inheritance of Acquired Characters.” Genetics 194 (4): 793–805.
Chen, Xiqun, Danielle Feng, Michael A. Schwartzchild, and Xiang Gao. 2017. “Red Hair, MC1R Variants, and Risk for Parkinson’s Disease—A Meta-Analysis.” Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology 4 (3): 212–216.https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.381.
Colliss Harvey, Jacky. 2015. Red: A History of the Redhead. New York: Black Dog & Levanthal.
Corning, Peter A. 2020. “Beyond the Modern Synthesis: A Framework for a More Inclusive Biological Synthesis.” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 153: 5–12.
Costa, James T. 2017. Darwin’s Backyard: How Small Experiments Led to a Big Theory. New York: W. W. Norton.
Crosby, Alfred W., Jr. 2003. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. 30th Anniversary Edition. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. First Edition. London: John Murray.
Darwin, Francis, ed. 2001[1897]. The Life & Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.
Desilver, Drew. 2017. “U.S. Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags That of Their Peers in Many Other Countries.” Pew Research Center, February 15. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/.
Devuyst, Olivier. 2014. “High Time for Human Height.” Peritoneal Dialysis International 34 (7):685–686.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Biological Series (Volume 11). New York: Columbia University Press.
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. 2014. An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. Boston: Beacon.
El-Zaher, Sumaya. 2018. “The Father of the Theory of Evolution: Al-Jahiz and His Book of Animals.” MVSLIM.com, October 9. Accessed August 27, 2022. https://mvslim.com/the-father-of-the-theory-of-evolution-al-jahiz-and-his-book-of-animals/.
Elshakry, Marwa. 2010. “When Science Became Western: Historiographical Reflections.” ISIS 101 (1). Accessed November 20, 2022. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/652691.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2007. Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking. New York: Back Bay
Guadagno, Rosanna E., Bradley M. Okdie, and Sara A. Kruse. 2012. “Dating Deception: Gender, Online Dating, and Exaggerated Self-Presentation.” Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2): 642–647.
Harmon, Katherine. 2011. “Evolution Abroad: Creationism Evolves in Science Classrooms around the Globe.” Scientific American, March 3. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-education-abroad/.
Harrison, Ellie. 2018. “This is What the Perfect Body Looks Like - According to Science.” Radiotimes.com. Accessed June 14, 2023. https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/documentaries/this-is-what-the-perfect-body-looks-like-according-to-science/.
Hatton, Tim. 2014. “Why Did Humans Grow Four Inches in 100 Years? It Wasn’t Just Diet.” The Conversation, May 1. https://theconversation.com/why-did-humans-grow-four-inches-In-100-years-it-wasnt-just-diet-25919.
Hays, J. N. 2005. Epidemics and Pandemics: Their Impacts on Human History. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Hutton, James. 1788. Theory of the Earth. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Volume 1. Scotland: Royal Society of Edinburgh.
IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/.
Jones, Stephen. 2017. “Religion, Science, and Evolutionary Theory”[an interview with Salman Hameed]. Podcast, The Religious Studies Project, January 30. Accessed May 29, 2023. https://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/religion-science-and-evolutionary-theory/.
Kutschera, Ulrich, and Karl J. Niklas. 2004. “The Modern Theory of Biological Evolution: An Expanded Synthesis.” Naturwissenschaften 91: 255–276.
Leclerc, Georges-Louis, Comte de Buffon. 1749-1804. Histoire Naturelle. Volumes 1-36. Paris: Imprimerie Royale (Royal Printing House).
Lents, Nathan H. 2018. Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Lerner, Lawrence S. 2000. Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Lieberman, Daniel E. 2011. The Evolution of the Human Head. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lindberg, David C. 1992. The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Linnaeus, Carl. 1736. Systema Naturae. First Edition. Stockholm: Laurentius Salvius.
Love, Shayla. 2020. “A Thousand Years before Darwin, Islamic Scholars Were Writing about Evolution.” VICE World News, October 5. Accessed August 27, 2022. https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4ykn/a-thousand-years-before-darwin-islamic-scholars-were-writing-about-natural-selection.
Main, Douglas. 2013. “Ancient Mutation Explains Missing Wisdom Teeth.” Live Science, March 13. https://www.livescience.com/27529-missing-wisdom-teeth.html.
Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. London: J. Johnson.
Masci, David. 2019. “For Darwin Day, 6 Facts About the Evolution Debate.” Pew Research Center. Accessed June 14, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/11/darwin-day/.
Masood, Ehsan. 2009. “Islam’s Evolutionary Legacy.” The Guardian, March 1. Accessed February 13, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/27/islam-religion-evolution-science.
Miller, Jon D., Eugenie C. Scott, Mark S. Ackerman, Belen Laspra, Glenn Branch, Carmelo Polino, and Jordan S. Huffaker. 2022. “Public Acceptance of Evolution in the United States, 1985–2020.” Public Understanding of Science 31 (2): 223–238.
Miller, Jon D., Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto. 2006, August 11. “Public Acceptance of Evolution.” Science 313 (5788): 765-766. DOI: 10.1126/science.1126746.
Moore, John A. 1993. Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore, Michael P., Kaitlyn Hersch, Chanont Sricharoen, Sarah Lee, Caitlin Reice, Paul Rice, Sophie Kronick, Kim A. Medley, and Kasey D. Fowler-Finn. 2021. “Sex-Specific Ornament Evolution Is a Consistent Feature of Climatic Adaptation across Space and Time in Dragonflies.” PNAS 118 (28): e2101458118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.210145818.
National Public Radio. 2023. “Forest Lizards Have Genetically Morphed to Survive Life in the City, Researchers Say.” National Public Radio (NPR), January 10. Accessed February 19, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/10/1148150056/forest-lizards-genetically-morphed-cities.
National Science Foundation. 2023. “Urban Lizards Share Genomic Markers Not Found in Forest-Dwellers.” National Science Foundation, February 7. Accessed May 25, 2023. https://beta.nsf.gov/news/urban-lizards-share-genomic-markers-not-found.
Novembre, John, Alison P. Galvani, and Montgomery Slatkin. 2005. “The Geographic Spread of the CCR5 Δ32 HIV-Resistance Allele.” PLoS Biology 3 (11): e339.
Pamuk, Şevket. 2007. “The Black Death and the Origins of the ‘Great Divergence’ across Europe, 1300–1600.” European Review of Economic History 11 (3): 289–317.
Paterlini, Marta. 2007. “There Shall Be Order: The Legacy of Linnaeus in the Age of Molecular Biology.” EMBO Reports 8 (9): 814–816. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401061.
Pew Research Center. 2019. “Darwin in America: The Evolution Debate in the United States.” Pew Research Center, February 6, 2019. Accessed June 13, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/darwin-in-america-2/.
Pew Research Center. 2014. “Fighting Over Darwin, State by State.” Pew Research Center, February 4, 2009; updated February 3, 2014. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/02/04/fighting-over-darwin-state-by-state/.
Plutynski, Anya. 2009. “The Modern Synthesis.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, November 15 (updated December 14, 2009). Accessed November 27, 2022. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15335/.
Plutzer, Eric, Glenn Branch, and Ann Reid. 2020. “Teaching Evolution in the U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge.” Evolution: Education and Outreach13: Article 14. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-020-00126-8.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 2023. “How Lizards Adapt to Urban Living.” Science Sessions Podcast, February 13, . Accessed February 19, 2023. https://www.pnas.org/post/podcast/lizards-adapt-urban-living.
Public Broadcasting System. 2001. “Georges Cuvier.” WGBH Evolution Library. Accessed May 26, 2022. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/1/l_021_01.html# :~:text=With%20elegant%20studies%20of%20the,as%20incontrovertible%20proof%20of %20extinctions.
Ray, John. 1686-1704. Historia plantarum. London: Clark. Volume 1 (1686), Volume II (1688), Volume III (1704).
Richards, Richard A. 1998. “Darwin, Domestic Breeding, and Artificial Selection.” Endeavour 22 (3): 106–109.
Solloch, Ute V., Kathrin Lang, Vinzenz Lange, and Irena Böhme. 2017. “Frequencies of Gene Variant CCR5-Δ32 in 87 Countries Based on Next-Generation Sequencing of 1.3 Million Individuals Sampled from 3 National DKMS Donor Centers.” Human Immunology 78 (11–12): 701-717.
Stewart, Thomas A., Justin B. Lemberg, Ailis Daly, Edward B. Daeschler, and Neil H. Shubin. 2022. “A New Epistostegalian from the Late Devonian of the Canadian Arctic.” Nature 608 (7923): 563–568.
Tasci, Ufuk Necat. 2020. “How a 10-Century Muslim Physicist Discovered How Humans See.” TRT World, May 25. Accessed May 18, 2022. https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/how-a-10th-century-muslim-physicist-discovered-how-humans-see-36620.
Tbakhi, Abdelghani, and Samir S. Amr. 2007. “Ibn Al-Haytham: Father of Modern Optics.” Annals of Saudi Medicine 27 (6): 464–467. UNAIDS. 2021. “Global HIV & AIDS Statistics—Fact Sheet.” https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet.
UNESCO.org. 2015. “International Year of Light: Ibn al Haytham, Pioneer of Modern Optics celebrated at UNESCO.” UNESCO, September 8. Accessed May 18, 2022. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/international-year-light-ibn-al-haytham-pioneer-modern-optics-celebrated-unesco.
University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology. N.d. “The History of Evolutionary Thought—Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell.” Understanding Evolution website. Accessed February 13, 2023. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/uniformitarianism-charles-lyell/.
University of Cambridge. N.d. “Darwin and Dogs.” The Darwin Correspondence Project website. Accessed February 17, 2023. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/curious/darwin-and-dogs.
Urbach, Peter Michael, Anthony M. Quinton, and Kathleen Marguerite Lea. “Francis Bacon: British Author, Philosopher, and Statesman.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last updated May 12, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francis-Bacon-Viscount-Saint-Alban.
Ward, Peter. 2018. Lamarck’s Revenge: How Epigenetics Is Revolutionizing Our Understanding of Evolution’s Past and Present. New York: Bloomsbury.
Weismann, August. 1892. Das Keimplasma: Eine Theorie der Vererbung (The Germ Plasm: a Theory of Inheritance). Jena (Germany): Fischer.
Weismann, August. 1889. Translations. Essays upon Heredity. Oxford: Clarendon. Accessed November 27, 2022. E-copy available at https://www.esp.org/books/weismann/essays/facsimile/.
Winchell, Kristen M., Shane C. Campbell-Staton, Jonathan B. Losos, and Anthony Geneva. 2023. “Genome-Wide Parallelism Underlies Contemporary Adaptation In Urban Lizards.” PNAS 120 (3): e2216789120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216789120.
Wood, Bernard. 2005. Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zou, Yawen. 2015. "The Germ-Plasm: a Theory of Heredity (1893), by August Weismann." Embryo Project Encyclopedia, January 26. Accessed February 18, 2023. https://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/8284.
Student contributors for this chapter from Salinda Hess' ANTH 203: Daphnée-Tiffany Kirouac Millan, Davina Paradis, Jung Jin Kim, and Nathan Dennis
Learn more about authors and editors, Hess' student contributions, and versioning history.
Learning Objectives
- Explain the relationship among genes, bodies, and organismal change.
- Discuss the shortcomings of simplistic understandings of genetics.
- Describe what is meant by the "biopolitics of heredity."
- Discuss issues caused by misuse of ideas about adaptations and natural selection.
- Examine and correct myths about evolution.
The Human Genome Project, an international initiative launched in 1990, sought to identify the entire genetic makeup of our species. For many scientists, it meant trying to understand the genetic underpinnings of what made humans uniquely human. James Watson, a codiscoverer of the helical shape of DNA, wrote that “when finally interpreted, the genetic messages encoded within our DNA molecules will provide the ultimate answers to the chemical underpinnings of human existence” (Watson 1990, 248). The underlying message is that what makes humans unique can be found in our genes. The Human Genome Project hoped to find the core of who we are and where we come from.
Despite its lofty goal, the Human Genome Project—even after publishing the entire human genome in January 2022—could not fully account for the many factors that contribute to what it is to be human. Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin (2017) argue that genetic determinism of the sort assumed by the Human Genome Project neglects other essential dimensions that contribute to the development and evolution of human bodies, not to mention the role that culture plays. They use an apt metaphor of a cake to illustrate the incompleteness of reductive models. Consider the flavour of a cake and think of the ingredients listed in the recipe. The recipe includes ingredients such as flour, sugar, shortening, vanilla extract, eggs, and milk. Does raw flour taste like cake? Does sugar, vanilla extract, or any of the other ingredients taste like cake? They do not, and knowing the individual flavours of each ingredient does not tell us much about what cake tastes like. Even mixing all of the ingredients in the correct proportions does not get us cake. Instead, external factors such as baking at the right temperature, for the right amount of time, and even the particularities of our evolved sense of taste and smell are all necessary components of experiencing the cake. Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin (2017) argue that the same is true for humans and other organisms.
Knowing everything about cake ingredients does not allow us to fully know cake. Equally so, knowing everything about the genes found in our DNA does not allow us to fully know humans. Different, interacting levels are implicated in the development and evolution of all organisms, including humans. Genes, the structure of chromosomes, developmental processes, epigenetic tags, environmental factors, and still-other components all play key roles such that genetically reductive models of human development and evolution are woefully inadequate.
The complex interactions across many levels—genetic, developmental, and environmental—explain why we still do not know how our one-dimensional DNA nucleotide sequence results in a four-dimensional organism. This was the unfulfilled promise of the inception of the Human Genome Project in the 1980s and 1990s: the project produced the complete DNA sequence of a human cell in the hopes that it would reveal how human bodies are built and how to cure them when they are built poorly. Yet, that information has remained elusive. Presumably, the knowledge of how organisms are produced from DNA sequences will one day permit us to reconcile the discrepancies between patterns in anatomical evolution and molecular evolution.
In this chapter, we will consider multilevel evolution and explore evolution as a complex interaction between genetic and epigenetic factors as well as the environments in which organisms live. Next, we will examine the biopolitical nature of human evolution. We will then investigate problems that arise from attributing all traits to an adaptive function. Finally, we will address common misconceptions about evolution. The goal of this chapter is to provide you with the necessary toolkit for understanding the molecular, anatomical, and political dimensions of evolution.
Evolution Happens at Multiple Levels
Following Richard Dawkins’s publication of The Selfish Gene in 1976, the scientific imagination was captured by the potential of genomics to reveal how genes are copied by Darwinian selection. Dawkins argues that the genes in individuals that contribute to greater reproductive success are the units of selection. His conception of evolution at the molecular level undercuts the complex interactions between organisms and their environments, which are not expressed genomically but are nevertheless key drivers in evolution.
By the 1980s, the acknowledgement among most biologists that even though genes construct bodies, genes and bodies evolve at different rates and with distinct patterns. This realization led to a renewed focus on how bodies change. The Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s–1970s had reduced organisms to their genotypes and species to their gene pools, which provided valuable insights about the processes of biological change, but it was only a first approximation. Animals are in fact reactive and adaptable beings, not passive and inert genotypes. Species are clusters of socially interacting and reproductively compatible organisms.

Once we accept that evolutionary change is fundamentally genetic change, we can ask: How do bodies function and evolve? How do groups of animals come to see one another as potential mates or competitors for mates, as opposed to just other creatures in the environment? Are there evolutionary processes that are not explicable by population genetics? These questions—which lead us beyond reductive assumptions—were raised in the 1980s by Stephen Jay Gould, the leading evolutionary biologist of the late 20th century (see: Gould 2003; 1996).
Gould spearheaded a movement to identify and examine higher-order processes and features of evolution that were not adequately explained by population genetics. For example, extinction, which was such a problem for biologists of the 1600s, could now be seen as playing a more complex role in the history of life than population genetics had been able to model. Gould recognized that there are two kinds of extinctions, each with different consequences: background extinctions and mass extinctions. Background extinctions are those that reflect the balance of nature, because in a competitive Darwinian world, some things go extinct and other things take their place. Ecologically, your species may be adapted to its niche, but if another species comes along that’s better adapted to the same niche, eventually your species will go extinct. It sucks, but it is the way of all life: you come into existence, you endure, and you pass out of existence. But mass extinctions are quite different. They reflect not so much the balance of nature as the wholesale disruption of nature: many species from many different lineages dying off at roughly the same time—presumably as the result of some kind of rare ecological disaster. The situation may not be survival of the fittest as much as survival of the luckiest. The result, then, would be an ecological scramble among the survivors. Having made it through the worst, the survivors could now simply divide up the new ecosystem amongst themselves, since their competitors were gone. Something like this may well have happened about 65 million years ago, when a huge asteroid hit the Yucatan Peninsula, which mammals survived but dinosaurs did not (Figure 3.1). Something like this may be happening now, due to human expansion and environmental degradation. Note, though, that there is only a limited descriptive role here for population genetics: the phenomena we are describing are about organisms and species in ecosystems.
Another question involved the disconnect between properties of species and the properties of gene pools. For example, there are upwards of 15 species of gibbons but only two species of chimpanzees. Why? There are upwards of 20 species of guenons but fewer than ten of baboons. Why? Are there genes for that? It seems unlikely. Gould suggested that species, as units of nature, might have properties that are not reducible to the genes in their cells. For example, rates of speciation and extinction might be properties of their ecologies and histories rather than their genes. Thus, relationships between environmental contexts and variability within a species result in degrees of resistance to extinction and affect the frequency and rates at which clades diversify (Lloyd & Gould 1993). Consistent biases of speciation rates might well produce patterns of macroevolutionary diversity that are difficult to explain genetically and better understood ecologically. Gould called such biases in speciation rates species selection—a higher-order process that invokes competition between species, in addition to the classic Darwinian competition between individuals.
One of Gould’s most important studies involved the very nature of species. In the classical view, a species is continually adapting to its environment until it changes so much that it is a different species than it was at the beginning of this sentence (Eldredge & Gould 1972). That implies that the species is a fundamentally unstable entity through time, continuously changing to fit in. But suppose, argued Gould along with paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a species is more stable through time and only really adapts during periods of ecological instability and change. Then we might expect to find in the fossil record long equilibrium periods—a few million years or so—in which species don’t seem to change much, punctuated by relatively brief periods in which they change a bit and then stabilize again as new species. They called this idea punctuated equilibria. The idea helps to explain certain features of the fossil record, notably the existence of small anatomical “gaps” between closely related fossil forms (Figure 3.2). Its significance lies in the fact that although it incorporates genetics, punctuated equilibria is not really a theory of genetics but one of types bodies in deep time.
Punctuated equilibria is seen across taxa, with long periods in the fossil record representing little phenotypic change. These periods of stability are disrupted by shorter periods of rapid adaptation, the process through which populations of organisms become suited to living in their environments. Phenotypic changes are often coupled with drastic climatic or ecological changes that affect the milieu in which organisms live. For example, throughout much of hominin evolutionary history, brain size was closely associated with body size and thus remained mostly stable. However, changes occurred in average hominin brain size at around 100 thousand years ago, 1 million years ago, and 1.8 million years ago. Several hypotheses have been put forth to explain these changes, including unpredictability in climate and environment (Potts 1998), social development (Barton 1996), and the evolution of language (Deacon 1998). Evidence from the fossil record, paleoclimate models, and comparative anatomy suggests that the changes observed in hominin lineage result from biocultural processes—that is, the coalescence of environmental and cultural factors that selected for larger brains (Marks 2015; Shultz, Nelson, & Dunbar 2012).

In response to the call for a theory of the evolution of form, the field of evo-devo—the intersection of evolutionary and developmental biology—arose. The central focus here is on how changes in form and shape arise. An embryo matures by the stimulation of certain cells to divide, forming growth fields. The interactions and relationships among these growth fields generate the structures of the body. The hox genes that regulate these growth fields turn out to be highly conserved across the animal kingdom. This is because they repeatedly turn on and off the most basic genes guiding the animal’s development, and thus any changes to them would be catastrophic. Indeed, these genes were first identified by manipulating them in fruit flies, such that one could produce a bizarre mutant fruit fly that grew a pair of legs where its antennae were supposed to be (Kaufman, Seeger, and Olsen 1990).
Certain genetic changes can alter the fates of cells and the body parts, while other genetic changes can simply affect the rates at which neighbouring groups of cells grow and divide, thus producing physical bumps or dents in the developing body. The result of altering the relationships among these fields of cellular proliferation in the growing embryo is allometry, or the differential growth of body parts. As an animal gets larger—either over the course of its life or over the course of macroevolution—it often has to change shape in order to live at a different size. Many important physiological functions depend on properties of geometric area: the strength of a bone, for example, is proportional to its cross-sectional area. But area is a two-dimensional quality, while growing takes place in three dimensions—as an increase in mass or volume. As an animal expands, its bones necessarily weaken, because volume expands faster than area does. Consequently a bigger animal has more stress on its bones than a smaller animal does and must evolve bones even thicker than they would be by simply scaling the animal up proportionally. In other words, if you expand a mouse to the size of an elephant, it will nevertheless still have much thinner bones than the elephant does. But those giant mouse bones will unfortunately not be adequate to the task. Thus, a giant mouse would have to change aspects of its form to maintain function at a larger size (see Figure 3.3).


Physiologically, we would like to know how the body “knows” when to turn on and off the genes that regulate growth to produce a normal animal. Evolutionarily, we would like to know how the body “learns” to alter the genetic on/off switch (or the genetic “slow down/speed up” switch) to produce an animal that looks different. Moreover, since organisms differ from one another, we would like to know how the developing body distinguishes a range of normal variation from abnormal variation. And, finally, how does abnormal variation eventually become normal in a descendant species?
Taking up these questions, Gould invoked the work of a British geneticist named Conrad H. Waddington, who thought about genetics in less reductive ways than his colleagues. Rather than isolate specific DNA sites to analyse their function, Waddington instead studied the inheritance of an organism’s reactivity—its ability to adapt to the circumstances of its life. In a famous experiment, he grew fruit fly eggs in an atmosphere containing ether. Most died, but a few survived somehow by developing a weird physical feature: a second thorax with a second pair of wings. Waddington bred these flies and soon developed a stable line of flies who would reliably develop a second thorax when grown in ether. Then he began to lower the concentration of ether, while continuing to selectively breed the flies that developed the strange appearance. Eventually he had a line of flies that would stably develop the “bithorax” phenotype–the suite of traits of an organism–even when there was no ether; it had become the “new normal.” The flies had genetically assimilated the bithorax condition.
Waddington was thus able to mimic the inheritance of acquired characteristics: what had been a trait stimulated by ether a few generations ago was now a normal part of the development of the descendants. Waddington recognized that while he had performed a selection experiment on genetic variants, he had not selected for particular traits. Rather, he helped produce the physiological tendency to develop particular traits when appropriately stimulated. He called that tendency plasticity and its converse, the tendency to stay the same even under weird environmental circumstances, canalization. Waddington had initially selected for plasticity, the tendency to develop the bithorax phenotype under weird conditions, and then, later, for canalization, the developmental normalization of that weird physical trait. Although Waddington had high stature in the community of geneticists, evolutionary biologists of the 1950s and 1960s regarded him with suspicion because he was not working within the standard mindset of reductionism, which saw evolution as the spread of genetic variants that coded for favourable traits. Both Waddington and Gould resisted contemporary intellectual paradigms that favoured reductive accounts of evolutionary processes. They conceived of evolution as an emergent process in which many external factors (e.g. climate, environment, predation) and internal factors (e.g., genotypes, plasticity, canalization) coalesce to produce the evolutionary trends that we observe in the fossil record and our genome.
While Gould and Waddington both looked beyond the genome to understand evolution, the Human Genome Project—an international project with the goal of identifying each base pair in the human genome in the 1990s—generated a great deal of public interest in analyzing the human DNA sequence from the standpoint of medical genetics. Some of the rhetoric aimed to sell the public on investing a lot of money and resources in sequencing the human genome in order to show the genetic basis of heritable traits, cure genetic diseases, and learn what it means ultimately to be biologically human. However, the Human Genome Project was not actually able to answer those questions through the use of genetics alone, and thus a broader, more holistic account was required.
This holistic account came from decades of research in human biology and anthropology, which understood the human body as highly adaptable, dynamic, and emergent. For example, in the early 20th century, anthropologist Franz Boas measured the skulls of immigrants to the U.S., revealing that environmental, not merely genetic, factors affected skull shape. The growing human body adjusts itself to the conditions of life, such as diet, sunshine, high altitude, hard labour, population density, how babies are carried—any and all of which can have subtle but consistent effects upon its development. There can thus be no normal human form, only a context-specific range of human forms.
However, what the human biologists called human adaptability, evolutionary biologists called developmental plasticity, and evidence quickly began to mount for its cause being epigenetic modifications to DNA. Epigenetic modifications are changes to how genes are used by the body (as opposed to changes in the DNA sequences; see Chapter 4). Scientific interest shifted from the focus of the Human Genome Project to the ways that bodies are made by evolutionary-developmental processes, including epigenetics. What is meant by “epigenetic modification”? Evolution is about how descendants diverge from their ancestors. Inheritance from parent to offspring is still critical to this process, which occurs through genetic recombination: the pairing of homologous chromosomes and sharing of genetic material during meiosis (see Chapter 4). However, in the 21st century, the link between evolution and inheritance has broadened with a clearer understanding of how environmental and developmental factors shape bodies and the expression of genes, including epigenetic inheritance patterns. While offspring inherit their genes through random assortment during meiosis, environmental factors also shape how genes are used. When these epigenetic modifications occur in germ cells, they can be passed onto offspring. In these cases, there is no change in the DNA sequence but rather in how genes are used by the body due to DNA methylation and the structure of chromosomes due to histone acetylation (see Chapter 4).
In addition, we now recognize that evolution is affected by two other forms of intergenerational transmission and inheritance (in addition to genetics and epigenetics). These forms include behavioural variation and culture. That is, behavioural information can be transmitted horizontally (intragenerationally), permitting more rapid ways for organisms to adjust to the environment. And, then there is the fourth mode of transmission: the cultural or symbolic mode. It is proposed that humans are the only species that horizontally transmits an arbitrary set of rules to govern communication, social interaction, and thought. This shared information is symbolic and has resulted in what we recognize as “culture”: locally emergent worlds of names, words, pictures, classifications, revered pasts, possible futures, spirits, dead ancestors, unborn descendants, in-laws, politeness, taboo, justice, beauty, and story, all accompanied by practices and a material world of tools.
Consequently our contemporary ideas about evolution see the evolutionary processes as hierarchically organized and not restricted to the differential transmission of DNA sequences into the next generation. While that is indeed a significant part of evolution, the organism and species are nevertheless crucial to understanding how those DNA sequences get transmitted. Further, the transmission of epigenetic, behavioural, and symbolic information play a complex role in perpetuating our genes, bodies, and species. In the case of human evolution, one can readily see that symbolic information and cultural adaptation are far more central to our lives and our survival today than DNA and genetic adaptation. It is thus misleading to think of humans passively occupying an environmental niche. Rather, humans are actively engaged in constructing our own niches, as well as adapting to them and using them to adapt. The complex interplay between a species and its active engagement in creating its own ecology is known as niche construction. If we understand natural selection–the process by which populations adapt to their specific environments–as the effects that environmental context has on the reproductive success of organisms, then niche construction is the process through which organisms shape their own selective pressures.
Dig Deeper: Moving Beyond Genetic Determinism
Contemporary evolutionary biology and anthropology increasingly emphasize that genes operate within dynamic regulatory networks rather than acting as isolated determinants. As Carroll (2005) and Wray (2007) demonstrate, evolutionary change often arises not from mutations in structural genes but in their regulation—the timing, intensity, and location of gene expression. Such regulatory evolution can explain major anatomical and physiological innovations without invoking large genetic divergences. This view reframes evolution as an outcome of organizational complexity where genetic, developmental, and environmental processes intersect. This systems-level understanding also resonates with anthropological frameworks of biocultural embodiment, which recognize that social and ecological experiences can become biologically inscribed in the body. Meaney’s (2001) foundational epigenetic research focuses on maternal care in rats, presenting how nurturing behaviour modifies the expression of stress-response genes. This biological effect can persist into subsequent generations.
Recent human studies continue to expand this insight. Goldman & Sterner (2023) demonstrate how environmental exposures, inequality, and psychological stress influence the pace of biological aging, showing epigenetic modifications reflect the lived conditions of bodies over time. In Canada, this relationship between environment, history, and biology has profound implications. A 2023 scoping review on Canadian Indigenous populations and the epigenetic effects of intergenerational trauma (Schafte & Bruna, 2023) documents measurable biological patterns associated with colonial violence, displacement, and systemic inequity. By dissecting the obesity patterns in the Indigenous youth populations, the researchers present a clear connection between the parents who attended residential schools and biological health issues in their children years later. This holistic understanding of epigenetics shows an “embodied transmission of trauma and ill health across generations” (2023, p.9), underscoring that the effects of colonialism are not merely social but are biologically embodied, carried forward through mechanisms of gene regulation and stress physiology.
Understanding heredity as a process of interaction and regulation rather than genetic determinism opens the door to rethinking evolution as a flexible, context-driven phenomenon. Just as social experiences and ecological conditions can shape patterns of gene expression, environmental pressures can also influence the structure and behaviour of genomes across generations. This broader view of evolutionary change highlights the importance of considering mechanisms that fall outside of traditional, gradualist models.
The Biopolitics of Heredity
“Science isn’t political” is a sentiment that you have likely heard before. Science is supposed to be about facts and objectivity. It exists, or at least ought to, outside of petty human concerns. However, the sorts of questions we ask as scientists, the problems we choose to study, the categories and concepts we use, who gets to do science, and whose work gets cited are all shaped by culture. Doing science is a political act. This fact is markedly true for human evolution. While it is easier to create intellectual distance between us and fruit flies and viruses, there is no distance when we are studying ourselves. The hardest lesson to learn about human evolution is that it is intensely political. Indeed, to see it from the opposite side, as it were, the history of creationism—the belief that the universe was divinely created around 6,000 years ago—is essentially a history of legal decisions. For instance, in Tennessee v. John T. Scopes (1925), a schoolteacher was prosecuted for violating a law in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in public schools, where teachers were required by law to teach creationism.
More recently, legal decisions aimed at legislating science education have shaped how students are exposed to evolutionary theory. For instance, McLean v. Arkansas (1982) dispatched “scientific creationism” by arguing that the imposition of balanced teaching of evolution and creationism in science classes violates the Establishment Clause, separating church and state. Additionally, Kitzmiller v. Dover (Pennsylvania) Area School District (2005) dispatched the teaching of “intelligent design” in public school classrooms as it was deemed to not be science. In some cases, people see unbiblical things in evolution, although most Christian theologians are easily able to reconcile science to the Bible. In other cases, people see immoral things in evolution, although there is morality and immorality everywhere. And some people see evolution as an aspect of alt-religion, usurping the authority of science in schools to teach the rejection of the Christian faith, which would be unconstitutional due to the protected separation of church and state.
Clearly, the position that politics has nothing to do with science is untenable. But is the politics in evolution an aberration or is it somehow embedded in science? In the early 20th century, scientists commonly promoted the view that science and politics were separate: science was seen as a pure activity, only rarely corrupted by politics. And yet as early as World War I, the politics of nationalism made a hero of the German chemist Fritz Haber for inventing poison gas. And during World War II, both German doctors and American physicists, recruited to the war effort, helped to end many civilian lives. Therefore, we can think of the apolitical scientist as a self-serving myth that functions to absolve scientists of responsibility for their politics. The history of science shows how every generation of scientists has used evolutionary theory to rationalize political and moral positions. In the very first generation of evolutionary science, Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) is today far more readable than his Descent of Man (1871). The reason is that Darwin consciously purged The Origin of Species of any discussion of people. And when he finally got around to talking about people, in The Descent of Man, he simply imbued them with the quaint Victorian prejudices of his age, and the result makes you cringe every few pages. There is plenty of politics in there—sexism, racism, and colonialism—because you cannot talk about people apolitically.
One immediate faddish deduction from Darwinism, popularized by Herbert Spencer (1864) as “survival of the fittest,” held that unfettered competition led to advancement in nature and to human history. Since the poor were purported losers in that struggle, anything that made their lives easier would go against the natural order. This position later came to be known ironically as “Social Darwinism.” Spencer was challenged by fellow Darwinian Thomas Huxley (1863), who agreed that struggle was the law of the jungle but observed that we don’t live in jungles anymore. The obligation to make lives better for others is a moral, not a natural, fact. We simultaneously inhabit a natural universe of descent from apes and a moral universe of injustice and inequality, and science is not well served by ignoring the latter.
Concurrently, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel’s 1868 popularization of Darwinism was translated into English a few years later as The History of Creation. As we saw earlier, Haeckel was determined to convince his readers that they were descended from apes, even in the absence of fossil evidence attesting to it. When he made non-Europeans into the missing links that connected his readers to the apes, and depicted them as ugly caricatures, he knew precisely what he was doing. Indeed, even when the degrading racial drawings were deleted from the English translation of his book, the text nevertheless made his arguments quite clear. And a generation later, when the Americans had not yet entered the Great War in 1916, a biologist named Vernon Kellogg visited the German High Command as a neutral observer and found that the officers knew a lot about evolutionary biology, which they had gotten from Haeckel and which rationalized their military aggressions. Kellogg went home and wrote a bestseller about it, called Headquarters Nights (1917). World War I would have been fought with or without evolutionary theory, but as a source of scientific authority, evolution—even if a perversion of the Darwinian theory—had very quickly attained global geopolitical relevance.
Oftentimes, politics in evolutionary science is subtle, due to the pervasive belief in the advancement of science. We recognize the biases of our academic ancestors and modify our scientific stories accordingly. But we can never be free of our own cultural biases, which are invisible to us, as much as our predecessors’ biases were invisible to them. In some cases, the most important cultural issues resurface in different guises each generation, like scientific racism. Scientific racism is the recruitment of science for the evil political ends of racism, and it has proved remarkably impervious to evolution. Before Darwin, there was creationist scientific racism, and after Darwin, there was evolutionist scientific racism. And there is still scientific racism today, self-justified by recourse to evolution, which means that scientists have to be politically astute and sensitive to the uses of their work to counter these social tendencies.
Consider this: Are you just your ancestry, or can you transcend it? If that sounds like a weird question, it was actually quite important to a turn-of-the-20th-century European society in which an old hereditary aristocracy was under increasing threat from a rising middle class. And that is why the very first English textbook of Mendelian genetics concluded with the thought that “permanent progress is a question of breeding rather than of pedagogics; a matter of gametes, not of training … the creature is not made but born” (Punnett 1905, 60). Translation: Not only do we now know a bit about how heredity works, but it’s also the most important thing about you. Trust me, I’m a scientist.
Yet evolution is about how descendants come to differ from ancestors. Do we really know that your heredity, your DNA, your ancestry, is the most important thing about you? That you were born, not made? After all, we do know that you could be born into slavery or as a peasant, and come from a long line of enslaved people or peasants, and yet not have slavery or peasantry be the most important thing about you. Whatever your ancestors were may unfortunately constrain what you can become, but as a moral precept, it should not. But just as science is not purely “facts and objectivity,” ancestry is not a strictly biological concept. Human ancestry is biopolitics, not biology.
Evolution is fundamentally a theory about ancestry, and yet ancestors are, in the broad anthropological sense, sacred: ancestors are often more meaningful symbolically than biologically. Just a few years after The Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), the British politician and writer Benjamin Disraeli declared himself to be on the side of the angels, not the apes, and to “repudiate with indignation and abhorrence those new-fangled theories” (Monypenny, Flavelle, and Buckle 1920, 105). He turned his back on an ape ancestry and looked to the angel; yet, he did so as a prominent Jew-turned-Anglican, who had personally transcended his humble roots and risen to the pinnacle of the Empire. Ancestry was certainly important, and Disraeli was famously proud of his, but it was also certainly not the most important thing, not the primary determinant of his place in the world. Indeed, quite the opposite: Disraeli’s life was built on the transcendence of many centuries of Jewish poverty and oppression in Europe. Humble ancestry was there to be superseded and nobility was there to be earned; Disraeli would later become the Earl of Beaconsfield. Clearly, “are you just your ancestry” is not a value-neutral question, and “the creature is not made, but born” is not a value-neutral answer.
Ancestry being the most important thing about a person became a popular idea twice in 20th century science. First, at the beginning of the century, when the eugenics movement in America called attention to “feeble-minded stocks,” which usually referred to the poor or to immigrants (see Figure 3.4). This movement culminated in Congress restricting the immigration of “feeble-minded races” (said to include Jews and Italians) in 1924, and the Supreme Court declaring it acceptable for states to sterilize their “feeble-minded” citizens involuntarily in 1927. After the Nazis picked up and embellished these ideas during World War II, Americans moved swiftly away from them in some contexts (e.g., for most people of European descent) while still strictly adhering in other contexts such as Japanese internment camps and immigration restrictions.

Ancestry again became paramount in the drumming up of public support for the Human Genome Project in the 1990s. Public support for sequencing the human genome was encouraged by a popular science campaign that featured books titled The Book of Man (Bodmer & McKie 1997), The Human Blueprint (Shapiro 1991), and The Code of Codes (Kevles & Hood 1993). These books generally promised cures for genetic diseases and a deeper understanding of the human condition. We can certainly identify progress in molecular genetics over the last couple of decades since the human genome was sequenced, but that progress has notably not been accompanied by cures for genetic diseases, nor by deeper understandings of the human condition.
Even at the most detailed and refined levels of genetic analysis, we still don’t have much of an understanding of the actual basis by which things seem to “run in families.” While the genetic basis of simple, if tragic, genetic diseases have become well-known—such as sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and Tay-Sachs’ Disease—we still haven’t found the ostensible genetic basis for traits that are thought to have a strong genetic component. For example, a recent genetic summary found over 12,000 genetic sites that contributed to height yet still explained only about 40-50 percent of the variation in height among European ancestry but no more than 10-20 percent of variation of other ancestries, which we know strongly runs in families (Yengo Et al. 2022).
Partly in reaction to the reductionistic hype of the Human Genome Project, the study of epigenetics has become the subject of great interest. One famous natural experiment involves a Nazi-imposed famine in Holland over the winter of 1944–1945. Children born during and shortly after the famine experienced a higher incidence of certain health problems as adults, many decades later. Apparently, certain genes had been down-regulated early in development and remained that way throughout the course of life. Indeed, this modified regulation of the genes in response to the severe environmental conditions may have been passed on to their children.
Obviously one’s particular genetic constitution may play an important role in one’s life trajectory. But overvaluing that role may have important social and political consequences. In the first place, genotypes are rendered meaningful in a cultural universe. Thus, if you live in a strongly patriarchal society and are born without a Y chromosome (since human males are chromosomally XY and females XX), your genotype will indeed have a strong effect upon your life course. So even though the variation is natural, the consequences are political. The mediating factors are the cultural ideas about how people of different sexes ought to be treated, and the role of the state in permitting certain people to develop and thrive. More broadly, there are implications for public education if variation in intelligence is genetic. There are implications for the legal system if criminality is genetic. There are implications for the justice system if sexual preference, or sexual identity, is genetic. There are implications for the development of sports talent if that is genetic. And yet, even for the human traits that are more straightforward to measure and known to be strongly heritable, the DNA base sequence variation seems to explain little.
Genetic determinism or hereditarianism is the idea that “the creature is made, not born”—or, in a more recent formulation by James Watson, that “our fate is in our genes.” One of the major implications drawn from genetic determinism is that the feature in question must inevitably express itself; therefore, we can’t do anything about it. Therefore, we might as well not fund the social programs designed to ameliorate economic inequality and improve people’s lives, because their courses are fated genetically. And therefore, they don’t deserve better lives.
All of the “therefores” in the preceding paragraph are open to debate. What is important is that the argument relies on a very narrow understanding of the role of genetics in human life, and it misdirects the causes of inequality from cultural to natural processes. By contrast, instead of focusing on genes and imagining them to place an invisible limit upon social progress, we can study the ways in which your DNA sequence does not limit your capability for self-improvement or fix your place in a social hierarchy. In general, two such avenues exist. First, we can examine the ways in which the human body responds and reacts to environmental variation: human adaptability and plasticity. This line of research began with the anthropometric studies of immigrants by Franz Boas in the early 20th century and has now expanded to incorporate the epigenetic inheritance of modified human DNA. And second, we can consider how human lives are shaped by social histories—especially the structural inequalities within the societies in which they grow up.
Although it arises and is refuted every generation, the radical hereditarian position (genetic determinism) perennially claims to speak for both science and evolution. It does not. It is the voice of a radical fringe—perhaps naive, perhaps evil. It is not the authentic voice of science or of evolution. Indeed, keeping Charles Darwin’s name unsullied by protecting it from association with bad science often seems like a full-time job. Culture and epigenetics are very much a part of the human condition, and their roles are significant parts of the complete story of human evolution.
Special Topic: Oversexing the Gendered Body
While rapid mitochondrial evolution underscores the biological flexibility of organisms in response to environmental pressures, evolutionary theory is also shaped by another set of forces: cultural assumptions and social norms. Nowhere is this more visible than in scientific interpretations of sex and gender. Many modern gender roles stem from assumptions about sex differences that have accumulated throughout human history. While these roles may appear to be fixed stereotypes or biologically predetermined, they can be deconstructed by examining the processes of sexual selection through queer and feminist theoretical frameworks. Applying these lenses to evolutionary concepts allows for a deeper understanding of how cultural ideologies, particularly those surrounding gender and sexuality, shape interpretations of biological processes.
Darwin first introduced the concept of sexual selection in The Descent of Man (1871) to explain how males and females may have developed different traits that would be detrimental to the species’ overall survival (Vicedo, 2025). Unlike natural selection which is “selection by death,” sexual selection represents death by selection (Gayon, 2010). Darwin argued that males typically compete intrasexually for female attention, and that females exercise choice based on attractiveness or vigor, proving their fitness. However, when reframed through feminist theory, the amount of agency Darwin ascribed to females doesn’t reflect the societal assumptions surrounding gender roles in his era. Charlotte Perkins Gilman in her publication Women and Economics, argued that by the 1960s, men increasingly relied on social dominance over women rather than competition with other men (Vicedo, 2025). This dynamic required women to continually enhance their sexual appeal in exchange for economic security, a system she coined the “sexuo-economic relationship” (2025, p.5). This framework reveals the societal power imbalance between men and women, and how women are the ones sexualizing themselves and competing for partners, not men. Such processes would lead to the modern oversexualization of women.
Oversexualization, a cultural ideology that prioritizes sexual appeal over autonomy and well-being, further complicates interpretations of sexual selection. Brassard and company (2018) define oversexualization through four components: valuing people solely for their sexual appeal, societal norms of equating attractiveness with sexiness, sexual objectification, and the inappropriate imposition of sexuality (Brassard Et al., 2018, p.16-17). When oversexualization is observed within a population, it may signal that the pressures of sexual selection have intensified relative to that of natural selection, creating “excessive sex difference" (Vicedo, 2025). While many aspects of Gilman's arguments do not directly apply to contemporary gender dynamics, stereotypes rooted in historical gender expectations continue to shape women's experiences in the workforce and broader society (2025). Understanding sexual selection as a culturally mediated process, rather than as a simple competition amongst males, offers a more nuanced picture of how gender ideologies influence biological narratives. This intersection of culture and biology is crucial for studying gender roles, queer relationships, and sexual diversity across societies and time periods.
Adaptationism and the Panglossian Paradigm
The story of human evolution, and the evolution of all life for that matter, is never settled because evolution is ongoing. Additionally, because the conditions that shape evolutionary trajectories are not predetermined, evolution itself is emergent. Even during periods of ecological stability, when fewer macroevolutionary changes occur, populations of organisms continue to experience change. When ecological stability is disrupted, populations must adapt to the changes. Darwin explained in naturalistic terms how animals adapt to their environments: traits that contribute to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments will become more common. The most “fit”—those organisms best suite

d to the current environmental conditions in which they live—have survived over eons of the history of life on earth to cocreate ecosystems full of animals and plants. Our own bodies are full of evident adaptations: eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, feet for walking on, and so forth.
But what about hands? Feet are adapted to be primarily weight-bearing structures (rather than grasping structures, as in the apes) and that is what we primarily use them for. But we use our hands in many ways: for fine-scale manipulation, greeting, pointing, stimulating a sexual partner, writing, throwing, and cooking, among other uses. So which of these uses express what hands are “for,” when all of them express what hands do?
Gould and Lewontin (1979) illustrate the problem with assuming that the function of a trait defines its evolutionary cause. Consid
er the case of Dr. Pangloss—the protagonistic of Voltaire’s Candide—who believed that we lived in the best of all possible worlds. Gould and Lewontin use his pronouncement that “noses were made for spectacles and so we have spectacles” to demonstrate the problem with assuming any trait has evolved for a specific purpose. Identifying a function of a trait does not necessitate that the function is the ultimate cause of the trait. Individual traits are not under selection pressures in isolation; in fact, an entire organism must be able to survive and reproduce in their environment. When natural selection results in adaptations, changes that occur in some traits can have cascading effects throughout the phenotype and features that are not under selection pressure can also change.
Dig Deeper: Rapid Mitochondrial Evolution in Stingless Bees
A striking example of this interactional evolutionary change comes from recent research on stingless bees. When observing the mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) in two Australian stringless bees in the genus Tetragonula—T. carbonaria and T. hockingsi—they exhibit a rare duplication of the entire mitogenome and show rapid divergence from other members of their species (Françoso et al., 2023). This accelerated evolution is hypothesized to result from factors such as low effective population, founder effects, and genome duplication triggered by environmental stressors. This phenomenon echoes the earlier work by Conrad H. Waddington (1956) mentioned in this chapter, whose experiments exposing fruit fly embryos to ether induced the development of additional wings and thoraces, changes that later became heritable under stable conditions (Shook et al., 2023b). Both cases highlight how organisms can respond to intense environmental pressures through dramatic developmental and genetic shifts.
The mitochondria genetics influence the energy synthesis of the cells and in most animals, the mitogenome remains relatively stable (Shook et al., 2023a); however, Tetragonula species appear to possess an unusual capacity for rapid sequence rearrangement and complete genome duplication, suggesting that their mitogenomes play an important adaptive role. Comparing these genomes with other species such as Lepidotrigona—which shows rearrangements but no duplication— provides a unique opportunity to examine how different lineages respond to similar ecological pressures. Françoso et al. (2023) found that Tetragonula mitogenomes form amphimeric circular structures in which two complete genomes are joined head-to-tail, an extremely rare configuration. These arrangements, including inversions and translocations of gene blocks such as ND6, CytB, ND1, and several rRNA and tRNA genes, are far less common in other bee genera. This pattern supports the idea proposed by Gould & Eldredge (1977) that species are fundamentally unstable entities subject to bursts of rapid change in response to environmental pressures, rather than progressing along a single linear pathway. It is important to note that not all species within the genus exhibit the same degree or type of genomic flexibility. While T. carbonaria and T. hockingsi show full mitogenome duplications, the aforementioned Lepidotrigona species show only partial rearrangements despite facing similar environmental conditions. This variation challenges deterministic assumptions that evolution necessarily moves species toward optimal forms. Instead, it illustrates that evolution often involves trial-and-error shifts shaped by constraint, chance, and ecological stress.
Although further research is needed to determine precisely what triggers such rapid genomic events, the evidence demonstrates that mitochondria play an active role in shaping evolutionary pathways. These findings complicate traditional gradualist models and highlight the importance of examining molecular responses to environmental pressures.
There is an important lesson in recognizing that what things do in the present is not a good guide to understanding why they came to exist. Gunpowder was invented for entertainment—only later was it adopted for killing people. The Internet was invented to decentralize computers in case of a nuclear attack—and only later adopted for social media. Apes have short thumbs and use their hands in locomotion; our ancestors stopped using their hands in locomotion by about six million years ago and had fairly modern-looking hands by about two million years ago. We can speculate that a combination of selection for abstract thought and dexterity led to evolution of the human hand, with its capability for toolmaking that exceeds what apes can do (see Figure 3.5). But let’s face it—how many tools have you made today?
Consequently, we are obliged to see the human foot as having a purpose to which it is adapted and the human hand as having multiple purposes, most of which are different from what it originally evolved for. Paleontologists Gould and Elisabeth Vrba suggested that an original use be regarded as an adaptation and any additional uses be called “exaptations.” Thus, we would consider the human hand to be an adaptation for toolmaking and an exaptation for writing. So how do we know whether any particular feature is an adaptation, like the walking foot, rather than an exaptation, like the writing hand? Or more broadly, how can we reason rigorously from what a feature does to what it evolved for?
The answer to the question “what did this feature evolve for?” creates an origin myth. This origin myth contains three assumptions: (1) features can be isolated as evolutionary units; (2) there is a specific reason for the existence of any particular feature; and (3) there is a clear and simplistic explanation for why the feature evolved.

The first assumption was appreciated a century ago as the “unit-character problem.” Are the units by which the body grows and evolves the same as units we name? This is clearly not the case: we have genes and we have noses, and we have genes that affect noses, but we don’t have “nose genes.” What is the relationship between the evolving elements that we see, identify, and name, and the elements that biologically exist and evolve? It is hard to know, but we can use the history of science as a guide to see how that fallacy has been used by earlier generations. Back in the 19th century, the early anatomists argued that since the brain contained the mind, they could map different mental states (acquisitiveness, punctuality, sensitivity) onto parts of the brain. Someone who was very introspective, say, would have an enlarged introspection part of the brain, a cranial bulge to represent the hyperactivity of this mental state. The anatomical science was known as phrenology, and it was predicated on the false assumption that units of thought or personality or behaviour could be mapped to distinct parts of the brain and physically observed (see Figure 3.6). This is the fallacy of reification, imagining that something named is something real.

The second assumption, that everything has a reason, has long been recognized as a core belief of religion. Our desire to impose order and simplicity on the workings of the universe, however, does not constrain it to obey simple and orderly causes. Magic, witchcraft, spirits, and divine agency are all powerful explanations for why things happen. Consequently, it is probably not a good idea to lump natural selection in with those. Sometimes things do happen for a reason, of course, but other times things happen as byproducts of other things, or for very complicated and entangled reasons, or for no reason at all. What phenomena have reasons and thereby merit explanation? Chimpanzees have very large testicles, and we think we know why: their promiscuous sexual behaviour triggers intense competition for high sperm count. But chimpanzees also have very large ears, but much less scientific attention has been paid to this trait (see Figure 3.7). Why not? Why should there be a reason for chimp testicles but not for chimp ears? What determines the kinds of features that we try to explain, as opposed to the ones that we do not? Again, the assumption that any specific feature has a reason is metaphysical; that is to say, it may be true in any particular case, but to assume it in all cases is gratuitous.
And third, the possibility of knowing what the reason for any particular feature is, assuming that it has one, is a challenge for evolutionary epistemology (the theory of how we know things). Consider the big adaptations of our lineage: bipedalism and language. Nobody doubts that they are good, and they evolved by natural selection, and we know how they work. But why did they evolve? If talking and walking are simply better than not talking and not walking, then why did they evolve in just a single branch of the ape lineage in the primate family tree? We don’t know what bipedalism evolved for, although there are plenty of speculations: walking long distances, running long distances, cooling the head, seeing over tall grass, carrying babies, carrying food, wading, threatening, counting calories, sexual display, and so on. Neither do we know what language evolved for, although there are speculations: coordinating hunting, gossiping, manipulating others. But it is also possible that bipedality is simply the way that a small arboreal ape travels on the ground, if it isn’t in the treetops. Or that language is simply the way that a primate with small canine teeth and certain mental propensities comes to communicate. If that were true, then there might be no reason for bipedality or language: having the unique suite of preconditions and a fortuitous set of circumstances simply set them in motion, and natural selection elaborated and explored their potentials. It is possible that walking and talking simply solved problems that no other lineage had ever solved; but even if so, the fact remains that the rest of the species in the history of life have done pretty well without having solved them.
It is certainly very optimistic to think that all three assumptions (that organisms can be meaningfully atomized, that everything has a reason, and that we can know the reason) would be simultaneously in effect. Indeed, just as there are many ways of adapting (genetically, epigenetically, behaviourally, culturally), there are also many ways of being nonadaptive, which would imply that there is no reason at all for the feature in question.
First, there is the element of randomness of population histories. There are more cases of sickle-cell anemia among sub-Saharan Africans than other peoples, and there is a reason for it: carriers of sickle-cell anemia have a resistance to malaria, which is more frequent in parts of Africa (as discussed in Chapters 4 and 14). But there are more cases of a blood disease called variegated porphyria, a rare genetic metabolic disorder, in the Afrikaners of South Africa (descendants of mostly Dutch settlers in the 17th century) than in other peoples, and there is no reason for it. Yet we know the cause: One of the founding Dutch colonial settlers had the allele–a variant of a gene–and everyone in South Africa with it today is her descendant. But that is not a reason—that is simply an accident of history.
Second, there is the potential mismatch between the past and the present. The value of a particular feature in the past may be changed as the environmental circumstances change. Our species is diurnal, and our ancestors were diurnal. But beginning around a few hundred thousand years ago, our ancestors could build fires, which extended the light period, which was subsequently further amplified by lamps and candles. And over the course of the 20th century, electrical power has made it possible for people to stay up very late when it is dark—working, partying, worrying—to a greater extent than any other closely related species. In other words, we evolved to be diurnal, yet we are now far more nocturnal than any of our recent ancestors or close relatives. Are we adapting to nocturnality? If so, why? Does it even make any sense to speak of the human occupation of a nocturnal ape niche, despite the fact that we empirically seem to be doing just that? And if so, does it make sense to ask what the reason for it is?
Third, there is a genetic phenomenon known as a selective sweep, or the hitchhiker effect. Imagine three genes—A, B, and C—located very closely together on a chromosome. They each have several variants, or alleles, in the population. Now, for whatever reason, it becomes beneficial to have one of the B alleles, say B4; this B4 allele is now under strong positive selection. Obviously, we will expect future generations to be characterized by mostly B4. But what was B4 attached to? Because whatever A and C alleles were adjacent to it will also be quickly spread, simply by virtue of the selection for B4. Even if the A and C alleles are not very good, they will spread because of the good B4 allele between them. Eventually the linkage groups will break up because of genetic crossing-over in future generations. But in the meantime, some random version of genes A and C are proliferating in the species simply because they are joined to superior allele B4. And clearly, the A and C alleles are there because of selection—but not because of selection for them!
Fourth, some features are simply consequences of other properties rather than adaptations to external conditions. We already noted the phenomenon of allometric growth, in which some physical features have to outgrow others to maintain function at an increased size. Can we ask the reason for the massive brow ridges of Homo erectus, or are brow ridges simply what you get when you have a conjunction of thick skull bones, a large face, and a sloping forehead—and, thus, again would have a cause but no reason?
Fifth, some features may be underutilized and on the way out. What is the reason for our two outer toes? They aren’t propulsive, they don’t do anything, and sometimes they’re just in the way. Obviously they are there because we are descended from ancestors with five digits on their hands and feet. Is it possible that a million years from now, we will just have our three largest toes, just as the ancestors of the horse lost their digits in favour of a single hoof per limb? Or will our outer toes find another use, such as stabilizing the landings in our personal jet-packs? For the time being, we can just recognize vestigiality as another nonadaptive explanation for the presence of a given feature.
Finally, Darwin himself recognized that many obvious features do not help an animal survive. Some things may instead help an animal breed. The peacock’s tail feathers do not help it eat, but they do help it mate. There is competition, but only against half of the species. Darwin called this sexual selection. Its result is not a fit to the environment but, rather, a fit to the opposite sex. In some species, that is literally the case, as the male and female genitalia have specific ways of anatomically fitting together. The specific form is less important than the specific match, so inquiring about the reason for a particular form of the reproductive anatomy may be misleading. The specific form may be effectively random, as long as it fits the opposite sex and is different from the anatomies of other species. Nor is sexual selection the only form of selection that can affect the body differently from natural selection. Competition might also take place between biological units other than organisms—perhaps genes, perhaps cells, or populations, or species. The spread of cultural things, such as head-binding or cheap refined fructose or forced labour, can have significant effects upon bodies, which are also not adaptations produced by natural selection. They are often adaptive physiological responses to stresses but not the products of natural selection.
With so many paths available by which a physical feature might have organically arisen without having been the object of natural selection, it is unwise to assume that any individual trait is an adaptation. And that generalization applies to the best-known, best-studied, and most materially based evolutionary adaptations of our lineage. But our cultural behaviours are also highly adaptive, so what about our most familiar social behaviours? Patriarchy, hierarchy, warfare—are these adaptations? Do they have reasons? Are they good for something?
This is where some sloppy thinking has been troublesome. What would it mean to say that patriarchy evolved by natural selection in the human species? If, on the one hand, it means that the human mind evolved by natural selection to be able to create and survive in many different kinds of social and political regimes, of which patriarchy is one, then biological anthropologists will readily agree. If, on the other hand, it means that patriarchy evolved by natural selection, that implies that patriarchy is genetically determined (since natural selection is a genetic process) and out-reproduced the alleles for other, more egalitarian, social forms. This in turn would imply that patriarchy is an adaptation and therefore of some beneficial value in the past and has become an ingrained part of human nature today. This would be bad news, say, if you harboured ambitions of dismantling it. Dismantling patriarchy in that case would be to go against nature, a futile gesture. In other words, this latter interpretation would be a naturalistic manifesto for a conservative political platform: don’t try to dismantle the patriarchy, because it is within us, the product of evolution—suck it up and live with it.
Here, evolution is being used as a political instrument for transforming the human genome into an imaginary glass ceiling against equality. There is thus a convergence between the pseudo-biology of crude adaptationism (the idea that everything is the product of natural selection) and the pseudo-biology of hereditarianism. Naturalizing inequality is not the business of evolutionary theory, and it represents a difficult moral position for a scientist to adopt, as well as a poor scientific position.
Evolution of the Anthropocene

Under the previously explored Adaptationism and Panglossian Paradigm, it is explained that human evolution is constantly occurring even throughout periods of ecological stability. While this acknowledges evolution as an ongoing process of change, it fails to explore the implications of such on the alteration of other species and ecosystems.
The emergence of the Anthropocene, driven by human activity, though not recognized as an official epoch, is seen as a transformative event comparable to other major historical shifts such as the Ordovician Biodiversification (UNESCO, 2024). Given its scale, it is crucial to inform scholars about the impact of our social and cultural evolution on the rest of the world. Richard Robbins’ Global Problems and Culture of Capitalism explains how the modern culture of consumption has been extremely successful at accommodating populations of people far larger than previously possible. Robbins claims that the globalization attributed to capitalism has allowed the world to make full use of its environmental resources, providing necessities and innovative technologies to humans all over the world (Robbins & Dowty, 2019). In other words, capitalism is an anthropocentric cultural system that highly benefits humans and facilitates our survival with little regard to the development and survival of other forms of life. It would be highly relevant to introduce the idea that our cultural evolution and capacity to modify the environment to meet our needs have established new environmental conditions in which the human species' survival and reproduction rate expand at the detriment of ecosystems and endangerment of other primates and non-human species.
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species, there are currently over 169,000 species listed, with more than 47,000 species at risk of extinction — including 41% of amphibians, 26% of mammals, 26% of freshwater fishes, 12% of birds, and many others (IUCN, 2025). Human lifestyles are causing changes that—if not taken into consideration—could lead to our extinction as a species. The recognition that our evolutionary behavioural development is causing environmental destruction may be the first step for our species to take accountability for the damage that it is causing to others and prevent further damage.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
From an anthropological perspective, the study of genetics and genomics reveals that human evolution is no longer a purely biological process but a deeply cultural one. The Modern Synthesis brings together both Mendelian genetics and population-level evolutionary theory, demonstrating how discrete genes interact across populations through mutation, migration, selection, and drift. Contemporary research in genomics and epigenetics further expands this view, describing how genes are not fixed determinants, but dynamic, responsive systems shaped by environmental, social, and technological forces. This contemporary framework allows anthropology to see human evolution as a continuing dialogue between biology and culture, in which social life and technology now act as powerful forces.
Technological innovation, particularly in the digital age, represents one of these new forces. The human brain is adapting to a world saturated with digital stimuli, shifting to favor pattern recognition and multitasking over deep memorization or spatial awareness. Beyond cognition, the constants of technology's presence in our daily lives—screen exposure, disrupted sleep, and mediated social interaction—can influence neural development and stress-response pathways, blurring the boundaries between biological and cultural adaptation and suggesting that technology itself has become a profound developmental influence.
It is important to note that climate change exerts another global selective pressure, reshaping ecosystems and human responses to them. Physiological adaptation may involve tolerance to heat and fluctuating food sources, while genetic selection could favour metabolic and immune traits suited to new environments. There will also be large changes from a cultural perspective, where migration, innovation, and social restructuring may have large impacts on human evolution.
Genomic engineering further complicates this picture. Techniques such as CRISPR now allow for the precise alteration of DNA, offering immense potential for eliminating hereditary diseases and improving long-term health outcomes. One example is the targeted suppression of the PCSK9 gene to lower LDL cholesterol levels, which can significantly reduce the risk of heart disease in genetically predisposed individuals (Feldscher, 2022). While such interventions hold great promise for preventive medicine, they also raise evolutionary concerns. By artificially narrowing the range of genetic variation, these technologies may weaken the population’s long-term adaptability. Alleles that appear harmful in one context may confer unexpected advantages under different environmental conditions, and their removal could limit evolutionary flexibility. Moreover, as lifespans lengthen and mortality rates decline, population density and resource strain are likely to increase, shifting selective pressures away from disease resistance and toward ecological sustainability and social equilibrium.
While these aspects are important to take into consideration, it remains uncertain how much such current interventions will truly influence long-term human evolution. Many of their effects may occur only at the individual or generational level. Epigenetic modifications, for instance, often fade during gametogenesis, meaning that changes in gene expression caused by lifestyle, stress, or diet may not be inherited. Likewise, the elimination of certain “poor” genes through technology may occur only in isolated lineages rather than across populations, limiting their evolutionary impact. Nevertheless, anthropology reminds us that even if these changes do not drastically redirect human evolution, they redefine how humans understand and engage with it. The cultural meanings attached to genetic “correction,” optimization, and identity echo older anxieties about purity and control. Moreover, the commercialization of genetic data transforms ancestry and kinship into molecular commodities. Whether or not technology reshapes our genes in the long term, it is already reshaping our concept of what it means to be human—a transformation as cultural and philosophical as it is biological.
Discussion questions
- In what ways has technology shaped humans both culturally and biologically? Can you think of examples from your own lives or society?
- Should humans actively intervene in their own evolution through genetic modification? What potential benefits, risks, and social consequences might this create?
- How might climate change influence human evolution, both biologically and culturally? What forms of adaptation might become increasingly important as environments change?
Summary
Now that you have finished reading this chapter, you are equipped to understand the historical and political dimensions of evolution. Evolution is an ongoing process of change and diversification. Evolutionary theory is a tool that we use to understand this process. The development of evolutionary theory is shaped both by scientific innovation and political engagement. Since Darwin first articulated natural selection as an observable mechanism by which species adapt to their environments, our understanding of evolution has grown. Initially, scientists focused on the adaptive aspects of evolution. However, with the emergence of genetics, our understanding of heredity and the level at which evolution acts has changed. Genetics led to a focus on the molecular dimensions of evolution. For some, this focus resulted in reductive accounts of evolution. Further developments in our understanding of evolution shifted our view to epigenetic processes and how organisms shape their own evolutionary pressures (e.g., niche construction).
Evolutionary theory will continue to develop in the future as we invent new technologies, describe new dimensions of biology, and experience cultural changes. Current innovations in evolutionary theory are asking us to consider evolutionary forces beyond natural selection and genetics to include the ways organisms shape their environments (niche construction), inheritances beyond genetics (inclusive inheritance), constraints on evolutionary change (developmental bias), and the ability of bodies to change in response to external factors (plasticity). The future of evolutionary theory looks bright as we continue to explore these and other dimensions. Biological anthropology is well-positioned to be a lively part of this conversation, as it extends standard evolutionary theory by considering the role of culture, social learning, and human intentionality in shaping the evolutionary trajectories of humans (Zeder 2018). Remember, at root, human evolutionary theory consists of two propositions: (1) the human species is descended from other similar species and (2) natural selection has been the primary agent of biological adaptation. Pretty much everything else is subject to some degree of contestation.
Review Questions
- How is the study of your ancestors biopolitical, not just biological? Does that make it less scientific or differently scientific?
- What was gained by reducing organisms to genotypes and species to gene pools? What is gained by reintroducing bodies and species into evolutionary studies?
- How do genetic or molecular studies complement anatomical studies of evolution?
- How are you reducible to your ancestry? If you could meet your ancestors from the year 1700 (and you would have well over a thousand of them!), would their lives be meaningfully similar to yours? Would you even be able to communicate with them?
- The molecular biologist François Jacob argued that evolution is more like a tinkerer than an engineer. In what ways do we seem like precisely engineered machinery, and in what ways do we seem like jerry-rigged or improvised contraptions?
- How might biological anthropology contribute to future developments in evolutionary theory?
Key Terms
Adaptation: A fit between the organism and environment.
Adaptationism: The idea that everything is the product of natural selection.
Allele: A genetic variant.
Allometry: The differential growth of body parts.
Canalization: The tendency of a growing organism to be buffered toward normal development.
Epigenetics: The study of how genetically identical cells and organisms (with the same DNA base sequence) can nevertheless differ in stably inherited ways.
Eugenics: An idea that was popular in the 1920s that society should be improved by breeding “better” kinds of people.
Evo-devo: The study of the origin of form; a contraction of “evolutionary developmental biology.”
Exaptation: An additional beneficial use for a biological feature.
Extinction: The loss of a species from the face of the earth.
Gene: A stretch of DNA with an identifiable function (sometimes broadened to include any DNA with recognizable structural features as well).
Gene pool: Hypothetical summation of the entire genetic composition of population or species.
Genotype: Genetic constitution of an individual organism.
Hereditarianism: The idea that genes or ancestry is the most crucial or salient element in a human life. Generally associated with an argument for natural inequality on pseudo-genetic grounds.
Hox genes: A group of related genes that control for the body plan of an embryo along the head-tail axis.
Inheritance of acquired characteristics: The idea that you pass on the features that developed during your lifetime, not just your genes; also known as Lamarckian inheritance.
Natural selection: A consistent bias in survival and fertility, leading to the overrepresentation of certain features in future generations and an improved fit between an average member of the population and the environment.
Niche construction: The active engagement by which species transform their surroundings in favourable ways, rather than just passively inhabiting them.
Phenotype: Observable manifestation of a genetic constitution, expressed in a particular set of circumstances. The suite of traits of an organism.
Phrenology: The 19th-century anatomical study of bumps on the head as an indication of personality and mental abilities.
Plasticity: The tendency of a growing organism to react developmentally to its particular conditions of life.
Punctuated equilibria: The idea that species are stable through time and are formed very rapidly relative to their duration. (The opposite theory, that species are unstable and constantly changing through time, is called phyletic gradualism.)
Scientific racism: The use of pseudoscientific evidence to support or legitimize racial hierarchy and inequality.
Sexual selection: Natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics in individuals of the other sex.
Species selection: A postulated evolutionary process in which selection acts on an entire species population, rather than individuals.
For Further Exploration
Ackermann, Rebecca Rogers, Alex Mackay, and Michael L. Arnold. 2016. “The Hybrid Origin of ‘Modern’ Humans.” Evolutionary Biology 43 (1): 1–11.
Bateson, Patrick, and Peter Gluckman. 2011. Plasticity, Robustness, Development and Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cosans, Christopher E. 2009. Owen's Ape and Darwin's Bulldog: Beyond Darwinism and Creationism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Desmond, Adrian, and James Moore. 2009. Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Francisco J. Ayala, G. Ledyard Stebbins, and James W. Valentine. 1977. Evolution. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Fuentes, Agustín. 2017. The Creative Spark: How Imagination Made Humans Exceptional. New York: Dutton.
Haraway, Donna J. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.
Huxley, Thomas. 1863. Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. London: Williams & Norgate.
Jablonka, Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kuklick, Henrika, ed. 2008. A New History of Anthropology. New York: Blackwell.
Laland, Kevin N., Tobias Uller, Marcus W. Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Muller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. 2015. “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Its Structure, Assumptions and Predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B 282 (1813): 20151019.
Lamarck, Jean Baptiste. 1809. Philosophie Zoologique. Paris: Dentu.
Landau, Misia. 1991. Narratives of Human Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lee, Sang-Hee. 2017. Close Encounters with Humankind: A Paleoanthropologist Investigates Our Evolving Species. New York: W. W. Norton.
Livingstone, David N. 2008. Adam's Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Marks, Jonathan. 2015. Tales of the Ex-Apes: How We Think about Human Evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pigliucci, Massimo. 2009. “The Year in Evolutionary Biology 2009: An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1168: 218–228.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its Significance for Man. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sommer, Marianne. 2016. History Within: The Science, Culture, and Politics of Bones, Organisms, and Molecules. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stoczkowski, Wiktor. 2002. Explaining Human Origins: Myth, Imagination and Conjecture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tattersall, Ian, and Rob DeSalle. 2019. The Accidental Homo sapiens: Genetics, Behavior, and Free Will. New York: Pegasus.
References
Barton, Robert A. 1996. "Neocortex Size and Behavioural Ecology in Primates." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 263 (1367): 173–177.
Bodmer, Walter, and Robin McKie. 1997. The Book of Man: The Hman Genome Project and the Quest to Discover our Genetic Heritage. Oxford University Press.
Brassard, A., Perron-Laplante, J., Lachapelle, É., Pierrepont, C. de, & Péloquin, K. (2018). Oversexualization among emerging adults: Preliminary associations with romantic attachment and intimacy. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 27(3), 235–247. Project Muse.
Carroll, S. B. (2005). Evolution at Two Levels: On Genes and Form. PLoS Biology, 3(7). Public Library of Science. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030245
Chudek, M., Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2015). Cultural evolution. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych230
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: J. Murray.
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: J. Murray.
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Deacon, T. W. 1998. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. W. W. Norton & Company.
Eldredge, N., and S. J. Gould. 1972. "Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism." In Models in Paleobiology, edited by T. J. Schopf, 82–115. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Feldscher, K. (2022). Using gene editing to fight deadly genetic diseases. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/using-gene-editing-to-fight-deadly-genetic-diseases/
Françoso, E., Zuntini, A. R., Ricardo, P. C., Santos, P. K. F., de Souza Araujo, N., Silva, J. P. N., Gonçalves, L. T., Brito, R., Gloag, R., Taylor, B. A., Harpur, B. A., Oldroyd, B. P., Brown, M. J. F., & Arias, M. C. (2023). Rapid evolution, rearrangements and whole mitogenome duplication in the Australian stingless bees Tetragonula (Hymenoptera: Apidae): A steppingstone towards understanding mitochondrial function and evolution. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 242. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124568
Gayon, J. (2010). Sexual selection: Another Darwinian process. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 333(2), 134–144. MEDLINE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2009.12.001
Goldman, E. A., & Sterner, K. N. (2023). Environment, Epigenetics, and the Pace of Human Aging. Annual Review of Anthropology, 52, 279–294. Annual Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-090516
Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3(2), 115–151. JSTOR Biological Sciences Collection.
Gould, Stephen J. 2003. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gould, Stephen J. 1996. Mismeasure of Man. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Richard C. Lewontin. 1979. "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 205 (1151): 581–598.
Haeckel, Ernst. 1868. Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte. Berlin: Reimer.
Huxley, Thomas Henry. 1863. Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature. London: Williams and Norgate.
IUCN. 2025. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 30 July 2025.
Kaufman, Thomas C., Mark A. Seeger, and Gary Olsen. 1990. "Molecular and Genetic Organization of the Antennapedia Gene Complex of Drosophila melanogaster." Advances in Genetics 27: 309–362.
Kellogg, Vernon. 1917. Headquarters Nights. Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press.
Kevles, Daniel J., and Leroy Hood. 1993. The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewontin, Richard, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin. 2017. Not in Our Genes : Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature, 2nd ed. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Lloyd, Elisabeth A., and Stephen J. Gould. 1993. "Species Selection on Variability." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90 (2): 595–599.
Marks, Jonathan. 2015. “The Biological Myth of Human Evolution.” In Biologising the Social Sciences: Challenging Darwinian and Neuroscience Explanations, edited by David Canter and David A. Turner, 59–78. London: Routledge.
Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 1161–1192. MEDLINE.
Monypenny, William Flavelle, and George Earle Buckle. 1929. The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, Volume II: 1860–1881. London: John Murray.
Potts, Rick. 1998. “Variability Selection in Hominid Evolution.” Evolutionary Anthropology 7: 81–96.
Punnett, R. C. 1905. Mendelism. Cambridge: Macmillan and Bowes.
Robbins, R., & Dowty, R. (2019). Robbins Richard, Global problems and culture of capitalism (7th ed.). Pearson.
Shapiro, Robert. 1991. The Human Blueprint: The Race to Unlock the Secrets of Our Genetic Script. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Schafte, K., & Bruna, S. (2023). The influence of intergenerational trauma on epigenetics and obesity in Indigenous populations—A scoping review. Epigenetics, 18(1), 2260218. MEDLINE. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592294.2023.2260218
Shultz, Susanne, Emma Nelson, and Robin Dunbar. 2012. "Hominin Cognitive Evolution: Identifying Patterns and Processes in the Fossil and Archaeological Record." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367 (1599): 2130–2140.
Shook, B., Nelson, K., Braff, L., & Aguilera, K. (2023a). Molecular Biology and Genetics. https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/3/
Shook, B., Nelson, K., Braff, L., & Aguilera, K. (2023b). Social and Biopolitical Dimensions of Evolutionary Thinking. https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/social-and-bi opolitical-dimensions-of-evolutionary-thinking/
Spencer, Herbert. 1864. Principles of Biology. London: Williams and Norgate.
UNESCO. (2024). The Anthropocene. International Union of Geological Sciences. https://www.iugs.org/_files/ugd/f1fc07_40d1a7ed58de458c9f8f24de5e739663.pdf?index=true
Vicedo, M. (2025). Charlotte Perkins Gilman: A Pragmatist Framework for Constructing a New Humanhood. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 61(4), e70041. MEDLINE. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.70041
Watson, James D. 1990. "The Human Genome Project: Past, Present, and Future." Science 248 (4951): 44–49.
Wray, G. A. (2007). The evolutionary significance of cis-regulatory mutations. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 8(3), 206–216. MEDLINE.
Waddington CH. Genetic assimilation of the bithorax phenotype. Evolution. 1956;10:1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1956.tb02824.x.
Yengo, L., Vedantam, S., Marouli, E., Sidorenko, J., Bartell, E., Sakaue, S., Graff, M., Eliasen, A.U., Jiang, Y., Raghavan, S. and Miao, J., 2022. A saturated map of common genetic variants associated with human height. Nature, 610 (7933): 704-712.
Zeder, Melinda A. 2018. "Why Evolutionary Biology Needs Anthropology: Evaluating Core Assumptions of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis." Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 27 (6): 267–284.
Student contributors for this chapter from Salinda Hess' ANTH 203: Daphnée-Tiffany Kirouac Millan, Davina Paradis, Jung Jin Kim, and Nathan Dennis
Learn more about authors and editors, Hess' student contributions, and versioning history.
Learning Objectives
- Explain the relationship among genes, bodies, and organismal change.
- Discuss the shortcomings of simplistic understandings of genetics.
- Describe what is meant by the "biopolitics of heredity."
- Discuss issues caused by misuse of ideas about adaptations and natural selection.
- Examine and correct myths about evolution.
The Human Genome Project, an international initiative launched in 1990, sought to identify the entire genetic makeup of our species. For many scientists, it meant trying to understand the genetic underpinnings of what made humans uniquely human. James Watson, a codiscoverer of the helical shape of DNA, wrote that “when finally interpreted, the genetic messages encoded within our DNA molecules will provide the ultimate answers to the chemical underpinnings of human existence” (Watson 1990, 248). The underlying message is that what makes humans unique can be found in our genes. The Human Genome Project hoped to find the core of who we are and where we come from.
Despite its lofty goal, the Human Genome Project—even after publishing the entire human genome in January 2022—could not fully account for the many factors that contribute to what it is to be human. Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin (2017) argue that genetic determinism of the sort assumed by the Human Genome Project neglects other essential dimensions that contribute to the development and evolution of human bodies, not to mention the role that culture plays. They use an apt metaphor of a cake to illustrate the incompleteness of reductive models. Consider the flavour of a cake and think of the ingredients listed in the recipe. The recipe includes ingredients such as flour, sugar, shortening, vanilla extract, eggs, and milk. Does raw flour taste like cake? Does sugar, vanilla extract, or any of the other ingredients taste like cake? They do not, and knowing the individual flavours of each ingredient does not tell us much about what cake tastes like. Even mixing all of the ingredients in the correct proportions does not get us cake. Instead, external factors such as baking at the right temperature, for the right amount of time, and even the particularities of our evolved sense of taste and smell are all necessary components of experiencing the cake. Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin (2017) argue that the same is true for humans and other organisms.
Knowing everything about cake ingredients does not allow us to fully know cake. Equally so, knowing everything about the genes found in our DNA does not allow us to fully know humans. Different, interacting levels are implicated in the development and evolution of all organisms, including humans. Genes, the structure of chromosomes, developmental processes, epigenetic tags, environmental factors, and still-other components all play key roles such that genetically reductive models of human development and evolution are woefully inadequate.
The complex interactions across many levels—genetic, developmental, and environmental—explain why we still do not know how our one-dimensional DNA nucleotide sequence results in a four-dimensional organism. This was the unfulfilled promise of the inception of the Human Genome Project in the 1980s and 1990s: the project produced the complete DNA sequence of a human cell in the hopes that it would reveal how human bodies are built and how to cure them when they are built poorly. Yet, that information has remained elusive. Presumably, the knowledge of how organisms are produced from DNA sequences will one day permit us to reconcile the discrepancies between patterns in anatomical evolution and molecular evolution.
In this chapter, we will consider multilevel evolution and explore evolution as a complex interaction between genetic and epigenetic factors as well as the environments in which organisms live. Next, we will examine the biopolitical nature of human evolution. We will then investigate problems that arise from attributing all traits to an adaptive function. Finally, we will address common misconceptions about evolution. The goal of this chapter is to provide you with the necessary toolkit for understanding the molecular, anatomical, and political dimensions of evolution.
Evolution Happens at Multiple Levels
Following Richard Dawkins’s publication of The Selfish Gene in 1976, the scientific imagination was captured by the potential of genomics to reveal how genes are copied by Darwinian selection. Dawkins argues that the genes in individuals that contribute to greater reproductive success are the units of selection. His conception of evolution at the molecular level undercuts the complex interactions between organisms and their environments, which are not expressed genomically but are nevertheless key drivers in evolution.
By the 1980s, the acknowledgement among most biologists that even though genes construct bodies, genes and bodies evolve at different rates and with distinct patterns. This realization led to a renewed focus on how bodies change. The Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s–1970s had reduced organisms to their genotypes and species to their gene pools, which provided valuable insights about the processes of biological change, but it was only a first approximation. Animals are in fact reactive and adaptable beings, not passive and inert genotypes. Species are clusters of socially interacting and reproductively compatible organisms.

Once we accept that evolutionary change is fundamentally genetic change, we can ask: How do bodies function and evolve? How do groups of animals come to see one another as potential mates or competitors for mates, as opposed to just other creatures in the environment? Are there evolutionary processes that are not explicable by population genetics? These questions—which lead us beyond reductive assumptions—were raised in the 1980s by Stephen Jay Gould, the leading evolutionary biologist of the late 20th century (see: Gould 2003; 1996).
Gould spearheaded a movement to identify and examine higher-order processes and features of evolution that were not adequately explained by population genetics. For example, extinction, which was such a problem for biologists of the 1600s, could now be seen as playing a more complex role in the history of life than population genetics had been able to model. Gould recognized that there are two kinds of extinctions, each with different consequences: background extinctions and mass extinctions. Background extinctions are those that reflect the balance of nature, because in a competitive Darwinian world, some things go extinct and other things take their place. Ecologically, your species may be adapted to its niche, but if another species comes along that’s better adapted to the same niche, eventually your species will go extinct. It sucks, but it is the way of all life: you come into existence, you endure, and you pass out of existence. But mass extinctions are quite different. They reflect not so much the balance of nature as the wholesale disruption of nature: many species from many different lineages dying off at roughly the same time—presumably as the result of some kind of rare ecological disaster. The situation may not be survival of the fittest as much as survival of the luckiest. The result, then, would be an ecological scramble among the survivors. Having made it through the worst, the survivors could now simply divide up the new ecosystem amongst themselves, since their competitors were gone. Something like this may well have happened about 65 million years ago, when a huge asteroid hit the Yucatan Peninsula, which mammals survived but dinosaurs did not (Figure 3.1). Something like this may be happening now, due to human expansion and environmental degradation. Note, though, that there is only a limited descriptive role here for population genetics: the phenomena we are describing are about organisms and species in ecosystems.
Another question involved the disconnect between properties of species and the properties of gene pools. For example, there are upwards of 15 species of gibbons but only two species of chimpanzees. Why? There are upwards of 20 species of guenons but fewer than ten of baboons. Why? Are there genes for that? It seems unlikely. Gould suggested that species, as units of nature, might have properties that are not reducible to the genes in their cells. For example, rates of speciation and extinction might be properties of their ecologies and histories rather than their genes. Thus, relationships between environmental contexts and variability within a species result in degrees of resistance to extinction and affect the frequency and rates at which clades diversify (Lloyd & Gould 1993). Consistent biases of speciation rates might well produce patterns of macroevolutionary diversity that are difficult to explain genetically and better understood ecologically. Gould called such biases in speciation rates species selection—a higher-order process that invokes competition between species, in addition to the classic Darwinian competition between individuals.
One of Gould’s most important studies involved the very nature of species. In the classical view, a species is continually adapting to its environment until it changes so much that it is a different species than it was at the beginning of this sentence (Eldredge & Gould 1972). That implies that the species is a fundamentally unstable entity through time, continuously changing to fit in. But suppose, argued Gould along with paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a species is more stable through time and only really adapts during periods of ecological instability and change. Then we might expect to find in the fossil record long equilibrium periods—a few million years or so—in which species don’t seem to change much, punctuated by relatively brief periods in which they change a bit and then stabilize again as new species. They called this idea punctuated equilibria. The idea helps to explain certain features of the fossil record, notably the existence of small anatomical “gaps” between closely related fossil forms (Figure 3.2). Its significance lies in the fact that although it incorporates genetics, punctuated equilibria is not really a theory of genetics but one of types bodies in deep time.
Punctuated equilibria is seen across taxa, with long periods in the fossil record representing little phenotypic change. These periods of stability are disrupted by shorter periods of rapid adaptation, the process through which populations of organisms become suited to living in their environments. Phenotypic changes are often coupled with drastic climatic or ecological changes that affect the milieu in which organisms live. For example, throughout much of hominin evolutionary history, brain size was closely associated with body size and thus remained mostly stable. However, changes occurred in average hominin brain size at around 100 thousand years ago, 1 million years ago, and 1.8 million years ago. Several hypotheses have been put forth to explain these changes, including unpredictability in climate and environment (Potts 1998), social development (Barton 1996), and the evolution of language (Deacon 1998). Evidence from the fossil record, paleoclimate models, and comparative anatomy suggests that the changes observed in hominin lineage result from biocultural processes—that is, the coalescence of environmental and cultural factors that selected for larger brains (Marks 2015; Shultz, Nelson, & Dunbar 2012).

In response to the call for a theory of the evolution of form, the field of evo-devo—the intersection of evolutionary and developmental biology—arose. The central focus here is on how changes in form and shape arise. An embryo matures by the stimulation of certain cells to divide, forming growth fields. The interactions and relationships among these growth fields generate the structures of the body. The hox genes that regulate these growth fields turn out to be highly conserved across the animal kingdom. This is because they repeatedly turn on and off the most basic genes guiding the animal’s development, and thus any changes to them would be catastrophic. Indeed, these genes were first identified by manipulating them in fruit flies, such that one could produce a bizarre mutant fruit fly that grew a pair of legs where its antennae were supposed to be (Kaufman, Seeger, and Olsen 1990).
Certain genetic changes can alter the fates of cells and the body parts, while other genetic changes can simply affect the rates at which neighbouring groups of cells grow and divide, thus producing physical bumps or dents in the developing body. The result of altering the relationships among these fields of cellular proliferation in the growing embryo is allometry, or the differential growth of body parts. As an animal gets larger—either over the course of its life or over the course of macroevolution—it often has to change shape in order to live at a different size. Many important physiological functions depend on properties of geometric area: the strength of a bone, for example, is proportional to its cross-sectional area. But area is a two-dimensional quality, while growing takes place in three dimensions—as an increase in mass or volume. As an animal expands, its bones necessarily weaken, because volume expands faster than area does. Consequently a bigger animal has more stress on its bones than a smaller animal does and must evolve bones even thicker than they would be by simply scaling the animal up proportionally. In other words, if you expand a mouse to the size of an elephant, it will nevertheless still have much thinner bones than the elephant does. But those giant mouse bones will unfortunately not be adequate to the task. Thus, a giant mouse would have to change aspects of its form to maintain function at a larger size (see Figure 3.3).


Physiologically, we would like to know how the body “knows” when to turn on and off the genes that regulate growth to produce a normal animal. Evolutionarily, we would like to know how the body “learns” to alter the genetic on/off switch (or the genetic “slow down/speed up” switch) to produce an animal that looks different. Moreover, since organisms differ from one another, we would like to know how the developing body distinguishes a range of normal variation from abnormal variation. And, finally, how does abnormal variation eventually become normal in a descendant species?
Taking up these questions, Gould invoked the work of a British geneticist named Conrad H. Waddington, who thought about genetics in less reductive ways than his colleagues. Rather than isolate specific DNA sites to analyse their function, Waddington instead studied the inheritance of an organism’s reactivity—its ability to adapt to the circumstances of its life. In a famous experiment, he grew fruit fly eggs in an atmosphere containing ether. Most died, but a few survived somehow by developing a weird physical feature: a second thorax with a second pair of wings. Waddington bred these flies and soon developed a stable line of flies who would reliably develop a second thorax when grown in ether. Then he began to lower the concentration of ether, while continuing to selectively breed the flies that developed the strange appearance. Eventually he had a line of flies that would stably develop the “bithorax” phenotype–the suite of traits of an organism–even when there was no ether; it had become the “new normal.” The flies had genetically assimilated the bithorax condition.
Waddington was thus able to mimic the inheritance of acquired characteristics: what had been a trait stimulated by ether a few generations ago was now a normal part of the development of the descendants. Waddington recognized that while he had performed a selection experiment on genetic variants, he had not selected for particular traits. Rather, he helped produce the physiological tendency to develop particular traits when appropriately stimulated. He called that tendency plasticity and its converse, the tendency to stay the same even under weird environmental circumstances, canalization. Waddington had initially selected for plasticity, the tendency to develop the bithorax phenotype under weird conditions, and then, later, for canalization, the developmental normalization of that weird physical trait. Although Waddington had high stature in the community of geneticists, evolutionary biologists of the 1950s and 1960s regarded him with suspicion because he was not working within the standard mindset of reductionism, which saw evolution as the spread of genetic variants that coded for favourable traits. Both Waddington and Gould resisted contemporary intellectual paradigms that favoured reductive accounts of evolutionary processes. They conceived of evolution as an emergent process in which many external factors (e.g. climate, environment, predation) and internal factors (e.g., genotypes, plasticity, canalization) coalesce to produce the evolutionary trends that we observe in the fossil record and our genome.
While Gould and Waddington both looked beyond the genome to understand evolution, the Human Genome Project—an international project with the goal of identifying each base pair in the human genome in the 1990s—generated a great deal of public interest in analyzing the human DNA sequence from the standpoint of medical genetics. Some of the rhetoric aimed to sell the public on investing a lot of money and resources in sequencing the human genome in order to show the genetic basis of heritable traits, cure genetic diseases, and learn what it means ultimately to be biologically human. However, the Human Genome Project was not actually able to answer those questions through the use of genetics alone, and thus a broader, more holistic account was required.
This holistic account came from decades of research in human biology and anthropology, which understood the human body as highly adaptable, dynamic, and emergent. For example, in the early 20th century, anthropologist Franz Boas measured the skulls of immigrants to the U.S., revealing that environmental, not merely genetic, factors affected skull shape. The growing human body adjusts itself to the conditions of life, such as diet, sunshine, high altitude, hard labour, population density, how babies are carried—any and all of which can have subtle but consistent effects upon its development. There can thus be no normal human form, only a context-specific range of human forms.
However, what the human biologists called human adaptability, evolutionary biologists called developmental plasticity, and evidence quickly began to mount for its cause being epigenetic modifications to DNA. Epigenetic modifications are changes to how genes are used by the body (as opposed to changes in the DNA sequences; see Chapter 4). Scientific interest shifted from the focus of the Human Genome Project to the ways that bodies are made by evolutionary-developmental processes, including epigenetics. What is meant by “epigenetic modification”? Evolution is about how descendants diverge from their ancestors. Inheritance from parent to offspring is still critical to this process, which occurs through genetic recombination: the pairing of homologous chromosomes and sharing of genetic material during meiosis (see Chapter 4). However, in the 21st century, the link between evolution and inheritance has broadened with a clearer understanding of how environmental and developmental factors shape bodies and the expression of genes, including epigenetic inheritance patterns. While offspring inherit their genes through random assortment during meiosis, environmental factors also shape how genes are used. When these epigenetic modifications occur in germ cells, they can be passed onto offspring. In these cases, there is no change in the DNA sequence but rather in how genes are used by the body due to DNA methylation and the structure of chromosomes due to histone acetylation (see Chapter 4).
In addition, we now recognize that evolution is affected by two other forms of intergenerational transmission and inheritance (in addition to genetics and epigenetics). These forms include behavioural variation and culture. That is, behavioural information can be transmitted horizontally (intragenerationally), permitting more rapid ways for organisms to adjust to the environment. And, then there is the fourth mode of transmission: the cultural or symbolic mode. It is proposed that humans are the only species that horizontally transmits an arbitrary set of rules to govern communication, social interaction, and thought. This shared information is symbolic and has resulted in what we recognize as “culture”: locally emergent worlds of names, words, pictures, classifications, revered pasts, possible futures, spirits, dead ancestors, unborn descendants, in-laws, politeness, taboo, justice, beauty, and story, all accompanied by practices and a material world of tools.
Consequently our contemporary ideas about evolution see the evolutionary processes as hierarchically organized and not restricted to the differential transmission of DNA sequences into the next generation. While that is indeed a significant part of evolution, the organism and species are nevertheless crucial to understanding how those DNA sequences get transmitted. Further, the transmission of epigenetic, behavioural, and symbolic information play a complex role in perpetuating our genes, bodies, and species. In the case of human evolution, one can readily see that symbolic information and cultural adaptation are far more central to our lives and our survival today than DNA and genetic adaptation. It is thus misleading to think of humans passively occupying an environmental niche. Rather, humans are actively engaged in constructing our own niches, as well as adapting to them and using them to adapt. The complex interplay between a species and its active engagement in creating its own ecology is known as niche construction. If we understand natural selection–the process by which populations adapt to their specific environments–as the effects that environmental context has on the reproductive success of organisms, then niche construction is the process through which organisms shape their own selective pressures.
Dig Deeper: Moving Beyond Genetic Determinism
Contemporary evolutionary biology and anthropology increasingly emphasize that genes operate within dynamic regulatory networks rather than acting as isolated determinants. As Carroll (2005) and Wray (2007) demonstrate, evolutionary change often arises not from mutations in structural genes but in their regulation—the timing, intensity, and location of gene expression. Such regulatory evolution can explain major anatomical and physiological innovations without invoking large genetic divergences. This view reframes evolution as an outcome of organizational complexity where genetic, developmental, and environmental processes intersect. This systems-level understanding also resonates with anthropological frameworks of biocultural embodiment, which recognize that social and ecological experiences can become biologically inscribed in the body. Meaney’s (2001) foundational epigenetic research focuses on maternal care in rats, presenting how nurturing behaviour modifies the expression of stress-response genes. This biological effect can persist into subsequent generations.
Recent human studies continue to expand this insight. Goldman & Sterner (2023) demonstrate how environmental exposures, inequality, and psychological stress influence the pace of biological aging, showing epigenetic modifications reflect the lived conditions of bodies over time. In Canada, this relationship between environment, history, and biology has profound implications. A 2023 scoping review on Canadian Indigenous populations and the epigenetic effects of intergenerational trauma (Schafte & Bruna, 2023) documents measurable biological patterns associated with colonial violence, displacement, and systemic inequity. By dissecting the obesity patterns in the Indigenous youth populations, the researchers present a clear connection between the parents who attended residential schools and biological health issues in their children years later. This holistic understanding of epigenetics shows an “embodied transmission of trauma and ill health across generations” (2023, p.9), underscoring that the effects of colonialism are not merely social but are biologically embodied, carried forward through mechanisms of gene regulation and stress physiology.
Understanding heredity as a process of interaction and regulation rather than genetic determinism opens the door to rethinking evolution as a flexible, context-driven phenomenon. Just as social experiences and ecological conditions can shape patterns of gene expression, environmental pressures can also influence the structure and behaviour of genomes across generations. This broader view of evolutionary change highlights the importance of considering mechanisms that fall outside of traditional, gradualist models.
The Biopolitics of Heredity
“Science isn’t political” is a sentiment that you have likely heard before. Science is supposed to be about facts and objectivity. It exists, or at least ought to, outside of petty human concerns. However, the sorts of questions we ask as scientists, the problems we choose to study, the categories and concepts we use, who gets to do science, and whose work gets cited are all shaped by culture. Doing science is a political act. This fact is markedly true for human evolution. While it is easier to create intellectual distance between us and fruit flies and viruses, there is no distance when we are studying ourselves. The hardest lesson to learn about human evolution is that it is intensely political. Indeed, to see it from the opposite side, as it were, the history of creationism—the belief that the universe was divinely created around 6,000 years ago—is essentially a history of legal decisions. For instance, in Tennessee v. John T. Scopes (1925), a schoolteacher was prosecuted for violating a law in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in public schools, where teachers were required by law to teach creationism.
More recently, legal decisions aimed at legislating science education have shaped how students are exposed to evolutionary theory. For instance, McLean v. Arkansas (1982) dispatched “scientific creationism” by arguing that the imposition of balanced teaching of evolution and creationism in science classes violates the Establishment Clause, separating church and state. Additionally, Kitzmiller v. Dover (Pennsylvania) Area School District (2005) dispatched the teaching of “intelligent design” in public school classrooms as it was deemed to not be science. In some cases, people see unbiblical things in evolution, although most Christian theologians are easily able to reconcile science to the Bible. In other cases, people see immoral things in evolution, although there is morality and immorality everywhere. And some people see evolution as an aspect of alt-religion, usurping the authority of science in schools to teach the rejection of the Christian faith, which would be unconstitutional due to the protected separation of church and state.
Clearly, the position that politics has nothing to do with science is untenable. But is the politics in evolution an aberration or is it somehow embedded in science? In the early 20th century, scientists commonly promoted the view that science and politics were separate: science was seen as a pure activity, only rarely corrupted by politics. And yet as early as World War I, the politics of nationalism made a hero of the German chemist Fritz Haber for inventing poison gas. And during World War II, both German doctors and American physicists, recruited to the war effort, helped to end many civilian lives. Therefore, we can think of the apolitical scientist as a self-serving myth that functions to absolve scientists of responsibility for their politics. The history of science shows how every generation of scientists has used evolutionary theory to rationalize political and moral positions. In the very first generation of evolutionary science, Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) is today far more readable than his Descent of Man (1871). The reason is that Darwin consciously purged The Origin of Species of any discussion of people. And when he finally got around to talking about people, in The Descent of Man, he simply imbued them with the quaint Victorian prejudices of his age, and the result makes you cringe every few pages. There is plenty of politics in there—sexism, racism, and colonialism—because you cannot talk about people apolitically.
One immediate faddish deduction from Darwinism, popularized by Herbert Spencer (1864) as “survival of the fittest,” held that unfettered competition led to advancement in nature and to human history. Since the poor were purported losers in that struggle, anything that made their lives easier would go against the natural order. This position later came to be known ironically as “Social Darwinism.” Spencer was challenged by fellow Darwinian Thomas Huxley (1863), who agreed that struggle was the law of the jungle but observed that we don’t live in jungles anymore. The obligation to make lives better for others is a moral, not a natural, fact. We simultaneously inhabit a natural universe of descent from apes and a moral universe of injustice and inequality, and science is not well served by ignoring the latter.
Concurrently, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel’s 1868 popularization of Darwinism was translated into English a few years later as The History of Creation. As we saw earlier, Haeckel was determined to convince his readers that they were descended from apes, even in the absence of fossil evidence attesting to it. When he made non-Europeans into the missing links that connected his readers to the apes, and depicted them as ugly caricatures, he knew precisely what he was doing. Indeed, even when the degrading racial drawings were deleted from the English translation of his book, the text nevertheless made his arguments quite clear. And a generation later, when the Americans had not yet entered the Great War in 1916, a biologist named Vernon Kellogg visited the German High Command as a neutral observer and found that the officers knew a lot about evolutionary biology, which they had gotten from Haeckel and which rationalized their military aggressions. Kellogg went home and wrote a bestseller about it, called Headquarters Nights (1917). World War I would have been fought with or without evolutionary theory, but as a source of scientific authority, evolution—even if a perversion of the Darwinian theory—had very quickly attained global geopolitical relevance.
Oftentimes, politics in evolutionary science is subtle, due to the pervasive belief in the advancement of science. We recognize the biases of our academic ancestors and modify our scientific stories accordingly. But we can never be free of our own cultural biases, which are invisible to us, as much as our predecessors’ biases were invisible to them. In some cases, the most important cultural issues resurface in different guises each generation, like scientific racism. Scientific racism is the recruitment of science for the evil political ends of racism, and it has proved remarkably impervious to evolution. Before Darwin, there was creationist scientific racism, and after Darwin, there was evolutionist scientific racism. And there is still scientific racism today, self-justified by recourse to evolution, which means that scientists have to be politically astute and sensitive to the uses of their work to counter these social tendencies.
Consider this: Are you just your ancestry, or can you transcend it? If that sounds like a weird question, it was actually quite important to a turn-of-the-20th-century European society in which an old hereditary aristocracy was under increasing threat from a rising middle class. And that is why the very first English textbook of Mendelian genetics concluded with the thought that “permanent progress is a question of breeding rather than of pedagogics; a matter of gametes, not of training … the creature is not made but born” (Punnett 1905, 60). Translation: Not only do we now know a bit about how heredity works, but it’s also the most important thing about you. Trust me, I’m a scientist.
Yet evolution is about how descendants come to differ from ancestors. Do we really know that your heredity, your DNA, your ancestry, is the most important thing about you? That you were born, not made? After all, we do know that you could be born into slavery or as a peasant, and come from a long line of enslaved people or peasants, and yet not have slavery or peasantry be the most important thing about you. Whatever your ancestors were may unfortunately constrain what you can become, but as a moral precept, it should not. But just as science is not purely “facts and objectivity,” ancestry is not a strictly biological concept. Human ancestry is biopolitics, not biology.
Evolution is fundamentally a theory about ancestry, and yet ancestors are, in the broad anthropological sense, sacred: ancestors are often more meaningful symbolically than biologically. Just a few years after The Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), the British politician and writer Benjamin Disraeli declared himself to be on the side of the angels, not the apes, and to “repudiate with indignation and abhorrence those new-fangled theories” (Monypenny, Flavelle, and Buckle 1920, 105). He turned his back on an ape ancestry and looked to the angel; yet, he did so as a prominent Jew-turned-Anglican, who had personally transcended his humble roots and risen to the pinnacle of the Empire. Ancestry was certainly important, and Disraeli was famously proud of his, but it was also certainly not the most important thing, not the primary determinant of his place in the world. Indeed, quite the opposite: Disraeli’s life was built on the transcendence of many centuries of Jewish poverty and oppression in Europe. Humble ancestry was there to be superseded and nobility was there to be earned; Disraeli would later become the Earl of Beaconsfield. Clearly, “are you just your ancestry” is not a value-neutral question, and “the creature is not made, but born” is not a value-neutral answer.
Ancestry being the most important thing about a person became a popular idea twice in 20th century science. First, at the beginning of the century, when the eugenics movement in America called attention to “feeble-minded stocks,” which usually referred to the poor or to immigrants (see Figure 3.4). This movement culminated in Congress restricting the immigration of “feeble-minded races” (said to include Jews and Italians) in 1924, and the Supreme Court declaring it acceptable for states to sterilize their “feeble-minded” citizens involuntarily in 1927. After the Nazis picked up and embellished these ideas during World War II, Americans moved swiftly away from them in some contexts (e.g., for most people of European descent) while still strictly adhering in other contexts such as Japanese internment camps and immigration restrictions.

Ancestry again became paramount in the drumming up of public support for the Human Genome Project in the 1990s. Public support for sequencing the human genome was encouraged by a popular science campaign that featured books titled The Book of Man (Bodmer & McKie 1997), The Human Blueprint (Shapiro 1991), and The Code of Codes (Kevles & Hood 1993). These books generally promised cures for genetic diseases and a deeper understanding of the human condition. We can certainly identify progress in molecular genetics over the last couple of decades since the human genome was sequenced, but that progress has notably not been accompanied by cures for genetic diseases, nor by deeper understandings of the human condition.
Even at the most detailed and refined levels of genetic analysis, we still don’t have much of an understanding of the actual basis by which things seem to “run in families.” While the genetic basis of simple, if tragic, genetic diseases have become well-known—such as sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and Tay-Sachs’ Disease—we still haven’t found the ostensible genetic basis for traits that are thought to have a strong genetic component. For example, a recent genetic summary found over 12,000 genetic sites that contributed to height yet still explained only about 40-50 percent of the variation in height among European ancestry but no more than 10-20 percent of variation of other ancestries, which we know strongly runs in families (Yengo Et al. 2022).
Partly in reaction to the reductionistic hype of the Human Genome Project, the study of epigenetics has become the subject of great interest. One famous natural experiment involves a Nazi-imposed famine in Holland over the winter of 1944–1945. Children born during and shortly after the famine experienced a higher incidence of certain health problems as adults, many decades later. Apparently, certain genes had been down-regulated early in development and remained that way throughout the course of life. Indeed, this modified regulation of the genes in response to the severe environmental conditions may have been passed on to their children.
Obviously one’s particular genetic constitution may play an important role in one’s life trajectory. But overvaluing that role may have important social and political consequences. In the first place, genotypes are rendered meaningful in a cultural universe. Thus, if you live in a strongly patriarchal society and are born without a Y chromosome (since human males are chromosomally XY and females XX), your genotype will indeed have a strong effect upon your life course. So even though the variation is natural, the consequences are political. The mediating factors are the cultural ideas about how people of different sexes ought to be treated, and the role of the state in permitting certain people to develop and thrive. More broadly, there are implications for public education if variation in intelligence is genetic. There are implications for the legal system if criminality is genetic. There are implications for the justice system if sexual preference, or sexual identity, is genetic. There are implications for the development of sports talent if that is genetic. And yet, even for the human traits that are more straightforward to measure and known to be strongly heritable, the DNA base sequence variation seems to explain little.
Genetic determinism or hereditarianism is the idea that “the creature is made, not born”—or, in a more recent formulation by James Watson, that “our fate is in our genes.” One of the major implications drawn from genetic determinism is that the feature in question must inevitably express itself; therefore, we can’t do anything about it. Therefore, we might as well not fund the social programs designed to ameliorate economic inequality and improve people’s lives, because their courses are fated genetically. And therefore, they don’t deserve better lives.
All of the “therefores” in the preceding paragraph are open to debate. What is important is that the argument relies on a very narrow understanding of the role of genetics in human life, and it misdirects the causes of inequality from cultural to natural processes. By contrast, instead of focusing on genes and imagining them to place an invisible limit upon social progress, we can study the ways in which your DNA sequence does not limit your capability for self-improvement or fix your place in a social hierarchy. In general, two such avenues exist. First, we can examine the ways in which the human body responds and reacts to environmental variation: human adaptability and plasticity. This line of research began with the anthropometric studies of immigrants by Franz Boas in the early 20th century and has now expanded to incorporate the epigenetic inheritance of modified human DNA. And second, we can consider how human lives are shaped by social histories—especially the structural inequalities within the societies in which they grow up.
Although it arises and is refuted every generation, the radical hereditarian position (genetic determinism) perennially claims to speak for both science and evolution. It does not. It is the voice of a radical fringe—perhaps naive, perhaps evil. It is not the authentic voice of science or of evolution. Indeed, keeping Charles Darwin’s name unsullied by protecting it from association with bad science often seems like a full-time job. Culture and epigenetics are very much a part of the human condition, and their roles are significant parts of the complete story of human evolution.
Special Topic: Oversexing the Gendered Body
While rapid mitochondrial evolution underscores the biological flexibility of organisms in response to environmental pressures, evolutionary theory is also shaped by another set of forces: cultural assumptions and social norms. Nowhere is this more visible than in scientific interpretations of sex and gender. Many modern gender roles stem from assumptions about sex differences that have accumulated throughout human history. While these roles may appear to be fixed stereotypes or biologically predetermined, they can be deconstructed by examining the processes of sexual selection through queer and feminist theoretical frameworks. Applying these lenses to evolutionary concepts allows for a deeper understanding of how cultural ideologies, particularly those surrounding gender and sexuality, shape interpretations of biological processes.
Darwin first introduced the concept of sexual selection in The Descent of Man (1871) to explain how males and females may have developed different traits that would be detrimental to the species’ overall survival (Vicedo, 2025). Unlike natural selection which is “selection by death,” sexual selection represents death by selection (Gayon, 2010). Darwin argued that males typically compete intrasexually for female attention, and that females exercise choice based on attractiveness or vigor, proving their fitness. However, when reframed through feminist theory, the amount of agency Darwin ascribed to females doesn’t reflect the societal assumptions surrounding gender roles in his era. Charlotte Perkins Gilman in her publication Women and Economics, argued that by the 1960s, men increasingly relied on social dominance over women rather than competition with other men (Vicedo, 2025). This dynamic required women to continually enhance their sexual appeal in exchange for economic security, a system she coined the “sexuo-economic relationship” (2025, p.5). This framework reveals the societal power imbalance between men and women, and how women are the ones sexualizing themselves and competing for partners, not men. Such processes would lead to the modern oversexualization of women.
Oversexualization, a cultural ideology that prioritizes sexual appeal over autonomy and well-being, further complicates interpretations of sexual selection. Brassard and company (2018) define oversexualization through four components: valuing people solely for their sexual appeal, societal norms of equating attractiveness with sexiness, sexual objectification, and the inappropriate imposition of sexuality (Brassard Et al., 2018, p.16-17). When oversexualization is observed within a population, it may signal that the pressures of sexual selection have intensified relative to that of natural selection, creating “excessive sex difference" (Vicedo, 2025). While many aspects of Gilman's arguments do not directly apply to contemporary gender dynamics, stereotypes rooted in historical gender expectations continue to shape women's experiences in the workforce and broader society (2025). Understanding sexual selection as a culturally mediated process, rather than as a simple competition amongst males, offers a more nuanced picture of how gender ideologies influence biological narratives. This intersection of culture and biology is crucial for studying gender roles, queer relationships, and sexual diversity across societies and time periods.
Adaptationism and the Panglossian Paradigm
The story of human evolution, and the evolution of all life for that matter, is never settled because evolution is ongoing. Additionally, because the conditions that shape evolutionary trajectories are not predetermined, evolution itself is emergent. Even during periods of ecological stability, when fewer macroevolutionary changes occur, populations of organisms continue to experience change. When ecological stability is disrupted, populations must adapt to the changes. Darwin explained in naturalistic terms how animals adapt to their environments: traits that contribute to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments will become more common. The most “fit”—those organisms best suite

d to the current environmental conditions in which they live—have survived over eons of the history of life on earth to cocreate ecosystems full of animals and plants. Our own bodies are full of evident adaptations: eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, feet for walking on, and so forth.
But what about hands? Feet are adapted to be primarily weight-bearing structures (rather than grasping structures, as in the apes) and that is what we primarily use them for. But we use our hands in many ways: for fine-scale manipulation, greeting, pointing, stimulating a sexual partner, writing, throwing, and cooking, among other uses. So which of these uses express what hands are “for,” when all of them express what hands do?
Gould and Lewontin (1979) illustrate the problem with assuming that the function of a trait defines its evolutionary cause. Consid
er the case of Dr. Pangloss—the protagonistic of Voltaire’s Candide—who believed that we lived in the best of all possible worlds. Gould and Lewontin use his pronouncement that “noses were made for spectacles and so we have spectacles” to demonstrate the problem with assuming any trait has evolved for a specific purpose. Identifying a function of a trait does not necessitate that the function is the ultimate cause of the trait. Individual traits are not under selection pressures in isolation; in fact, an entire organism must be able to survive and reproduce in their environment. When natural selection results in adaptations, changes that occur in some traits can have cascading effects throughout the phenotype and features that are not under selection pressure can also change.
Dig Deeper: Rapid Mitochondrial Evolution in Stingless Bees
A striking example of this interactional evolutionary change comes from recent research on stingless bees. When observing the mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) in two Australian stringless bees in the genus Tetragonula—T. carbonaria and T. hockingsi—they exhibit a rare duplication of the entire mitogenome and show rapid divergence from other members of their species (Françoso et al., 2023). This accelerated evolution is hypothesized to result from factors such as low effective population, founder effects, and genome duplication triggered by environmental stressors. This phenomenon echoes the earlier work by Conrad H. Waddington (1956) mentioned in this chapter, whose experiments exposing fruit fly embryos to ether induced the development of additional wings and thoraces, changes that later became heritable under stable conditions (Shook et al., 2023b). Both cases highlight how organisms can respond to intense environmental pressures through dramatic developmental and genetic shifts.
The mitochondria genetics influence the energy synthesis of the cells and in most animals, the mitogenome remains relatively stable (Shook et al., 2023a); however, Tetragonula species appear to possess an unusual capacity for rapid sequence rearrangement and complete genome duplication, suggesting that their mitogenomes play an important adaptive role. Comparing these genomes with other species such as Lepidotrigona—which shows rearrangements but no duplication— provides a unique opportunity to examine how different lineages respond to similar ecological pressures. Françoso et al. (2023) found that Tetragonula mitogenomes form amphimeric circular structures in which two complete genomes are joined head-to-tail, an extremely rare configuration. These arrangements, including inversions and translocations of gene blocks such as ND6, CytB, ND1, and several rRNA and tRNA genes, are far less common in other bee genera. This pattern supports the idea proposed by Gould & Eldredge (1977) that species are fundamentally unstable entities subject to bursts of rapid change in response to environmental pressures, rather than progressing along a single linear pathway. It is important to note that not all species within the genus exhibit the same degree or type of genomic flexibility. While T. carbonaria and T. hockingsi show full mitogenome duplications, the aforementioned Lepidotrigona species show only partial rearrangements despite facing similar environmental conditions. This variation challenges deterministic assumptions that evolution necessarily moves species toward optimal forms. Instead, it illustrates that evolution often involves trial-and-error shifts shaped by constraint, chance, and ecological stress.
Although further research is needed to determine precisely what triggers such rapid genomic events, the evidence demonstrates that mitochondria play an active role in shaping evolutionary pathways. These findings complicate traditional gradualist models and highlight the importance of examining molecular responses to environmental pressures.
There is an important lesson in recognizing that what things do in the present is not a good guide to understanding why they came to exist. Gunpowder was invented for entertainment—only later was it adopted for killing people. The Internet was invented to decentralize computers in case of a nuclear attack—and only later adopted for social media. Apes have short thumbs and use their hands in locomotion; our ancestors stopped using their hands in locomotion by about six million years ago and had fairly modern-looking hands by about two million years ago. We can speculate that a combination of selection for abstract thought and dexterity led to evolution of the human hand, with its capability for toolmaking that exceeds what apes can do (see Figure 3.5). But let’s face it—how many tools have you made today?
Consequently, we are obliged to see the human foot as having a purpose to which it is adapted and the human hand as having multiple purposes, most of which are different from what it originally evolved for. Paleontologists Gould and Elisabeth Vrba suggested that an original use be regarded as an adaptation and any additional uses be called “exaptations.” Thus, we would consider the human hand to be an adaptation for toolmaking and an exaptation for writing. So how do we know whether any particular feature is an adaptation, like the walking foot, rather than an exaptation, like the writing hand? Or more broadly, how can we reason rigorously from what a feature does to what it evolved for?
The answer to the question “what did this feature evolve for?” creates an origin myth. This origin myth contains three assumptions: (1) features can be isolated as evolutionary units; (2) there is a specific reason for the existence of any particular feature; and (3) there is a clear and simplistic explanation for why the feature evolved.

The first assumption was appreciated a century ago as the “unit-character problem.” Are the units by which the body grows and evolves the same as units we name? This is clearly not the case: we have genes and we have noses, and we have genes that affect noses, but we don’t have “nose genes.” What is the relationship between the evolving elements that we see, identify, and name, and the elements that biologically exist and evolve? It is hard to know, but we can use the history of science as a guide to see how that fallacy has been used by earlier generations. Back in the 19th century, the early anatomists argued that since the brain contained the mind, they could map different mental states (acquisitiveness, punctuality, sensitivity) onto parts of the brain. Someone who was very introspective, say, would have an enlarged introspection part of the brain, a cranial bulge to represent the hyperactivity of this mental state. The anatomical science was known as phrenology, and it was predicated on the false assumption that units of thought or personality or behaviour could be mapped to distinct parts of the brain and physically observed (see Figure 3.6). This is the fallacy of reification, imagining that something named is something real.

The second assumption, that everything has a reason, has long been recognized as a core belief of religion. Our desire to impose order and simplicity on the workings of the universe, however, does not constrain it to obey simple and orderly causes. Magic, witchcraft, spirits, and divine agency are all powerful explanations for why things happen. Consequently, it is probably not a good idea to lump natural selection in with those. Sometimes things do happen for a reason, of course, but other times things happen as byproducts of other things, or for very complicated and entangled reasons, or for no reason at all. What phenomena have reasons and thereby merit explanation? Chimpanzees have very large testicles, and we think we know why: their promiscuous sexual behaviour triggers intense competition for high sperm count. But chimpanzees also have very large ears, but much less scientific attention has been paid to this trait (see Figure 3.7). Why not? Why should there be a reason for chimp testicles but not for chimp ears? What determines the kinds of features that we try to explain, as opposed to the ones that we do not? Again, the assumption that any specific feature has a reason is metaphysical; that is to say, it may be true in any particular case, but to assume it in all cases is gratuitous.
And third, the possibility of knowing what the reason for any particular feature is, assuming that it has one, is a challenge for evolutionary epistemology (the theory of how we know things). Consider the big adaptations of our lineage: bipedalism and language. Nobody doubts that they are good, and they evolved by natural selection, and we know how they work. But why did they evolve? If talking and walking are simply better than not talking and not walking, then why did they evolve in just a single branch of the ape lineage in the primate family tree? We don’t know what bipedalism evolved for, although there are plenty of speculations: walking long distances, running long distances, cooling the head, seeing over tall grass, carrying babies, carrying food, wading, threatening, counting calories, sexual display, and so on. Neither do we know what language evolved for, although there are speculations: coordinating hunting, gossiping, manipulating others. But it is also possible that bipedality is simply the way that a small arboreal ape travels on the ground, if it isn’t in the treetops. Or that language is simply the way that a primate with small canine teeth and certain mental propensities comes to communicate. If that were true, then there might be no reason for bipedality or language: having the unique suite of preconditions and a fortuitous set of circumstances simply set them in motion, and natural selection elaborated and explored their potentials. It is possible that walking and talking simply solved problems that no other lineage had ever solved; but even if so, the fact remains that the rest of the species in the history of life have done pretty well without having solved them.
It is certainly very optimistic to think that all three assumptions (that organisms can be meaningfully atomized, that everything has a reason, and that we can know the reason) would be simultaneously in effect. Indeed, just as there are many ways of adapting (genetically, epigenetically, behaviourally, culturally), there are also many ways of being nonadaptive, which would imply that there is no reason at all for the feature in question.
First, there is the element of randomness of population histories. There are more cases of sickle-cell anemia among sub-Saharan Africans than other peoples, and there is a reason for it: carriers of sickle-cell anemia have a resistance to malaria, which is more frequent in parts of Africa (as discussed in Chapters 4 and 14). But there are more cases of a blood disease called variegated porphyria, a rare genetic metabolic disorder, in the Afrikaners of South Africa (descendants of mostly Dutch settlers in the 17th century) than in other peoples, and there is no reason for it. Yet we know the cause: One of the founding Dutch colonial settlers had the allele–a variant of a gene–and everyone in South Africa with it today is her descendant. But that is not a reason—that is simply an accident of history.
Second, there is the potential mismatch between the past and the present. The value of a particular feature in the past may be changed as the environmental circumstances change. Our species is diurnal, and our ancestors were diurnal. But beginning around a few hundred thousand years ago, our ancestors could build fires, which extended the light period, which was subsequently further amplified by lamps and candles. And over the course of the 20th century, electrical power has made it possible for people to stay up very late when it is dark—working, partying, worrying—to a greater extent than any other closely related species. In other words, we evolved to be diurnal, yet we are now far more nocturnal than any of our recent ancestors or close relatives. Are we adapting to nocturnality? If so, why? Does it even make any sense to speak of the human occupation of a nocturnal ape niche, despite the fact that we empirically seem to be doing just that? And if so, does it make sense to ask what the reason for it is?
Third, there is a genetic phenomenon known as a selective sweep, or the hitchhiker effect. Imagine three genes—A, B, and C—located very closely together on a chromosome. They each have several variants, or alleles, in the population. Now, for whatever reason, it becomes beneficial to have one of the B alleles, say B4; this B4 allele is now under strong positive selection. Obviously, we will expect future generations to be characterized by mostly B4. But what was B4 attached to? Because whatever A and C alleles were adjacent to it will also be quickly spread, simply by virtue of the selection for B4. Even if the A and C alleles are not very good, they will spread because of the good B4 allele between them. Eventually the linkage groups will break up because of genetic crossing-over in future generations. But in the meantime, some random version of genes A and C are proliferating in the species simply because they are joined to superior allele B4. And clearly, the A and C alleles are there because of selection—but not because of selection for them!
Fourth, some features are simply consequences of other properties rather than adaptations to external conditions. We already noted the phenomenon of allometric growth, in which some physical features have to outgrow others to maintain function at an increased size. Can we ask the reason for the massive brow ridges of Homo erectus, or are brow ridges simply what you get when you have a conjunction of thick skull bones, a large face, and a sloping forehead—and, thus, again would have a cause but no reason?
Fifth, some features may be underutilized and on the way out. What is the reason for our two outer toes? They aren’t propulsive, they don’t do anything, and sometimes they’re just in the way. Obviously they are there because we are descended from ancestors with five digits on their hands and feet. Is it possible that a million years from now, we will just have our three largest toes, just as the ancestors of the horse lost their digits in favour of a single hoof per limb? Or will our outer toes find another use, such as stabilizing the landings in our personal jet-packs? For the time being, we can just recognize vestigiality as another nonadaptive explanation for the presence of a given feature.
Finally, Darwin himself recognized that many obvious features do not help an animal survive. Some things may instead help an animal breed. The peacock’s tail feathers do not help it eat, but they do help it mate. There is competition, but only against half of the species. Darwin called this sexual selection. Its result is not a fit to the environment but, rather, a fit to the opposite sex. In some species, that is literally the case, as the male and female genitalia have specific ways of anatomically fitting together. The specific form is less important than the specific match, so inquiring about the reason for a particular form of the reproductive anatomy may be misleading. The specific form may be effectively random, as long as it fits the opposite sex and is different from the anatomies of other species. Nor is sexual selection the only form of selection that can affect the body differently from natural selection. Competition might also take place between biological units other than organisms—perhaps genes, perhaps cells, or populations, or species. The spread of cultural things, such as head-binding or cheap refined fructose or forced labour, can have significant effects upon bodies, which are also not adaptations produced by natural selection. They are often adaptive physiological responses to stresses but not the products of natural selection.
With so many paths available by which a physical feature might have organically arisen without having been the object of natural selection, it is unwise to assume that any individual trait is an adaptation. And that generalization applies to the best-known, best-studied, and most materially based evolutionary adaptations of our lineage. But our cultural behaviours are also highly adaptive, so what about our most familiar social behaviours? Patriarchy, hierarchy, warfare—are these adaptations? Do they have reasons? Are they good for something?
This is where some sloppy thinking has been troublesome. What would it mean to say that patriarchy evolved by natural selection in the human species? If, on the one hand, it means that the human mind evolved by natural selection to be able to create and survive in many different kinds of social and political regimes, of which patriarchy is one, then biological anthropologists will readily agree. If, on the other hand, it means that patriarchy evolved by natural selection, that implies that patriarchy is genetically determined (since natural selection is a genetic process) and out-reproduced the alleles for other, more egalitarian, social forms. This in turn would imply that patriarchy is an adaptation and therefore of some beneficial value in the past and has become an ingrained part of human nature today. This would be bad news, say, if you harboured ambitions of dismantling it. Dismantling patriarchy in that case would be to go against nature, a futile gesture. In other words, this latter interpretation would be a naturalistic manifesto for a conservative political platform: don’t try to dismantle the patriarchy, because it is within us, the product of evolution—suck it up and live with it.
Here, evolution is being used as a political instrument for transforming the human genome into an imaginary glass ceiling against equality. There is thus a convergence between the pseudo-biology of crude adaptationism (the idea that everything is the product of natural selection) and the pseudo-biology of hereditarianism. Naturalizing inequality is not the business of evolutionary theory, and it represents a difficult moral position for a scientist to adopt, as well as a poor scientific position.
Evolution of the Anthropocene

Under the previously explored Adaptationism and Panglossian Paradigm, it is explained that human evolution is constantly occurring even throughout periods of ecological stability. While this acknowledges evolution as an ongoing process of change, it fails to explore the implications of such on the alteration of other species and ecosystems.
The emergence of the Anthropocene, driven by human activity, though not recognized as an official epoch, is seen as a transformative event comparable to other major historical shifts such as the Ordovician Biodiversification (UNESCO, 2024). Given its scale, it is crucial to inform scholars about the impact of our social and cultural evolution on the rest of the world. Richard Robbins’ Global Problems and Culture of Capitalism explains how the modern culture of consumption has been extremely successful at accommodating populations of people far larger than previously possible. Robbins claims that the globalization attributed to capitalism has allowed the world to make full use of its environmental resources, providing necessities and innovative technologies to humans all over the world (Robbins & Dowty, 2019). In other words, capitalism is an anthropocentric cultural system that highly benefits humans and facilitates our survival with little regard to the development and survival of other forms of life. It would be highly relevant to introduce the idea that our cultural evolution and capacity to modify the environment to meet our needs have established new environmental conditions in which the human species' survival and reproduction rate expand at the detriment of ecosystems and endangerment of other primates and non-human species.
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species, there are currently over 169,000 species listed, with more than 47,000 species at risk of extinction — including 41% of amphibians, 26% of mammals, 26% of freshwater fishes, 12% of birds, and many others (IUCN, 2025). Human lifestyles are causing changes that—if not taken into consideration—could lead to our extinction as a species. The recognition that our evolutionary behavioural development is causing environmental destruction may be the first step for our species to take accountability for the damage that it is causing to others and prevent further damage.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
From an anthropological perspective, the study of genetics and genomics reveals that human evolution is no longer a purely biological process but a deeply cultural one. The Modern Synthesis brings together both Mendelian genetics and population-level evolutionary theory, demonstrating how discrete genes interact across populations through mutation, migration, selection, and drift. Contemporary research in genomics and epigenetics further expands this view, describing how genes are not fixed determinants, but dynamic, responsive systems shaped by environmental, social, and technological forces. This contemporary framework allows anthropology to see human evolution as a continuing dialogue between biology and culture, in which social life and technology now act as powerful forces.
Technological innovation, particularly in the digital age, represents one of these new forces. The human brain is adapting to a world saturated with digital stimuli, shifting to favor pattern recognition and multitasking over deep memorization or spatial awareness. Beyond cognition, the constants of technology's presence in our daily lives—screen exposure, disrupted sleep, and mediated social interaction—can influence neural development and stress-response pathways, blurring the boundaries between biological and cultural adaptation and suggesting that technology itself has become a profound developmental influence.
It is important to note that climate change exerts another global selective pressure, reshaping ecosystems and human responses to them. Physiological adaptation may involve tolerance to heat and fluctuating food sources, while genetic selection could favour metabolic and immune traits suited to new environments. There will also be large changes from a cultural perspective, where migration, innovation, and social restructuring may have large impacts on human evolution.
Genomic engineering further complicates this picture. Techniques such as CRISPR now allow for the precise alteration of DNA, offering immense potential for eliminating hereditary diseases and improving long-term health outcomes. One example is the targeted suppression of the PCSK9 gene to lower LDL cholesterol levels, which can significantly reduce the risk of heart disease in genetically predisposed individuals (Feldscher, 2022). While such interventions hold great promise for preventive medicine, they also raise evolutionary concerns. By artificially narrowing the range of genetic variation, these technologies may weaken the population’s long-term adaptability. Alleles that appear harmful in one context may confer unexpected advantages under different environmental conditions, and their removal could limit evolutionary flexibility. Moreover, as lifespans lengthen and mortality rates decline, population density and resource strain are likely to increase, shifting selective pressures away from disease resistance and toward ecological sustainability and social equilibrium.
While these aspects are important to take into consideration, it remains uncertain how much such current interventions will truly influence long-term human evolution. Many of their effects may occur only at the individual or generational level. Epigenetic modifications, for instance, often fade during gametogenesis, meaning that changes in gene expression caused by lifestyle, stress, or diet may not be inherited. Likewise, the elimination of certain “poor” genes through technology may occur only in isolated lineages rather than across populations, limiting their evolutionary impact. Nevertheless, anthropology reminds us that even if these changes do not drastically redirect human evolution, they redefine how humans understand and engage with it. The cultural meanings attached to genetic “correction,” optimization, and identity echo older anxieties about purity and control. Moreover, the commercialization of genetic data transforms ancestry and kinship into molecular commodities. Whether or not technology reshapes our genes in the long term, it is already reshaping our concept of what it means to be human—a transformation as cultural and philosophical as it is biological.
Discussion questions
- In what ways has technology shaped humans both culturally and biologically? Can you think of examples from your own lives or society?
- Should humans actively intervene in their own evolution through genetic modification? What potential benefits, risks, and social consequences might this create?
- How might climate change influence human evolution, both biologically and culturally? What forms of adaptation might become increasingly important as environments change?
Summary
Now that you have finished reading this chapter, you are equipped to understand the historical and political dimensions of evolution. Evolution is an ongoing process of change and diversification. Evolutionary theory is a tool that we use to understand this process. The development of evolutionary theory is shaped both by scientific innovation and political engagement. Since Darwin first articulated natural selection as an observable mechanism by which species adapt to their environments, our understanding of evolution has grown. Initially, scientists focused on the adaptive aspects of evolution. However, with the emergence of genetics, our understanding of heredity and the level at which evolution acts has changed. Genetics led to a focus on the molecular dimensions of evolution. For some, this focus resulted in reductive accounts of evolution. Further developments in our understanding of evolution shifted our view to epigenetic processes and how organisms shape their own evolutionary pressures (e.g., niche construction).
Evolutionary theory will continue to develop in the future as we invent new technologies, describe new dimensions of biology, and experience cultural changes. Current innovations in evolutionary theory are asking us to consider evolutionary forces beyond natural selection and genetics to include the ways organisms shape their environments (niche construction), inheritances beyond genetics (inclusive inheritance), constraints on evolutionary change (developmental bias), and the ability of bodies to change in response to external factors (plasticity). The future of evolutionary theory looks bright as we continue to explore these and other dimensions. Biological anthropology is well-positioned to be a lively part of this conversation, as it extends standard evolutionary theory by considering the role of culture, social learning, and human intentionality in shaping the evolutionary trajectories of humans (Zeder 2018). Remember, at root, human evolutionary theory consists of two propositions: (1) the human species is descended from other similar species and (2) natural selection has been the primary agent of biological adaptation. Pretty much everything else is subject to some degree of contestation.
Review Questions
- How is the study of your ancestors biopolitical, not just biological? Does that make it less scientific or differently scientific?
- What was gained by reducing organisms to genotypes and species to gene pools? What is gained by reintroducing bodies and species into evolutionary studies?
- How do genetic or molecular studies complement anatomical studies of evolution?
- How are you reducible to your ancestry? If you could meet your ancestors from the year 1700 (and you would have well over a thousand of them!), would their lives be meaningfully similar to yours? Would you even be able to communicate with them?
- The molecular biologist François Jacob argued that evolution is more like a tinkerer than an engineer. In what ways do we seem like precisely engineered machinery, and in what ways do we seem like jerry-rigged or improvised contraptions?
- How might biological anthropology contribute to future developments in evolutionary theory?
Key Terms
Adaptation: A fit between the organism and environment.
Adaptationism: The idea that everything is the product of natural selection.
Allele: A genetic variant.
Allometry: The differential growth of body parts.
Canalization: The tendency of a growing organism to be buffered toward normal development.
Epigenetics: The study of how genetically identical cells and organisms (with the same DNA base sequence) can nevertheless differ in stably inherited ways.
Eugenics: An idea that was popular in the 1920s that society should be improved by breeding “better” kinds of people.
Evo-devo: The study of the origin of form; a contraction of “evolutionary developmental biology.”
Exaptation: An additional beneficial use for a biological feature.
Extinction: The loss of a species from the face of the earth.
Gene: A stretch of DNA with an identifiable function (sometimes broadened to include any DNA with recognizable structural features as well).
Gene pool: Hypothetical summation of the entire genetic composition of population or species.
Genotype: Genetic constitution of an individual organism.
Hereditarianism: The idea that genes or ancestry is the most crucial or salient element in a human life. Generally associated with an argument for natural inequality on pseudo-genetic grounds.
Hox genes: A group of related genes that control for the body plan of an embryo along the head-tail axis.
Inheritance of acquired characteristics: The idea that you pass on the features that developed during your lifetime, not just your genes; also known as Lamarckian inheritance.
Natural selection: A consistent bias in survival and fertility, leading to the overrepresentation of certain features in future generations and an improved fit between an average member of the population and the environment.
Niche construction: The active engagement by which species transform their surroundings in favourable ways, rather than just passively inhabiting them.
Phenotype: Observable manifestation of a genetic constitution, expressed in a particular set of circumstances. The suite of traits of an organism.
Phrenology: The 19th-century anatomical study of bumps on the head as an indication of personality and mental abilities.
Plasticity: The tendency of a growing organism to react developmentally to its particular conditions of life.
Punctuated equilibria: The idea that species are stable through time and are formed very rapidly relative to their duration. (The opposite theory, that species are unstable and constantly changing through time, is called phyletic gradualism.)
Scientific racism: The use of pseudoscientific evidence to support or legitimize racial hierarchy and inequality.
Sexual selection: Natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics in individuals of the other sex.
Species selection: A postulated evolutionary process in which selection acts on an entire species population, rather than individuals.
For Further Exploration
Ackermann, Rebecca Rogers, Alex Mackay, and Michael L. Arnold. 2016. “The Hybrid Origin of ‘Modern’ Humans.” Evolutionary Biology 43 (1): 1–11.
Bateson, Patrick, and Peter Gluckman. 2011. Plasticity, Robustness, Development and Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cosans, Christopher E. 2009. Owen's Ape and Darwin's Bulldog: Beyond Darwinism and Creationism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Desmond, Adrian, and James Moore. 2009. Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Francisco J. Ayala, G. Ledyard Stebbins, and James W. Valentine. 1977. Evolution. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Fuentes, Agustín. 2017. The Creative Spark: How Imagination Made Humans Exceptional. New York: Dutton.
Haraway, Donna J. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.
Huxley, Thomas. 1863. Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. London: Williams & Norgate.
Jablonka, Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kuklick, Henrika, ed. 2008. A New History of Anthropology. New York: Blackwell.
Laland, Kevin N., Tobias Uller, Marcus W. Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Muller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. 2015. “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Its Structure, Assumptions and Predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B 282 (1813): 20151019.
Lamarck, Jean Baptiste. 1809. Philosophie Zoologique. Paris: Dentu.
Landau, Misia. 1991. Narratives of Human Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lee, Sang-Hee. 2017. Close Encounters with Humankind: A Paleoanthropologist Investigates Our Evolving Species. New York: W. W. Norton.
Livingstone, David N. 2008. Adam's Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Marks, Jonathan. 2015. Tales of the Ex-Apes: How We Think about Human Evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pigliucci, Massimo. 2009. “The Year in Evolutionary Biology 2009: An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1168: 218–228.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its Significance for Man. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sommer, Marianne. 2016. History Within: The Science, Culture, and Politics of Bones, Organisms, and Molecules. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stoczkowski, Wiktor. 2002. Explaining Human Origins: Myth, Imagination and Conjecture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tattersall, Ian, and Rob DeSalle. 2019. The Accidental Homo sapiens: Genetics, Behavior, and Free Will. New York: Pegasus.
References
Barton, Robert A. 1996. "Neocortex Size and Behavioural Ecology in Primates." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 263 (1367): 173–177.
Bodmer, Walter, and Robin McKie. 1997. The Book of Man: The Hman Genome Project and the Quest to Discover our Genetic Heritage. Oxford University Press.
Brassard, A., Perron-Laplante, J., Lachapelle, É., Pierrepont, C. de, & Péloquin, K. (2018). Oversexualization among emerging adults: Preliminary associations with romantic attachment and intimacy. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 27(3), 235–247. Project Muse.
Carroll, S. B. (2005). Evolution at Two Levels: On Genes and Form. PLoS Biology, 3(7). Public Library of Science. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030245
Chudek, M., Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2015). Cultural evolution. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych230
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: J. Murray.
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: J. Murray.
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Deacon, T. W. 1998. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. W. W. Norton & Company.
Eldredge, N., and S. J. Gould. 1972. "Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism." In Models in Paleobiology, edited by T. J. Schopf, 82–115. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Feldscher, K. (2022). Using gene editing to fight deadly genetic diseases. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/using-gene-editing-to-fight-deadly-genetic-diseases/
Françoso, E., Zuntini, A. R., Ricardo, P. C., Santos, P. K. F., de Souza Araujo, N., Silva, J. P. N., Gonçalves, L. T., Brito, R., Gloag, R., Taylor, B. A., Harpur, B. A., Oldroyd, B. P., Brown, M. J. F., & Arias, M. C. (2023). Rapid evolution, rearrangements and whole mitogenome duplication in the Australian stingless bees Tetragonula (Hymenoptera: Apidae): A steppingstone towards understanding mitochondrial function and evolution. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 242. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124568
Gayon, J. (2010). Sexual selection: Another Darwinian process. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 333(2), 134–144. MEDLINE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2009.12.001
Goldman, E. A., & Sterner, K. N. (2023). Environment, Epigenetics, and the Pace of Human Aging. Annual Review of Anthropology, 52, 279–294. Annual Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-090516
Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3(2), 115–151. JSTOR Biological Sciences Collection.
Gould, Stephen J. 2003. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gould, Stephen J. 1996. Mismeasure of Man. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Richard C. Lewontin. 1979. "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 205 (1151): 581–598.
Haeckel, Ernst. 1868. Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte. Berlin: Reimer.
Huxley, Thomas Henry. 1863. Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature. London: Williams and Norgate.
IUCN. 2025. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 30 July 2025.
Kaufman, Thomas C., Mark A. Seeger, and Gary Olsen. 1990. "Molecular and Genetic Organization of the Antennapedia Gene Complex of Drosophila melanogaster." Advances in Genetics 27: 309–362.
Kellogg, Vernon. 1917. Headquarters Nights. Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press.
Kevles, Daniel J., and Leroy Hood. 1993. The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewontin, Richard, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin. 2017. Not in Our Genes : Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature, 2nd ed. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Lloyd, Elisabeth A., and Stephen J. Gould. 1993. "Species Selection on Variability." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90 (2): 595–599.
Marks, Jonathan. 2015. “The Biological Myth of Human Evolution.” In Biologising the Social Sciences: Challenging Darwinian and Neuroscience Explanations, edited by David Canter and David A. Turner, 59–78. London: Routledge.
Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 1161–1192. MEDLINE.
Monypenny, William Flavelle, and George Earle Buckle. 1929. The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, Volume II: 1860–1881. London: John Murray.
Potts, Rick. 1998. “Variability Selection in Hominid Evolution.” Evolutionary Anthropology 7: 81–96.
Punnett, R. C. 1905. Mendelism. Cambridge: Macmillan and Bowes.
Robbins, R., & Dowty, R. (2019). Robbins Richard, Global problems and culture of capitalism (7th ed.). Pearson.
Shapiro, Robert. 1991. The Human Blueprint: The Race to Unlock the Secrets of Our Genetic Script. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Schafte, K., & Bruna, S. (2023). The influence of intergenerational trauma on epigenetics and obesity in Indigenous populations—A scoping review. Epigenetics, 18(1), 2260218. MEDLINE. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592294.2023.2260218
Shultz, Susanne, Emma Nelson, and Robin Dunbar. 2012. "Hominin Cognitive Evolution: Identifying Patterns and Processes in the Fossil and Archaeological Record." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367 (1599): 2130–2140.
Shook, B., Nelson, K., Braff, L., & Aguilera, K. (2023a). Molecular Biology and Genetics. https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/3/
Shook, B., Nelson, K., Braff, L., & Aguilera, K. (2023b). Social and Biopolitical Dimensions of Evolutionary Thinking. https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/social-and-bi opolitical-dimensions-of-evolutionary-thinking/
Spencer, Herbert. 1864. Principles of Biology. London: Williams and Norgate.
UNESCO. (2024). The Anthropocene. International Union of Geological Sciences. https://www.iugs.org/_files/ugd/f1fc07_40d1a7ed58de458c9f8f24de5e739663.pdf?index=true
Vicedo, M. (2025). Charlotte Perkins Gilman: A Pragmatist Framework for Constructing a New Humanhood. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 61(4), e70041. MEDLINE. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.70041
Watson, James D. 1990. "The Human Genome Project: Past, Present, and Future." Science 248 (4951): 44–49.
Wray, G. A. (2007). The evolutionary significance of cis-regulatory mutations. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 8(3), 206–216. MEDLINE.
Waddington CH. Genetic assimilation of the bithorax phenotype. Evolution. 1956;10:1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1956.tb02824.x.
Yengo, L., Vedantam, S., Marouli, E., Sidorenko, J., Bartell, E., Sakaue, S., Graff, M., Eliasen, A.U., Jiang, Y., Raghavan, S. and Miao, J., 2022. A saturated map of common genetic variants associated with human height. Nature, 610 (7933): 704-712.
Zeder, Melinda A. 2018. "Why Evolutionary Biology Needs Anthropology: Evaluating Core Assumptions of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis." Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 27 (6): 267–284.
Student contributors for this chapter from Salinda Hess' ANTH 203: Emma Costa, Shima Gahima, Will Lefebvre, Audrey Chékinaël.
Learn more about authors and editors, Hess' student contributions, and versioning history.
Learning Objectives
- Explain and identify the purpose of both DNA replication and the cell cycle.
- Identify key differences between mitosis and meiosis.
- Outline the process of protein synthesis, including transcription and translation.
- Use principles of Mendelian inheritance to predict genotypes and phenotypes of future generations.
- Explain complexities surrounding patterns of genetic inheritance and polygenic traits.
- Discuss challenges to and bioethical concerns of genetic testing.
Cells and Molecules
Molecules of Life
All organisms are composed of four basic types of molecules that are essential for cell structure and function: proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids (Figure 4.1). Proteins are crucial for cell shape and nearly all cellular tasks, including receiving signals from outside the cell and mobilizing intra-cellular responses. Lipids are a class of organic compounds that include fats, oils, and hormones. Carbohydrates are sugar molecules and serve as energy to cells in the form of glucose. Lastly, nucleic acids, including deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), carry genetic information about a living organism.
|
Molecule |
Definition |
Example |
|
Proteins |
Composed of one or more long chains of amino acids (i.e., basic units of protein) Often folded into complex 3D shapes that relate to function Proteins interact with other types of proteins and molecules |
Proteins come in different categories including structural (e.g., collagen, keratin, lactase, hemoglobin, cell membrane proteins), defense proteins (e.g, antibodies), enzymes (e.g., lactase), hormones (e.g., insulin), and motor proteins (e.g., actin) |
|
Lipids |
Insoluble in water due to hydrophilic (water-loving) head and a hydrophobic (water-repelling) tail |
Fats, such as triglycerides, store energy for your body Steroid hormones (e.g., estrogen and testosterone) act as chemical messengers to communicate between cells and tissues, as well as biochemical pathways inside of the cell |
|
Carbohydrates |
Large group of organic molecules that are composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms |
Starches and sugars, including blood glucose, provide cells with energy |
|
Nucleic Acids |
Carries the genetic information of an organism |
DNA RNA |
Cells
In 1665, Robert Hooke observed slices of plant cork using a microscope. Hooke noted that the microscopic plant structures he saw resembled cella, meaning “a small room” in Latin. Approximately two centuries later, biologists recognized the cell as being the most fundamental unit of life and that all life is composed of cells. Cellular organisms can be characterized as two main cell types: prokaryotes and eukaryotes (Figure 4.2).

Prokaryotes include bacteria and archaea, and they are composed of a single cell. Additionally, their DNA and organelles are not surrounded by individual membranes. Thus, no compartments separate their DNA from the rest of the cell (see Figure 4.2). It is well known that some bacteria can cause illness in humans. For instance, Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Salmonella contamination can result in food poisoning symptoms. Pneumonia and strep throat are caused by Streptococcal bacteria. Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a sexually transmitted bacterial disease. Although bacteria are commonly associated with illness, not all bacteria are harmful. For example, researchers are studying the relationship between the microbiome and human health. The bacteria that are part of the healthy human microbiome perform beneficial roles, such as digesting food, boosting the immune system, and even making vitamins (e.g., B12 and K).
Eukaryotes can be single-celled or multi-celled in their body composition. In contrast to prokaryotes, eukaryotes possess membranes that surround their DNA and organelles. An example of a single-celled eukaryote is the microscopic algae found in ponds (phytoplankton), which can produce oxygen from the sun. Yeasts are also single-celled, and fungi can be single- or multicellular. Plants and animals are all multicellular.
Although plant and animal cells have a surprising number of similarities, there are some key differences (Figure 4.3). For example, plant cells possess a thick outer cell membrane made of a fibrous carbohydrate called cellulose. Animal and plant cells also have different tissues. For most plants, the outermost layer of cells forms a waxy cuticle that helps to protect the cells and to prevent water loss. Humans have skin, which is the outermost cell layer that is predominantly composed of a tough protein called keratin. Overall, humans have a diversity of tissue types (e.g., cartilage, brain, and heart).

Animal Cell Organelles
An animal cell is surrounded by a double membrane called the phospholipid bilayer (Figure 4.4). A closer look reveals that this protective barrier is made of lipids and proteins that provide structure and function for cellular activities, such as regulating the passage of molecules and ions (e.g., H2O and sodium) into and out of the cell. Cytoplasm is the jelly-like matrix inside of the cell membrane. Part of the cytoplasm comprises organelles, which perform different specialized tasks for the cell (Figure 4.5). An example of an organelle is the nucleus, where the cell’s DNA is located.


Another organelle is the mitochondrion. Mitochondria are often referred to as “powerhouse centers” because they produce energy for the cell in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Depending on the species and tissue type, multicellular eukaryotes can have hundreds to thousands of mitochondria in each of their cells. Scientists have determined that mitochondria were once symbiotic prokaryotic organisms (i.e., helpful bacteria) that transformed into cellular organelles over time. This evolutionary explanation helps explain why mitochondria also have their own DNA, called mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). All organelles have important physiological functions and disease can occur when organelles do not perform their role optimally. Figure 4.6 lists other organelles found in the cell and their specialized cellular roles.
|
Cell structure |
Description |
|
Centrioles |
Assist with the organization of mitotic spindles, which extend and contract for the purpose of cellular movement during mitosis and meiosis. |
|
Cytoplasm |
Gelatinous fluid located inside of cell membrane that contains organelles. |
|
Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) |
Continuous membrane with the nucleus that helps transport, synthesize, modify, and fold proteins. Rough ER has embedded ribosomes, whereas smooth ER lacks ribosomes. |
|
Golgi body |
Layers of flattened sacs that receive and transmit messages from the ER to secrete and transport proteins within the cell. |
|
Lysosome |
Located in the cytoplasm; contains enzymes to degrade cellular components. |
|
Microtubule |
Involved with cellular movement including intracellular transport and cell division. |
|
Mitochondrion |
Responsible for cellular respiration, where energy is produced by converting nutrients into ATP. |
|
Nucleolus |
Resides inside of the nucleus and is the site of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) transcription, processing, and assembly. |
|
Nucleopore |
Pores in the nuclear envelope that are selectively permeable. |
|
Nucleus |
Contains the cell’s DNA and is surrounded by the nuclear envelope. |
|
Ribosome |
Located in the cytoplasm and also the membrane of the rough endoplasmic reticulum. Messenger RNA (mRNA) binds to ribosomes and proteins are synthesized. |
Introduction to Genetics
Genetics is the study of heredity. Biological parents pass down their genetic traits to their offspring. Although children resemble their parents, genetic traits often vary in appearance or molecular function. For example, two parents with normal color vision can sometimes produce a son with red-green colorblindness. Molecular geneticists study the biological mechanisms responsible for creating variation between individuals, such as DNA mutations (see Chapter 5), cell division, and genetic regulation.
Molecular anthropologists use genetic data to test anthropological questions. Some of these anthropologists utilize ancient DNA (aDNA), which is DNA that is extracted from anything once living, including human, animal, and plant remains. Over time, DNA becomes degraded (i.e., less intact), but specialized laboratory techniques can make copies of short degraded aDNA segments, which can then be reassembled to provide more complete DNA information.
DNA Structure
The discovery, in 1953, of the molecular structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Using X-ray crystallography, Rosalind Franklin (Figure 4.7) provided an image that clearly showed the double helix shape of DNA. Due to controversy, Franklin’s colleagues received more recognition for the DNA discovery. In 1962, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won the Nobel Prize, while Franklin, who had died in 1958, was not honoured. Today, her vital contributions and scientific skill are widely recognized.

The double helix shape of DNA can be described as a twisted ladder (Figure 4.8). More specifically, DNA is a double-stranded molecule with its two strands oriented in opposite directions (i.e., antiparallel). Each strand is composed of nucleotides with a sugar phosphate backbone. There are four different types of DNA nucleotides: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). The two DNA strands are held together by nucleotide base pairs, which have chemical bonding rules. The complementary base-pairing rules are as follows: A and T bond with each other, while C and G form a bond. The chemical bonds between A-T and C-G are formed by “weak” hydrogen atom interactions, which means the two strands can be easily separated. A DNA sequence is the order of nucleotide bases (A, T, G, C) along only one DNA strand. If one DNA strand has the sequence CATGCT, then the other strand will have a complementary sequence GTACGA. This is an example of a short DNA sequence. In reality, there are approximately three billion DNA base pairs in human cells.

DNA Is Highly Organized within the Nucleus
If you removed the DNA from a single human cell and stretched it out completely, it would measure approximately two meters (about 6.5 feet). Therefore, DNA molecules must be compactly organized in the nucleus. To achieve this, the double helix configuration of DNA undergoes coiling. An analogy would be twisting a string until coils are formed and then continuing to twist so that secondary coils are formed, and so on. To assist with coiling, DNA is first wrapped around proteins called histones. This creates a complex called chromatin, which resembles “beads on a string” (Figure 4.9). Next, chromatin is further coiled into a chromosome. Another important feature of DNA is that chromosomes can be altered from tightly coiled (chromatin) to loosely coiled (euchromatin). Most of the time, chromosomes in the nucleus remain in a euchromatin state so that DNA sequences are accessible for regulatory processes to occur.


Human body cells typically have 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes in each cell’s nucleus. An interesting fact is that the number of chromosomes an organism possesses varies by species, and this figure is not dependent upon the size or complexity of the organism. For instance, chimpanzees have a total of 48 chromosomes, while hermit crabs have 254. Chromosomes also have a distinct physical structure, including centromeres (the “center”) and telomeres (the ends) (Figure 4.10). Because of the centromeric region, chromosomes are described as having two different “arms,” where one arm is long and the other is shorter. Centromeres play an important role during cell division, which will be discussed in the next section. Telomeres are located at the ends of chromosomes; they help protect the chromosomes from degradation after every round of cell division.
Special Topic: First Nation Immunity and European Diseases—A Study of Ancient DNA

Beginning in the early fifteenth century, First Nations progressively suffered from high mortality rates as the result of colonization from foreign powers. European-borne diseases such as measles, tuberculosis, influenza, and smallpox are largely responsible for the population collapse of Indigenous peoples in the Americas. Many Europeans who immigrated to the Americas had lived in large sedentary populations, which also included coexisting with domestic animals and pests. Although a few prehistoric Indigenous populations can be characterized as large agricultural societies (especially in Mesoamerica), their overall culture, community lifestyle, and subsistence practices were markedly different from that of Europeans. Therefore, because they did not share the same urban living environments as Europeans, it is believed that Indigenous peoples were susceptible to many European diseases.

In 2016, a Nature article published by John Lindo and colleagues was the first to investigate whether pre-contact Indigenous peoples possessed a genetic susceptibility to European diseases. Their study included Tsimshians, a First Nation community from British Columbia (Figure 4.11a-b). DNA from both present-day and ancient individuals (who lived between 500 and 6,000 years ago) was analysed. The research team discovered that a change occurred in the HLA-DQA1 gene, which is a member of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) immune system molecules. MHC molecules are responsible for detecting and triggering an immune response against pathogens. Lindo and colleagues (2016) concluded that HLA-DQA1 gene helped Indigenous peoples adapt to their local environmental ecology. However, when European-borne epidemics occurred in the Northwest during the 1800s, a certain HLA-DQA1 DNA sequence variant (allele) associated with ancient Tsimshian immunity was no longer adaptive. As the result of past selective pressures from European diseases, present-day Tsimshians have different HLA-DQA1 allele frequencies. The precise role that HLA-DQA1 plays in immune adaptation requires further investigation. But overall, this study serves as an example of how studying ancient DNA from the remains of deceased individuals can help provide insight into living human populations and historical events.
DNA Replication and Cell Division
For life to continue and flourish, cells must be able to divide. Tissue growth and cellular damage repair are also necessary to maintain an organism throughout its life. All these rely on the dynamic processes of DNA replication and the cell cycle. The mechanisms highlighted in this section are tightly regulated and represent only part of the life cycle of a cell.
DNA Replication
DNA replication is the process by which new DNA is copied from an original DNA template. It is one phase of the highly coordinated cell cycle, and it requires a variety of enzymes with special functions. The creation of a complementary DNA strand from a template strand is described as semi-conservative replication. The result of semi-conservative replication is two separate double-stranded DNA molecules, each of which is composed of an original “parent” template strand and a newly synthesized “daughter” DNA strand.
DNA replication progresses in three steps referred to as initiation, elongation, and termination. During initiation, enzymes are recruited to specific sites along the DNA sequence (Figure 4.12). For example, an initiator enzyme, called helicase, “unwinds” DNA by breaking the hydrogen bonds between the two parent strands. The unraveling of the helix into two separated strands exposes the strands and creates a fork, which is the active site of DNA replication.

Elongation is the assembly of new DNA daughter strands from the exposed original parent strands. The two parent strands can further be classified as leading strand or lagging strand and are distinguished by the direction of replication. Enzymes called DNA polymerases read parent template strands in a specific direction. Complementary nucleotides are added, and the newly formed daughter strands will grow. On the leading parent strand, a DNA polymerase will create one continuous strand. The lagging parent strand is created in several disconnected sections and other enzymes fill in the missing nucleotide gaps between these sections.
Finally, termination refers to the end of DNA replication activity. It is signaled by a stop sequence in the DNA that is recognized by machinery at the replication fork. The end result of DNA replication is that the number of chromosomes are doubled so that the cell can divide into two.
DNA Mutations
DNA replication should result in the creation of two identical DNA nucleotide sequences. However, although DNA polymerases are quite precise during DNA replication, copying mistakes are estimated to occur every 107 DNA nucleotides. Variation from the original DNA sequence is known as a mutation (Refer to Chapter 5). Briefly, mutations can result in single-nucleotide changes, as well as the insertion or deletion of nucleotides and repeated sequences. Depending on where they occur in the genome, mutations can be deleterious (harmful). For example, mutations may occur in regions that control cell cycle regulation, which can result in cancer (see Special Topic: The Cell Cycle and Immortality of Cancer Cells). Many other types of mutations, however, are not harmful to an organism.
Regardless of their effect, the cell attempts to reduce the frequency of mutations that occur during DNA replication. To accomplish this, there are polymerases with proofreading capacities that can identify and correct mismatched nucleotides. These safeguards reduce the frequency of DNA mutations so that they only occur every 109 nucleotides.
Mitotic Cell Division
There are two types of cells in the body: germ cells (sperm and egg) and somatic cells. The body and its various tissues comprises somatic cells. Organisms that contain two sets of chromosomes in their somatic cells are called diploid organisms. Humans have 46 chromosomes and they are diploid because they inherit one set of chromosomes (n = 23) from each parent. As a result, they have 23 matching pairs of chromosomes, which are known as homologous chromosomes. As seen in Figure 4.13, homologous chromosome pairs vary in size and are generally numbered from largest (chromosome 1) to smallest (chromosome 22) with the exception of the 23rd pair, which is made up of the sex chromosomes (X and Y). Typically, the female sex is XX and the male sex is XY. Individuals inherit an X chromosome from their chromosomal mother and an X or Y from their chromosomal father.

To grow and repair tissues, somatic cells must divide. As discussed previously, for cell division to occur, a cell must first replicate its genetic material. During DNA replication, each chromosome produces double the amount of genetic information. The duplicated arms of chromosomes are known as sister chromatids, and they are attached at the centromeric region. To elaborate, the number of chromosomes stays the same (n = 46); however, the amount of genetic material is doubled in the cell as the result of replication.
Mitosis is the process of somatic cell division that gives rise to two diploid daughter cells (Figure 4.14). Once DNA and other organelles in the cell have finished replication, mitotic spindle fibres physically align each chromosome at the center of the cell. Next, the spindle fibres divide the sister chromatids and move each one to opposite sides of the cell. At this phase, there are 46 chromosomes on each side of a human cell. The cell can now divide into two fully separated daughter cells.

Meiotic Cell Division
Gametogenesis is the production of gametes (sperm and egg cells); it involves two rounds of cell division called meiosis. Similar to mitosis, the parent cell in meiosis is diploid. However, meiosis has a few key differences, including the number of daughter cells produced (four cells, which require two rounds of cell division to produce) and the number of chromosomes each daughter cell has (see Figure 4.14).
During the first round of division (known as meiosis I), each chromosome (n = 46) replicates its DNA so that sister chromatids are formed. Next, with the help of spindle fibres, homologous chromosomes align near the center of the cell and sister chromatids physically swap genetic material. In other words, the sister chromatids of matching chromosomes cross over with each other at matching DNA nucleotide positions. The occurrence of homologous chromosomes crossing over, swapping DNA, and then rejoining segments is called genetic recombination. The “genetic shuffling” that occurs in gametes increases organismal genetic diversity by creating new combinations of genes on chromosomes that are different from the parent cell. Genetic mutations can also arise during recombination. For example, there may be an unequal swapping of genetic material that occurs between the two sister chromatids, which can result in deletions or duplications of DNA nucleotides. Once genetic recombination is complete, homologous chromosomes are separated and two daughter cells are formed.
The daughter cells after the first round of meiosis are haploid, meaning they only have one set of chromosomes (n = 23). During the second round of cell division (known as meiosis II), sister chromatids are separated and two additional haploid daughter cells are formed. Therefore, the four resulting daughter cells have one set of chromosomes (n = 23), and they also have a genetic composition that is not identical to the parent cells nor to each other.
Although both sperm and egg gamete production undergo meiosis, they differ in the final number of viable daughter cells. In the case of spermatogenesis, four mature sperm cells are produced. Although four egg cells are also produced in oogenesis, only one of these egg cells will result in an ovum (mature egg). During fertilization, an egg cell and sperm cell fuse, which creates a diploid cell that develops into an embryo. The ovum also provides the cellular organelles necessary for embryonic cell division. This includes mitochondria, which is why humans, and most other multicellular eukaryotes, have the same mtDNA sequence as their mothers.
Chromosomal Disorders: Aneuploidies
During mitosis or meiosis, entire deletions or duplications of chromosomes can occur due to error. For example, homologous chromosomes may fail to separate properly, so one daughter cell may end up with an extra chromosome while the other daughter cell has one less. Cells with an unexpected (or abnormal) number of chromosomes are known as aneuploid. Adult or embryonic cells can be tested for chromosome number (karyotyping). Aneuploid cells are typically detrimental to a dividing cell or developing embryo, which can lead to a loss of pregnancy. However, the occurrence of individuals being born with three copies of the 21st chromosome is relatively common; this genetic condition is known as Down Syndrome. Moreover, individuals can also be born with aneuploid sex chromosome conditions such as XXY, XXX, and XO (referring to only one X chromosome).
Special Topic: The Cell Cycle and Immortality of Cancer Cells
DNA replication is part of a series of preparatory phases that a cell undergoes prior to cell division, collectively known as interphase (Figure 4.15). During interphase, the cell not only doubles its chromosomes through DNA replication, but it also increases its metabolic capacity to provide energy for growth and division. Transition into each phase of the cell cycle is tightly controlled by proteins that serve as checkpoints. If a cell fails to pass a checkpoint, then DNA replication and/or cell division will not continue. Some of the reasons why a cell may fail at a checkpoint is DNA damage, lack of nutrients to continue the process, or insufficient size. In turn, a cell may undergo apoptosis, which is a mechanism for cell death.

Unchecked cellular growth is a distinguishing hallmark of cancer. In other words, as cancer cells grow and proliferate, they acquire the capacity to avoid death and replicate indefinitely. This uncontrolled and continuous cell division is also known as “immortality.” As previously mentioned, most cells lose the ability to divide due to shortening of telomeres on the ends of chromosomes over time. One way in which cancer cells retain replicative immortality is that the length of their telomeres is continuously protected. Chemotherapy, often used to treat cancer, targets the cell cycle (especially cell division) to halt the propagation of genetically abnormal cells. Another therapeutic approach that continues to be investigated is targeting telomere activity to stop the division of cancer cells.

Researchers have exploited the immortality of cancer cells for molecular research. The oldest immortal cell line is HeLa cells (Figure 4.16), which were harvested from Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1955. At that time, extracted cells frequently died during experiments, but surprisingly HeLa cells continued to replicate. Propagation of Lacks’s cell line has significantly contributed to medical research, including contributing to ongoing cancer research and helping to test the polio vaccine in the 1950s. However, Lacks had not given her consent for her tumor biopsy to be used in cell culture research. Moreover, her family was unaware of the extraction and remarkable application of her cells for two decades. The history of HeLa cell origin was first revealed in 1976. The controversy voiced by the Lacks family was included in an extensive account of HeLa cells published in Rebecca Skloot’s 2010 book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. A film based on the book was also released in 2017 (Wolfe 2017).
Protein Synthesis
At the beginning of the chapter, we defined proteins as strings of amino acids that fold into complex 3-D shapes. There are 20 standard amino acids that can be strung together in different combinations in humans, and the result is that proteins can perform an impressive amount of different functions. For instance, muscle fibres are proteins that help facilitate movement. A special class of proteins (immunoglobulins) help protect the organism by detecting disease-causing pathogens in the body. Protein hormones, such as insulin, help regulate physiological activity. Blood hemoglobin is a protein that transports oxygen throughout the body. Enzymes are also proteins, and they are catalysts for biochemical reactions that occur in the cell (e.g., metabolism). Larger-scale protein structures can be visibly seen as physical features of an organism (e.g., hair and nails).
Transcription and Translation

Nucleotides in our DNA provide the coding instructions on how to make proteins. Making proteins, also known as protein synthesis, can be broken down into two main steps referred to as transcription and translation. The purpose of transcription, the first step, is to make an ribonucleic acid (RNA) copy of our genetic code. Although there are many different types of RNA molecules that have a variety of functions within the cell, we will mainly focus on messenger RNA (mRNA). Transcription concludes with the processing (splicing) of the mRNA. The second step, translation, uses mRNA as the instructions for chaining together amino acids into a new protein molecule (Figure 4.17).

Unlike double-stranded DNA, RNA molecules are single-stranded nucleotide sequences (Figure 4.18). Additionally, while DNA contains the nucleotide thymine (T), RNA does not—instead its fourth nucleotide is uracil (U). Uracil is complementary to (or can pair with) adenine (A), while cytosine (C) and guanine (G) continue to be complementary to each other.
For transcription to proceed, a gene must first be turned “on” by the cell. A gene is a segment of DNA that codes for RNA, and genes can vary in length from a few hundred to as many as two million base pairs in length. The double-stranded DNA is then separated, and one side of the DNA is used as a coding template that is read by RNA polymerase. Next, complementary free-floating RNA nucleotides are linked together (Figure 4.19) to form a single-stranded mRNA. For example, if a DNA template is TACGGATGC, then the newly constructed mRNA sequence will be AUGCCUACG.
Genes contain segments called introns and exons. Exons are considered “coding” while introns are considered “noncoding”—meaning the information they contain will not be needed to construct proteins. When a gene is first transcribed into pre-mRNA, introns and exons are both included (Figure 4.20). However, once transcription is finished, introns are removed in a process called splicing. During splicing, a protein/RNA complex attaches itself to the pre-mRNA. Next, introns are removed and the remaining exons are connected, thus creating a shorter mature mRNA that serves as a template for building proteins.


As described above, the result of transcription is a single-stranded mRNA copy of a gene. Translation is the process by which amino acids are chained together to form a new protein. During translation, the mature mRNA is transported outside of the nucleus, where it is bound to a ribosome (Figure 4.21). The nucleotides in the mRNA are read in triplets, which are called codons. Each mRNA codon corresponds to an amino acid, which is carried to the ribosome by a transfer RNA (tRNA). Thus, tRNAs is the link between the mRNA molecule and the growing amino acid chain.

Continuing with our mRNA sequence example from above, the mRNA sequence AUG-CCU-ACG codes for three amino acids. Using a codon table (Figure 4.22), AUG is a codon for methionine (Met), CCU is proline (Pro), and ACG is threonine (Thr). Therefore, the protein sequence is Met-Pro-Thr. Methionine is the most common “start codon” (AUG) for the initiation of protein translation in eukaryotes. As the ribosome moves along the mRNA, the growing amino acid chain exits the ribosome and folds into a protein. When the ribosome reaches a “stop” codon (UAA, UAG, or UGA), the ribosome stops adding any new amino acids, detaches from the mRNA, and the protein is released. Depending upon the amino acid sequence, a linear protein may undergo additional “folding.” The final three-dimensional protein shape is integral to completing a specific structural or functional task.
Dig Deeper: Protein Synthesis
To see protein synthesis in animation, please check out the From DNA to Protein video on YourGenome.org.

Mendelian Genetics

Gregor Johann Mendel (1822–1884) is often described as the “Father of Genetics.” Mendel was a monk who conducted pea plant breeding experiments in a monastery located in the present-day Czech Republic (Figure 4.23). After several years of experiments, Mendel presented his work to a local scientific community in 1865 and published his findings the following year. Although his meticulous effort was notable, the importance of his work was not recognized for another 35 years. One reason for this delay in recognition is that his findings did not agree with the predominant scientific viewpoints on inheritance at the time. For example, it was believed that parental physical traits “blended” together and offspring inherited an intermediate form of that trait. In contrast, Mendel showed that certain pea plant physical traits (e.g., flower color) were passed down separately to the next generation in a statistically predictable manner. Mendel also observed that some parental traits disappeared in offspring but then reappeared in later generations. He explained this occurrence by introducing the concept of “dominant” and “recessive” traits. Mendel established a few fundamental laws of inheritance, and this section reviews some of these concepts. Moreover, the study of traits and diseases that are controlled by a single gene is commonly referred to as Mendelian genetics.

The physical appearance of a trait is called an organism’s phenotype. Figure 4.24 shows pea plant (Pisum sativum) phenotypes that were studied by Mendel, and in each of these cases the physical traits are controlled by a single gene. In the case of Mendelian genetics, a phenotype is determined by an organism’s genotype. A genotype consists of two gene copies, wherein one copy was inherited from each parent. Gene copies are also known as alleles (Figure 4.25), which means they are found in the same gene location on homologous chromosomes. Alleles have a nonidentical DNA sequence, which means their phenotypic effect can be different. In other words, although alleles code for the same trait, different phenotypes can be produced depending on which two alleles (i.e., genotypes) an organism possesses. For example, Mendel’s pea plants all have flowers, but their flower color can be purple or white. Flower color is therefore dependent upon which two color alleles are present in a genotype.

A Punnett square is a diagram that can help visualize Mendelian inheritance patterns. For instance, when parents of known genotypes mate, a Punnett square can help predict the ratio of Mendelian genotypes and phenotypes that their offspring would possess. When discussing genotype, biologists use upper and lower case letters to denote the different allele copies. Figure 4.26 is a Punnett square that includes two heterozygous parents for flower color (Bb). A heterozygous genotype means there are two different alleles for the same gene. Therefore, a pea plant that is heterozygous for flower color has one purple allele and one white allele. When an organism is homozygous for a specific trait, it means their genotype consists of two copies of the same allele. Using the Punnett square example, the two heterozygous pea plant parents can produce offspring with two different homozygous genotypes (BB or bb) or offspring that are heterozygous (Bb).

A pea plant with purple flowers could be heterozygous (Bb) or homozygous (BB). This is because the purple color allele (B) is dominant to the white color allele (b), and therefore it only needs one copy of that allele to phenotypically express purple flowers. Because the white flower allele is recessive, a pea plant must be homozygous for the recessive allele in order to have a white color phenotype (bb). As seen by the Punnett square example (Figure 4.26), three of four offspring will have purple flowers and the other one will have white flowers.
The Law of Segregation was introduced by Mendel to explain why we can predict the ratio of genotypes and phenotypes in offspring. As discussed previously, a parent will have two alleles for a certain gene (with each copy on a different homologous chromosome). The Law of Segregation states that the two copies will be segregated from each other and will each be distributed to their own gamete. We now know that the process where that occurs is meiosis.
Offspring are the products of two gametes combining, which means the offspring inherits one allele from each gamete for most genes. When multiple offspring are produced (like with pea plant breeding), the predicted phenotype ratios are more clearly observed. The pea plants Mendel studied provide a simplistic model to understand single-gene genetics. While many traits anthropologists are interested in have a more complicated inheritance (e.g., are informed by many genes), there are a few known Mendelian traits in humans. Additionally, some human diseases also follow a Mendelian pattern of inheritance (Figure 4.27). Because humans do not have as many offspring as other organisms, we may not recognize Mendelian patterns as easily. However, understanding these principles and being able to calculate the probability that an offspring will have a Mendelian phenotype is still important.
| Mendelian disorder | Gene |
| Alpha Thalassemia | HBA1 |
| Cystic Fibrosis | CFTR |
| Fragile X Syndrome | FMR1 |
| Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency | G6PD |
| Hemophilia A | F8 |
| Huntington disease | HTT |
| Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome | TYMP |
| Oculocutaneous Albinism: Type 1 | TYR |
| Polycystic Kidney Disease | PKHD1 |
| Sickle-cell anemia | HBB |
| Spinal Muscular Atrophy: SMN1 Linked | SMN1 |
| Tay-Sachs Disease | HEXA |
| Wilson Disease | ATP7B |
Example of Mendelian Inheritance: The ABO Blood Group System
In 1901, Karl Landsteiner at the University of Vienna published his discovery of ABO blood groups. While conducting blood immunology experiments in which he combined the blood of individuals who possess different blood cell types, he observed an agglutination (clotting) reaction. The presence of agglutination implies there is an incompatible immunological reaction; no agglutination will occur in individuals with the same blood type. This work was clearly important because it resulted in a higher survival rate of patients who received blood transfusions. Blood transfusions from someone with a different type of blood causes agglutinations, and the resulting coagulated blood can not easily pass through blood vessels, resulting in death. Landsteiner received the Nobel Prize (1930) for his discovery and explaination of the ABO blood group system.
Blood cell surface antigens are proteins that coat the surface of red blood cells, and antibodies are specifically “against” or “anti” to the antigens from other blood types. Thus, antibodies are responsible for causing agglutination between incompatible blood types. Understanding the interaction of antigens and antibodies helps to determine ABO compatibility amongst blood donors and recipients. Individuals that are blood type A have A antigens on the red blood cell surface, and anti-B antibodies, which will bind to B antigens should they come in contact. Alternatively, individuals with blood type B have B antigens and anti-A antibodies. Individuals with blood type AB have both A and B antigens but do not produce antibodies for the ABO system. This does not mean type AB does not have any antibodies present, just that specifically anti-A and anti-B antibodies are not produced. Individuals who are blood type O have nonspecific antigens and produce both anti-A and anti-B antibodies.
Figure 4.28 shows a table of the ABO allele system, which has a Mendelian pattern of inheritance. Both the A and B alleles function as dominant alleles, so the A allele always codes for the A antigen, and the B allele codes for the B antigen. The O allele differs from A and B, because it codes for a nonfunctional antigen protein, which means there is no antigen present on the cell surface of O blood cells. To have blood type O, two copies of the O allele must be inherited, one from each parent, thus the O allele is considered recessive. Therefore, someone who is a heterozygous AO genotype is phenotypically blood type A, and a genotype of BO is blood type B. The ABO blood system also provides an example of codominance, which is when both alleles are observed in the phenotype. This is true for blood type AB: when an individual inherits both the A and B alleles, then both A and B antigens will be present on the cell surface.

Also found on the surface of red blood cells is the rhesus group antigen, known as “Rh factor.” In reality, there are several antigens on red blood cells independent from the ABO blood system, however, the Rh factor is the second most important antigen to consider when determining blood donor and recipient compatibility. Rh antigens must also be considered when a pregnant mother and her baby have incompatible Rh factors. In such cases, a doctor can administer necessary treatment steps to prevent pregnancy complications and hemolytic disease, which is when the mother’s antibodies break down the newborn’s red blood cells.
An individual can possess the Rh antigen (be Rh positive) or lack the Rh antigen (be Rh negative). The Rh factor is controlled by a single gene and is inherited independently of the ABO alleles. Therefore, all blood types can either be positive (O+, A+, B+, AB+) or negative (O-, A-, B-, AB-).
Individuals with O+ red blood cells can donate blood to A+, B+, AB+, and O+ blood type recipients. Because O- individuals do not have AB or Rh antigens, they are compatible with all blood cell types and are referred to as “universal donors.” Individuals that are AB+ are considered to be “universal recipients” because they do not possess antibodies against other blood types.
Mendelian Patterns of Inheritance and Pedigrees
A pedigree can be used to investigate a family’s medical history by determining if a health issue is inheritable and will possibly require medical intervention. A pedigree can also help determine if it is a Mendelian recessive or dominant genetic condition. Figure 4.29 is a pedigree example of a family with Huntington’s disease, which has a Mendelian dominant pattern of inheritance. In a standard pedigree, males are represented by a square and females are represented by a circle. Biological family members are connected to a horizontal line, with biological parents above and offspring below. When an individual is affected with a certain condition, the square or circle is filled in as a solid color. With a dominant condition, at least one of the parents will have the disease and an offspring will have a 50% chance of inheriting the affected chromosome. Therefore, dominant genetic conditions tend to be present in every generation. In the case of Huntington’s, some individuals may not be diagnosed until later in adulthood, so parents may unknowingly pass this dominantly inherited disease to their children.

Because the probability of inheriting a disease-causing recessive allele is more rare, recessive medical conditions can skip generations. Figure 4.30 is an example of a family that carries a recessive cystic fibrosis mutation. A parent that is heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis allele has a 50% chance of passing down their affected chromosome to the next generation. If a child has a recessive disease, then it means both of their parents are carriers (heterozygous) for that condition. In most cases, carriers for recessive conditions show no serious medical symptoms. Individuals whose family have a known medical history for certain conditions sometimes seek family planning services (see the Genetic Testing section).

Pedigrees can also help distinguish if a health issue has either an autosomal or X-linked pattern of inheritance. As previously discussed, there are 23 pairs of chromosomes and 22 of these pairs are known as autosomes. The provided pedigree examples (Figure 4.29-30) are autosomally linked genetic diseases. This means the genes that cause the disease are on one of the chromosomes numbered 1 to 22. The conditions caused by genes located on the X chromosome are referred to as X-linked diseases.
Figure 4.31 depicts a family in which the mother is a carrier for the X-linked recessive disease Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). The mother is a carrier for DMD, so daughters and sons will have a 50% chance of inheriting the pathogenic DMD allele. Because females have two X chromosomes, females who inherit only one copy will not have the disease (although in rare cases, female carriers may show some symptoms of the disease). On the other hand, males who inherit a copy of an X-linked pathogenic DMD allele will typically be affected with the condition. Thus, males are more susceptible to X-linked conditions because they only have one X chromosome. Therefore, when evaluating a pedigree, if a higher proportion of males are affected with the disease, this could suggest the disease is X-linked recessive.
Compared to the X chromosome, the Y chromosome is smaller with only a few genes. Y-linked traits are therefore rare and can only be passed from a chromosomal father to a biological XY child.

Other Patterns of Inheritance
Complexity Surrounding Mendelian Inheritance
Pea plant trait genetics are relatively simple compared to what we know about genetic inheritance today. The vast majority of genetically controlled traits are not strictly dominant or recessive, so the relationship among alleles and predicting phenotype is often more complicated. For example, traits that exhibit incomplete dominance occur when a heterozygote exhibits a phenotype that is an intermediate phenotype of both alleles. In snapdragon flowers, the red flower color (R) is dominant and white is recessive (r). Therefore, the homozygous dominant RR is red and homozygous recessive rr is white. However, because the R allele is not completely dominant, the heterozygote Rr is a blend of red and white, which results in a pink flower (Figure 4.32).

An example of incomplete dominance in humans is the enzyme β-hexosaminidase A (Hex A), which is encoded by the gene HEXA. Patients with two dysfunctional HEXA alleles are unable to metabolize a specific lipid-sugar molecule (GM2 ganglioside); because of this, the molecule builds up and causes damage to nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. This condition is known as Tay-Sachs disease, and it usually appears in infants who are three to six months old. Most children with Tay-Sachs do not live past early childhood. Individuals who are heterozygous for the functional type HEXA allele and one dysfunctional allele have reduced Hex A activity. However, the amount of enzyme activity is still sufficient, so carriers do not exhibit any neurological phenotypes and appear healthy.
Some genes and alleles can also have higher penetrance than others. Penetrance can be defined as the proportion of individuals who have a certain allele and also express an expected phenotype. If a genotype always produces an expected phenotype, then those alleles are said to be fully penetrant. However, in the case of incomplete (or reduced) penetrance, an expected phenotype may not occur even if an individual possesses the alleles that are known to control a trait or cause a disease.
A well-studied example of genetic penetrance is the cancer-related genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Mutations in these genes can affect crucial processes such as DNA repair, which can lead to breast and ovarian cancers. Although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance, it does not mean an individual will develop cancer if they inherit a pathogenic allele. Several lifestyle and environmental factors can also influence the risk for developing cancer. Regardless, if a family has a history of certain types of cancers, then it is often recommended that genetic testing be performed for individuals who are at risk. Moreover, publically available genetic testing companies are now offering health reports that include BRCA1 and BRCA2 allele testing (see the Genetic Testing section).
Polygenic Traits
While Mendelian traits tend to be influenced by a single gene, the vast majority of human phenotypes are polygenic traits. The term polygenic means “many genes.” Therefore, a polygenic trait is influenced by many genes that work together to produce the phenotype. Human phenotypes such as hair color, eye color, height, and weight are examples of polygenic traits. Hair color, for example, is largely determined by the type and quantity of a pigment called melanin, which is produced by a specialized cell type within the skin called melanocytes. The quantity and ratio of melanin pigments determine black, brown, blond, and red hair colors. MC1R is a well-studied gene that encodes a protein expressed on the surface of melanocytes that is involved in the production of eumelanin pigment. Typically, people with two functional copies of MC1R have brown hair. People with reduced functioning MC1R allele copies tend to produce pheomelanin, which results in blond or red hair. However, MC1R alleles have variable penetrance, and studies are continually identifying new genes (e.g., TYR, TYRP1, SLC24A5, and KITLG) that also influence hair color. Individuals with two nonfunctioning copies of the gene TYR have a condition called oculocutaneous albinism—their melanocytes are unable to produce melanin so these individuals have white hair, light eyes, and pale skin.
In comparison to Mendelian diseases, complex diseases (e.g., Type II diabetes, coronary heart disease, Alzheimer's, and schizophrenia) are more prevalent in humans. Complex diseases are polygenic, but their development is also influenced by physical, environmental, sociocultural, and individual lifestyle factors. Families can be more predisposed to certain diseases; however, complex diseases often do not have a clear pattern of inheritance.
Although research of complex traits and diseases continue, geneticists may not know all of the genes involved with a given complex disease. Additionally, how much genetic versus nongenetic determinants contribute to a disease phenotype can be difficult to decipher. Therefore, predicting individual medical risk and risk across different human populations is often a significant challenge. For instance, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) continue to be one of the leading causes of death around the world. Development of CVDs has been linked to nutrient exposure during fetal development, high fat and sedentary lifestyles, drug usage, adverse socioeconomic conditions, and various genes. Human environments are diverse, and public health research including the field of Human Biology can help identify risk factors and behaviors associated with chronic diseases. Large-scale clinical genetic studies with powerful bioinformatic approaches can also help elucidate some of these complex relationships.
Genomics and Epigenetics
A genome is all of the genetic material of an organism. In the case of humans, this includes 46 chromosomes and mtDNA. The human genome contains approximately three billion base pairs of DNA and has regions that are both noncoding and coding. Scientists now estimate that the human genome contains 20,000–25,000 protein-coding genes, with each chromosome containing a few hundred to a few thousand genes. As our knowledge of heredity increases, researchers have begun to realize the importance of epigenetics, or changes in gene expression that do not result in a change of the underlying DNA sequence. Epigenetics research is also crucial for unraveling gene regulation, which involves complex interactions between DNA, RNA, proteins, and the environment.
Genomics
The vast majority of the human genome is noncoding, meaning there are no instructions to make a protein or RNA product in these regions. Historically, noncoding DNA was referred to as “junk DNA” because these vast segments of the genome were thought to be irrelevant and nonfunctional. However, continual improvement of DNA sequencing technology along with worldwide scientific collaborations and consortia have contributed to our increased understanding of how the genome functions. Through these technological advances and collaborations, we have since discovered that many of these noncoding DNA regions are involved in dynamic genetic regulatory processes.
Genomics is a diverse field of molecular biology that focuses on genomic evolution, structure, and function; gene mapping; and genotyping (determining the alleles present). Evolutionary genomics determined that humans share about 98.8% percent of their DNA with chimpanzees. Given the phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees, having a DNA sequence difference of 1.2% seems surprising. However, a lot of genomics research is also focused on understanding how noncoding genomic regions influence how individual genes are turned “on” and “off” (i.e., regulated). Therefore, although DNA sequences are identical, regulatory differences in noncoding genetic regions (e.g., promoters) are believed to be largely responsible for the physical differences between humans and chimpanzees.
Further understanding of genomic regulatory elements can lead to new therapies and personalized treatments for a broad range of diseases. For example, targeting the regulatory region of a pathogenic gene to “turn off” its expression can prevent its otherwise harmful effects. Such molecular targeting approaches can be personalized based on an individual’s genetic makeup. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which seek to determine genes that are linked to complex traits and diseases, typically require significant computational efforts. This is because millions of DNA sequences must be analysed and GWAS sometimes include thousands of participants. During the beginning of the genomics field, most of the large-scale genomics studies only included North American, European, and East Asian participants and patients. Researchers are now focusing on increasing ethnic diversity in genomic studies and databases. In turn, accuracy of individual disease risk across all human populations will be improved and more rare disease–causing alleles will be identified.
Epigenetics
All cells within your body have the same copy of DNA. For example, a brain neuron has the same DNA blueprint as does a skin cell on your arm. Although these cells have the same genetic information, they are considered specialized. The reason all cells within the body have the same DNA but different morphologies and functions is that different subsets of genes are turned “on” and “off” within the different cell types. A more precise explanation is that there is differential expression of genes among different cell types. In the case of neuronal cells, a unique subset of genes are active that allow them to grow axons to send and receive messages. This subset of genes will be inactive in non-neuronal cell types such as skin cells. Epigenetics is a branch of genetics that studies how these genes are regulated through mechanisms that do not change the underlying DNA sequence.
The prefix epi- means “on, above, or near,” and epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation and histone modifications occur on, above, or near DNA. The addition of a methyl group (— CH₃) to DNA is known as DNA methylation (Figure 4.33). DNA methylation and other modifications made to the histones around which DNA are wrapped are thought to make chromatin more compact. This DNA is inaccessible to transcription factors and RNA polymerases, thus preventing genes from being turned on (i.e., transcribed). Other histone modifications have the opposite effect by loosening chromatin, which makes genes accessible to transcription factors.

It is important to note that environmental factors can alter DNA methylation and histone modifications and also that these changes can be passed from generation to generation. For example, someone’s epigenetic profile can be altered during a stressful time (e.g., natural disasters, famine, etc.), and those regulatory changes can be inherited by the next generation. Moreover, our epigenetic expression profile changes as we age. For example, certain places in our genome become “hyper” or “hypo” methylated over time. Identical twins also have epigenetic profiles that become more different as they age. Researchers are only beginning to understand the significance of these genome-wide epigenetic changes. Scientists have also discovered that changes in epigenetic modifications can alter gene expression in ways that contribute to diseases. It is also important to note that, unlike DNA mutations (which permanently change the nucleotide sequence), epigenetic changes can be easily reversed. A lot of research now focuses on how drugs can alter or modulate changes in DNA methylation and histone modifications to treat diseases such as cancer.
Environmental Disruptors and Their Impact on Human Reproductive Systems
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) defines endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) as synthetic or natural compounds that interfere with the body’s hormonal systems. Found in pesticides, plastics, industrial chemicals, and pollutants, EDCs can mimic, block, or alter the natural action of hormones (NIEHS, 2024). Their effects on reproductive health are profound, particularly during critical developmental windows while also affecting subsequent generations through epigenetic changes.
NIEHS declared EDC’s:
| Atrazine | one of the most commonly applied herbicides in the world, often used to control weeds in corn, sorghum, and sugarcane crops. |
| Bisphenol A (BPA) | used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It is used in manufacturing, food packaging, toys, and other applications. BPA resins may be found in the lining of some canned foods and beverages. |
| Dioxins | a byproduct of certain manufacturing processes, such as herbicide production and paper bleaching. They can be released into the air from waste burning and wildfires. |
| Perchlorate | a colorless salt manufactured and used as an industrial chemical to make rockets, explosives, and fireworks, which can be found in some groundwater. |
| Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | a large group of chemicals used widely in industrial applications, such as firefighting foam, nonstick pans, paper, and textile coatings. |
| Phthalates | a large group of compounds used as liquid plasticizers. They are found in hundreds of products including some food packaging, cosmetics, fragrances, children’s toys, and medical device tubing. Cosmetics that may contain phthalates include nail polish, hair spray, aftershave lotion, cleanser, and shampoo. |
| Phytoestorgens | naturally occurring substances with hormone-like activity found in some plants; they may have a similar effect to estrogen produced by the body. Soy foods, for example, contain phytoestrogens. |
| Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) | used to make flame retardants for products such as furniture foam and carpet. |
| Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) | used to make electrical equipment, such as transformers, and are in hydraulic fluids, heat transfer fluids, lubricants, and plasticizers. PCBs were mass-produced globally until they were banned in 1979. |
| Triclosan | an ingredient that was previously added to some antimicrobial and personal care products, like liquid body wash and soaps. |
The Male Reproductive System: Vulnerabilities, Epigenetics, and Disruptions
The male reproductive system is highly sensitive to hormonal interference, especially during prenatal and early postnatal development. Over the past 50 years, epidemiological data gathered by the NIEHS has revealed alarming changes: increased cases of prostate and testicular cancers, male-descended testes, and anatomical malformations of male genitalia (Sweeney Et al., 2015). These changes are accompanied by a global decline in sperm quality, underscoring the widespread vulnerability of male reproductive health to environmental factors. The testes, as the site of sperm production and testosterone synthesis, are particularly susceptible to EDC interference. Proper testicular development depends on tightly regulated hormonal signalling, which EDCs can disrupt by mimicking or blocking hormones like testosterone and estrogen, leading to improper testicular formation and increased risk of testicular cancer. Prostate development is also a target for EDC interference. African American men, for example, exhibit twice the risk of developing prostate cancer than Caucasian men. This disparity has been attributed to hereditary, lifestyle, and environmental factors, often causing elevated maternal estrogen levels during gestation. This prenatal exposure to EDCs can mimic estrogen and predispose developing prostate tissues to cancerous changes in adulthood (2015).
The Female Reproductive System: Epigenetics and Fertility Challenges
Female fertility relies on a delicate hormonal balance to regulate processes such as ovulation, implantation, and pregnancy. EDCs can disrupt this balance by mimicking, antagonizing, or altering the action of hormones. Their interference contributes to a wide range of reproductive disorders, including early puberty, premature ovarian failure, anovulation, and infertility. Epigenetics plays a central role in female reproductive health. DNA methylation, histone modifications, and ncRNA generation are crucial for regulating ovarian and uterine function; However, EDCs can affect these regulatory mechanisms. An example of this is primordial germ cells (PGCs) in female embryos, which need to undergo extensive epigenetic reprogramming during development (Biswas Et al., 2021). This process erases genomic imprinting and reactivates the inactive X chromosome, creating a "blank slate" for the next generation; however, EDCs can disrupt this critical period of epigenetic resetting, leading to long-term consequences for reproductive health.
The ovarian follicle–the functional unit of female reproduction–is particularly vulnerable to these chemicals. Being exposed to EDCs can deplete the pool of these follicles, leading to temporary or permanent infertility (2021). Additionally, EDCs interfere with estrogen receptor function, a crucial regulator of female reproductive processes. These chemicals bind to these receptors, altering the recruitment of enzymes involved in histone modification and chromatin remodelling; this disrupts gene expression patterns critical for ovarian and uterine health. One striking example is diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen once prescribed to pregnant women (2021). DES exposure has been linked to ovarian cancer in subsequent generations, highlighting the transgenerational effects of EDCs on the female reproductive system. In severe cases, EDCs induce multigenerational reproductive disorders, as observed in studies linking DES to ovarian cancer in the grandchildren of exposed individuals.
Epigenetic Therapy
Heritable Changes and Some Related Drugs
As has been said, epigenetics involves heritable changes in gene expression, without involving DNA alteration. These changes, being heritable and often involving abnormal DNA methylation patterns within the four DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) or histone modifications in chromatin, can lead to disease development. DNMTs (DNMT1, DNMT2, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B) have functions specific to themselves and are at the core of the DNA methylation process. Regarding the histone modifications mentioned, histones have been recognized to mutate under various mechanisms, such as acetylation, methylation and phosphorylation. The acetylation of histones involves histone acetyltransferases (HATs), which are associated with the activation of gene transcription. This process is reversed by the deacetylation of histones, which is associated with the silencing of gene transcription under histone deacetylases (HDACs). (Peedicayil, 2006)
Epigenetic therapy, with the use of specialized drug developments, aims to correct epigenetic defects, which are reversible under pharmacological intervention, by targeting enzymes such as HATs, HDACs and DNMTs, as well as histone methyltransferases. For instance, certain drugs are being developed as DNMT inhibitors, stopping the methylation of DNA associated with inappropriate transcriptional silencing of genes, and potentially increasing haemoglobin F to help patients affected by sickle cell anemia. These DNMT inhibitor drugs have been classified under three categories based on their structures: nucleoside analogue DNMT inhibitors, non-nucleoside analogue DNMT inhibitors, and antisense oligonucleotides (2006). Nucleoside analogue DNMT inhibitors are analogues of cytosine, the nucleotide affected by methylation from DNMTs, and are incorporated into replicating DNA, replacing cytosine, thus being S-phase-specific drugs. Non-nucleoside analogue DNMT inhibitors are researched to reduce the myelotoxic effects of drugs directly incorporated into the DNA, and are brought into the patient differently. Antisense oligonucleotides are drugs made up of sequences of nucleotides complementary to mRNAs, made to block translation, by acting on the DNMT1 for instance. Additionally, drugs such as HDAC inhibitors help maintain the acetylation of histones, leading to apoptosis, growth arrest or differentiation of tumour cells, giving this drug an anticancer effect, suppressing tumour growth. (2006)
Implications with Cancers
Research published in The Indian Journal for Medical Research has shown that these drugs show promising results in cancer treatment trials involving solid tumours and hematological malignancies. However, they have limitations, for instance, the fact that DNMT and HDAC inhibitors could activate oncogenes due to limited specificity, leading to further tumor progression; or their high myelotoxicity levels, a side effect thought to be due to their incorporation into DNA, and nucleotide analogue inhibitors (2006). Though that is the case, it is important to know that epigenetic drugs alone or in combination with conventional anticancer drugs, may prove to be a significant advance over the use of conventional anticancer drugs, and may also be a way to prevent diseases. Additionally, combination therapy strategies targeting various epigenetic markers, such as DNMTs for cancer-related genes and non-selective HDAC inhibitors, have been shown to yield promising results, simultaneously inducing the expression of tumor suppressor genes and inhibiting the expression of key oncogenes. As recently explored by researchers in Cell Death Discovery, this specific case of combination therapy would synergistically induce gene expression while maintaining the selectivity required to increase targeting of particular tumor types based on gene expression profiles. (Yu Et al., 2024)
To date, the majority of cases in which epigenetic defects have led to disease pathogenesis are cancers (Peedicayil, 2006), cancer cells often developing due to uncontrolled cell growth and resistance to cell death mechanisms, made possible with abnormal DNA methylation patterns as well as histone modifications (Yu Et al., 2024). Epigenetic alterations have therefore been identified within the core of tumor progression mechanisms in cancer cells, including tumorigenesis, promotion, progression, and recurrence, suggesting epigenetic heterogeneity at the cellular level (2024). Certain drugs have been developed, showing specifically good results for cancer treatments, by inhibiting enzymes such as KMTs and KDMs. These can be added to the growing list of drugs fitting into epigenetic therapy, including DNMT and HDAC inhibitors, as well as combination therapy treatments, for cancer and other diseases.
Purpose of Study and Future Developments
Studying the link between epigenetics and diseases is crucial for multiple reasons, one of which is enabling scientists and researchers to better understand disease mechanisms, detect abnormal epigenetic changes, and, in turn, develop more effective treatments or possibly even prevent diseases from developing in the first place. As previously mentioned, epigenetic therapy has been shown to bring promising results in drug trials surrounding cancer treatments. Still, the range of diseases to be treated with this new pharmacology approach is vast, molecules other than DNMTs and HDACs being related to epigenetic mechanisms within gene expression, such as BET proteins and KDMs, potentially being a source of new medications or treatments (Yu Et al., 2024; Peedicayil, 2006). Additionally, by understanding someone's epigenetic profile, a form of personalized “precision medicine” (2024, p. 8) is developed, offering less toxic and more effective treatments with fewer undesired side effects. Researchers expanding this field of knowledge would be able to understand, in more concrete terms, how external factors are linked to epigenetic changes and, consequently, disease risk, potentially halting disease progression and developing new prevention mechanisms. Personalized medicine combines both genetic and epigenetic data, including gene expression profiles, DNA methylation patterns, histone modification profiles, and identified biomarkers, to create precise disease management and prediction.
It is crucial to keep in mind that diseases like cancer are linked to major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, which could be reduced with therapeutic medicine such as epigenetic therapy, aiming to detect cancer biomarkers to improve risk assessment, diagnosis, and targeted treatment interventions, limiting the burden of chronic and life-threatening diseases. With the advancement of epigenetic therapies, new sequencing techniques, as well as AI (2024), have opened avenues to establish precision diagnostics and therapeutics for patients.
With this said, epigenetics is a relatively new area of scientific research. This field has exploded in the last few decades, especially with the advancement of technologies that allow researchers to examine DNA methylation patterns, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA molecules across the genome. While the potential of epigenetics in explaining complex diseases, including those linked to environmental factors such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), is immense, we’ve identified two key challenges. One major limitation is the complexity and variability of epigenetic marks. These modifications can differ significantly across cell types, tissues, and even individuals, making it difficult to generalize findings.
Additionally, epigenetic changes are dynamic and can fluctuate over time, which complicates the task of linking them to specific environmental exposures or health outcomes. Another challenge lies in the transgenerational aspect of epigenetics. While it's clear that epigenetic changes can be passed from one generation to the next, the mechanisms behind this inheritance are not fully understood. It's also difficult to pinpoint exactly when and how these modifications occur in development, especially since environmental exposures may affect individuals at different stages of their life, with varying effects depending on the timing and dose.
Special Topic: Epigenetics and X Chromosome Inactivation

Mary Lyon was a British geneticist who presented a hypothesis for X chromosome inactivation (called the Lyon hypothesis) based on her work and other studies of the day. Females inherit two X chromosomes, one from each parent. Males have one functional X chromosome; however, this does not mean females have more active genes than males. During the genetic embryonic development of many female mammals, one of the X chromosomes is inactivated at random, so females have one functional X chromosome. The process of X chromosome inactivation in females occurs through epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation and histone modifications. Recent studies have analysed the role of a long noncoding RNA called X-inactive specific transcript (XIST), which is largely responsible for the random silencing of one of the X chromosomes. The presence of two X chromosomes is the signal for XIST RNA to be expressed so that one X chromosome can be inactivated. However, some cells may have an active paternal X chromosome while other cells may have an active maternal X chromosome. This phenomenon is easily seen in calico and tortoiseshell cats (Figure 4.34). In cats, the gene that controls coat color is found on the X chromosome. During early embryo development, random inactivation of X chromosomes gives rise to populations of cells that express black or orange, which results in the unique coat patterning. Therefore, calico cats are typically always female.
Genetic Testing
To assist with public health efforts, newborn screening for genetic diseases has been available in the United States for over 50 years. One of the first available genetic tests was to confirm a phenylketonuria (PKU) diagnosis in infants, which is easily treatable with a dietary change. Currently, each state decides what genes are included on newborn screening panels and some states even have programs to help with infant medical follow-ups. There are now hundreds of laboratories that provide testing for a few thousand different genes that can inform medical decisions for infants and adults. Moreover, genetic testing has been made available publicly to anyone without the assistance of medical professionals.
Clinical Testing
Clinical genetics tests assist patients with making medically informed decisions about family planning and health. Applications of this technology include assistance with in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, embryo genetic screening, and personalized medicine such as matching patients to cancer therapies. To ensure accuracy of patient genetic screening, it is important that all clinical laboratories are regulated. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) are United States federal standards that all human laboratory testing clinics must follow. A major benefit provided by some clinical genetic testing companies is access to genetic counselors, who have specialized education and training in medical genetics and counseling. For individuals with a family history of genetic disease, a physician may recommend genetic carrier screening to see if there is a risk for passing on a disease to a child. Genetic counselors provide expertise with interpretation of genetic testing results, as well as help guide and support patients when making impactful medical decisions.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
From the late nineteenth century to the present, humanity’s desire to direct its own biological destiny has raised profound questions for biological anthropologists. The study of human evolution is not only a scientific exploration of change over time—it is also a reflection of how societies interpret difference, fitness, and social value. The history of eugenics, and its modern echoes in genomic technology, reveal how evolutionary theory can be misused to justify inequality, as well as how culture continues to shape the biological future of our species.
The roots of eugenics lie in Social Darwinism, where figures such as Francis Galton (a cousin of Darwin) believed that basic natural selection was insufficient, opting for more involved methods of social engineering through selective breeding. This perspective assumed that complex human traits such as intelligence, morality, or poverty could be biologically inherited and thus controlled. In this view, biological determinism replaced social responsibility, and “fitness” became a political and cultural judgment rather than a biological one.
Throughout the early twentieth century, eugenic policies spread across the globe, shaping laws and public health initiatives. In Canada, government-backed programs continuing into the 1970s, enforced the sterilization of Indigenous women, coercing them with threats of withdrawing future healthcare. Germany famously drew upon such precedents in developing its racial hygiene programs during the Second World War, transforming eugenic ideology into a state-sponsored campaign of genocide. Even by the late twentieth century, echoes of eugenics persisted in Peru, where population control initiatives targeted Indigenous communities for compulsory sterilization.
In the modern genomic era, new technologies involving gene therapy and genetic testing present both promise and fear. The ability to modify or select genes reawakens many of the same moral dilemmas that eugenics once posed. From a biological anthropological perspective, the danger lies not in studying or applying genetics itself, but in assuming that genes alone determine destiny. The human ecosystem operates within systems where culture, environment, and biology continuously interact; attempts to reduce behaviour, intelligence, or worth to genetic codes ignore these relationships that define humanity.
As Steven Pinker argues when commenting on his book The Blank Slate, there have been two ideologies that have led to genocide: eugenics and Marxism. Marxism disregarded the idea of biology and race as well as human nature. Thus, it is not solely inheritance (genes) that leads to genocide, but the overall belief that humanity can and should be remade through coercive means. Biological anthropology reminds us that human variation—both cultural and genetic—is the foundation of adaptability. To purposely limit diversity through selective reproduction or genetic homogenization is to weaken humans’ capacity to evolve, both biologically and ethically.
Discussion questions
- What are the limits in parental selection for an offspring’s genetics?
- Consider the 1-child policy in China. What are some of the problems engendered by that policy?
Review Questions
- What is the purpose of DNA replication? Explain in a few sentences what happens during DNA replication. When do DNA mutations happen? And how does this create phenotypic variation (i.e., different phenotypes of the same physical trait)?
- Using your own words, what are homologous chromosomes and sister chromatids? What are the key differences between mitosis and meiosis?
- Determine if the pedigree diagram below (Figure 4.40) represents an autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, or X-linked recessive pattern of inheritance. You should write the genotype (i.e., AA, Aa, or aa) above each square to help you (note: there may sometimes be two possible answers for a square’s genotype). Please also explain why you concluded a particular pattern of inheritance.

- Use base pairing rules to transcribe the following DNA template sequence into mRNA: GTAAAGGTGCTGGCCATC. Next, use the protein codon table (see Figure 4.21) to translate the sequence. In regard to transcription, explain what the significance is of the first and last codon/protein in the sequence.
- In your opinion, what do you think the benefits are of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing? What are the drawbacks and/or greater ethical concerns? Do you think benefits outweigh concerns?
- Imagine that you submit your DNA sample to a genetic testing company and among the various diseases for which they test, there is an allele that is associated with late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. You have the option to view your Alzheimer’s result or to not view your result. What do you do and why?
Key Terms
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP): A high-energy compound produced by mitochondria that powers cellular processes.
Allele: A nonidentical DNA sequence found in the same gene location on a homologous chromosome, or gene copy, that codes for the same trait but produces a different phenotype.
Amino acids: Organic molecules that are the building blocks of protein. Each of the 20 different amino acids have their own unique chemical property. Amino acids are chained together to form proteins.
Ancient DNA (aDNA): DNA that is extracted from organic remains and that often dates from hundreds to thousands of years ago. Also, aDNA is typically degraded (i.e., damaged) due to exposure to the elements such as heat, acidity, and humidity.
Aneuploid: A cell with an unexpected amount of chromosomes. The loss or gain of chromosomes can occur during mitotic or meiotic division.
Antibodies: Immune-related proteins that can detect and bind to foreign substances in the blood such as pathogens.
Apoptosis: A series of molecular steps that is activated leading to cell death. Apoptosis can be activated when a cell fails checkpoints during the cell cycle; however, cancer cells have the ability to avoid apoptosis.
Autosomal: Refers to a pattern of inheritance in which an allele is located on an autosome (non sex chromosome).
Base pairs: Chemical bonding between nucleotides. In DNA, adenine (A) pairs with thymine (T) and cytosine (C) pairs with guanine (G); in RNA, adenine (A) always pairs with uracil (U).
Carbohydrate: Molecules composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms that can be broken down to supply energy.
Carrier: An individual who has a heterozygous genotype that is typically associated with a disease.
Cell cycle: A cycle the cell undergoes with checkpoints between phases to ensure that DNA replication and cell division occur properly.
Cell surface antigen: A protein that is found on a red blood cell’s surface.
Centromere: A structural feature that is defined as the “center” of a chromosome and that creates two different arm lengths. This term also refers to the region of attachment for microtubules during mitosis and meiosis.
Chromatin: DNA wrapped around histone complexes. During cell division, chromatin becomes a condensed chromosome.
Chromosome: DNA molecule that is wrapped around protein complexes, including histones.
Codominance: The effects of both alleles in a genotype can be seen in the phenotype.
Codons: A sequence that comprises three DNA nucleotides that together code for a protein.
Complex diseases: A category of diseases that are polygenic and are also influenced by environment and lifestyle factors.
Cytoplasm: The “jelly-like” matrix inside of the cell that contains many organelles and other cellular molecules.
Deleterious: A mutation that increases an organism’s susceptibility to disease.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA): A molecule that carries the hereditary information passed down from parents to offspring. DNA can be described as a “double helix”’ shape. It includes two chains of nucleotides held together by hydrogen bonds with a sugar phosphate backbone.
Diploid: Refers to an organism or cell with two sets of chromosomes.
DNA methylation: Methyl groups bind DNA, which modifies the transcriptional activity of a gene by turning it “on” or “off.”
DNA polymerase: Enzyme that adds nucleotides to existing nucleic acid strands during DNA replication. These enzymes can be distinguished by their processivity (e.g., DNA replication).
DNA replication: Cellular process in which DNA is copied and doubled.
DNA sequence: The order of nucleotide bases. A DNA sequence can be short, long, or representative of entire chromosomes or organismal genomes.
Dominant: Refers to an allele for which one copy is sufficient to be visible in the phenotype.
Elongation: The assembly of new DNA from template strands with the help of DNA polymerases.
Enzymes: Proteins responsible for catalyzing (accelerating) various biochemical reactions in cells.
Epigenetic profile: The methylation pattern throughout a genome—that is, which genes (and other genomic sites) are methylated and unmethylated.
Epigenetics: Changes in gene expression that do not result in a change of the underlying DNA sequence. These changes typically involve DNA methylation and histone modifications. These changes are reversible and can also be inherited by the next generation.
Euchromatin: Loosely coiled chromosomes found within the nucleus that are accessible for regulatory processing of DNA.
Eukaryote: Single-celled or multicelled organism characterized by a distinct nucleus, with each organelle surrounded by its own membrane.
Exon: Protein-coding segment of a gene.
Gametes: Haploid cells referred to as an egg and sperm that will fuse together during sexual reproduction to form a diploid organism.
Gene: Segment of DNA that contains protein-coding information and various regulatory (e.g., promoter) and noncoding (e.g., introns) regions.
Genetic recombination: A cellular process that occurs during meiosis I in which homologous chromosomes pair up and sister chromatids on different chromosomes physically swap genetic information.
Genome: All the genetic information of an organism.
Genotype: The combination of two alleles that code for or are associated with the same gene.
Genotyping: A molecular procedure that is performed to test for the presence of certain alleles or to discover new ones.
Germ cells: Specialized cells that form gametes (egg and sperm cells).
Haploid: Cell or organism with one set of chromosomes (n = 23).
Helicase: A protein that breaks the hydrogen bonds that hold double-stranded DNA together.
Heterozygous: Genotype that consists of two different alleles.
Histones: Proteins that DNA wraps around to assist with DNA organization within the nucleus.
Homologous chromosomes: A matching pair of chromosomes wherein one chromosome is maternally inherited and the other is paternally inherited.
Homozygous: Genotype that consists of two identical alleles.
Incomplete dominance: Heterozygous genotype that produces a phenotype that is a blend of both alleles.
Initiation: The recruitment of proteins to separate DNA strands and begin DNA replication.
Interphase: Preparatory period of the cell cycle when increased metabolic demand allows for DNA replication and doubling of the cell prior to cell division.
Introns: Segment of DNA that does not code for proteins.
Karyotyping: The microscopic procedure wherein the number of chromosomes in a cell is determined.
Lagging strand: DNA template strand that is opposite to the leading strand during DNA replication. This strand is created in several disconnected sections and other enzymes fill in the missing nucleotide gaps between these sections.
Leading strand: DNA template strand in which replication proceeds continuously.
Lipids: Fatty acid molecules that serve various purposes in the cell, including energy storage, cell signaling, and structure.
Meiosis: The process that gametes undergo to divide. The end of meiosis results in four haploid daughter cells.
Mendelian genetics: A classification given to phenotypic traits that are controlled by a single gene.
Messenger RNA (mRNA): RNA molecule that is transcribed from DNA. Its tri-nucleotide codons are “read” by a ribosome to build a protein.
Microarray technology: A genotyping procedure that utilizes a microarray chip, which is a collection of thousands of short nucleotide sequences attached to a solid surface that can probe genomic DNA.
Microbiome: The collective genomes of the community of microorganisms that humans have living inside of their bodies.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA): Circular DNA segment found in mitochondria that is inherited maternally.
Mitochondrion: Specialized cellular organelle that is the site for energy production. It also has its own genome (mtDNA).
Mitosis: The process that somatic cells undergo to divide. The end of mitosis results in two diploid daughter cells.
Molecular anthropologists: Individuals who use molecular techniques (primarily genetics) to compare ancient and modern populations and to study living populations of humans and nonhuman primates.
Molecular geneticists: Biologists that study the structure and function of genes.
Mutation: A nucleotide sequence variation from the template DNA strand that can occur during replication. Mutations can also happen during recombination.
Next-generation sequencing: A genotyping technology that involves producing millions of nucleotide sequences (from a single DNA sample) that are then read with a sequencing machine. It can be used for analyzing entire genomes or specific regions and requires extensive program-based applications.
Nuclear envelope: A double-layered membrane that encircles the nucleus.
Nucleic acid: A complex structure (like DNA or RNA) that carries genetic information about a living organism.
Nucleotide: The basic structural component of nucleic acids, which includes DNA (A, T, C, and G) and RNA (A, U, C, and G).
Nucleus: Double-membrane cellular organelle that helps protect DNA and also regulates nuclear activities.
Organelle: A structure within a cell that performs specialized tasks that are essential for the cell. There are different types of organelles, each with its own function.
Pathogenic: A genetic mutation (i.e., allele) that has a harmful phenotypic disease-causing effect.
Pedigree: A diagram of family relationships that indicates which members may have or carry certain genetic and/or phenotypic traits.
Penetrance: The proportion of how often the possession of an allele results in an expected phenotype. Some alleles are more penetrant than others.
Phenotype: The physical appearance of a given trait.
Phospholipid bilayer: Two layers of lipids that form a barrier due to the properties of a hydrophilic (water-loving) head and a hydrophobic (water-repelling) tail.
Polygenic trait: A phenotype that is controlled by two or more genes.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR): A molecular biology procedure that can make copies of genomic DNA segments. A small amount of DNA is used as a starting template and is then used to make millions of copies.
Prokaryote: A single-celled organism characterized by the lack of a nucleus and membrane-enclosed organelles.
Promoter: The region of a gene that initiates transcription. Transcription factors can bind and DNA methylation may occur at a promoter site, which can modify the transcriptional activities of a gene.
Protein: Chain of amino acids that folds into a three-dimensional structure that allows a cell to function in a variety of ways.
Protein synthesis: A multi-step process by which amino acids are strung together by RNA machinery read from a DNA template.
Recessive: Refers to an allele whose effect is not normally seen unless two copies are present in an individual’s genotype.
Ribonucleic acid (RNA): Single-stranded nucleic acid molecule.There are different RNAs found within cells and they perform a variety of functions, such as cell signaling and involvement in protein synthesis.
Ribosomal RNA (rRNA): A ribosome-bound molecule that is used to correctly assemble amino acids into proteins.
Ribosome: An organelle in the cell found in the cytoplasm or endoplasmic reticulum. It is responsible for reading mRNA and protein assemblage.
RNA polymerase: An enzyme that catalyzes the process of making RNA from a DNA template.
Sanger-sequencing: A process that involves the usage of fluorescently labeled nucleotides to visualize DNA (PCR fragments) at the nucleotide level.
Semi-conservative replication: DNA replication in which new DNA is replicated from an existing DNA template strand.
Sequencing: A molecular laboratory procedure that produces the order of nucleotide bases (i.e., sequences).
Sister chromatids: During DNA replication, sister chromatids are produced on the chromosome. In cell division, sister chromatids are pulled apart so that two cells can be formed. In meiosis, sister chromatids are also the sites of genetic recombination.
Somatic cells: Diploid cells that comprise body tissues and undergo mitosis for maintenance and repair of tissues.
Splicing: The process by which mature mRNAs are produced. Introns are removed (spliced) and exons are joined together.
Sugar phosphate backbone: A biochemical structural component of DNA. The “backbone” consists of deoxyribose sugars and phosphate molecules.
Telomere: A compound structure located at the ends of chromosomes to help protect the chromosomes from degradation after every round of cell division.
Termination: The halt of DNA replication activity that occurs when a DNA sequence “stop” codon is encountered.
Tissue: A cluster of cells that are morphologically similar and perform the same task.
Transcription: The process by which DNA nucleotides (within a gene) are copied, which results in a messenger RNA molecule.
Transcription factors: Proteins that bind to regulatory regions of genes (e.g., promoter) and increase or decrease the amount of transcriptional activity of a gene, including turning them “on” or “off.”
Transfer RNA (tRNA): RNA molecule involved in translation. Transfer RNA transports amino acids from the cell’s cytoplasm to a ribosome.
Translation: The process by which messenger RNA codons are read and amino acids are “chained together” to form proteins.
X-linked: Refers to a pattern of inheritance where the allele is located on the X or Y chromosome.
For Further Exploration
National Human Genome Research Institute
NOVA. 2018. Gene Sequencing Speeds Diagnosis of Deadly Newborn Diseases. NOVA, March 7, 2018. Accessed January 31, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/newborn-gene-sequencing/.
Zimmer, Carl. N.d. “Carl Zimmer’s Game of Genomes.” STATnews. Accessed January 31, 2023. https://www.statnews.com/feature/game-of-genomes/season-one/.
Illumina. 2016. “Illumina Sequencing by Synthesis.” YouTube.com, October 5, 2016. Accessed January 31, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCd6B5HRaZ8.
References
Aartsma-Rus, Annemieke, Ieke B. Ginjaar, and Kate Bushby. 2016. “The Importance of Genetic Diagnosis for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.” Journal of Medical Genetics 53 (3): 145–151.
Acuna-Hidalgo, Rocio, Joris A. Veltman, and Alexander Hoischen. 2016. “New Insights into the Generation and Role of De Novo Mutations in Health and Disease.” Genome Biology 17 (241): 1–19.
Albert, Benjamin, Susanna Tomassetti, Yvonne Gloor, Daniel Dilg, Stefano Mattarocci, Slawomir Kubik, Lukas Hafner, and David Shore. 2019. "Sfp1 Regulates Transcriptional Networks Driving Cell Growth and Division through Multiple Promoter-Binding Modes." Genes & Development 33 (5–6): 288–293.
Almathen, Faisal, Haitham Elbir, Hussain Bahbahani, Joram Mwacharo, and Olivier Hanotte. 2018. “Polymorphisms in Mc1r and Asip Genes Are Associated with Coat Color Variation in the Arabian Camel.” Journal of Heredity 109 (6): 700–706.
Ballester, Leomar Y., Rajyalakshmi Luthra, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna, and Rajesh R. Singh. 2016. “Advances in Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing: Target Enrichment and Sequencing Technologies.” Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 16 (3): 357–372.
Baranovskiy, Andrey G., Vincent N. Duong, Nigar D. Babayeva, Yinbo Zhang, Youri I. Pavlov, Karen S. Anderson, and Tahir H. Tahirov. 2018. “Activity and Fidelity of Human DNA Polymerase Alpha Depend on Primer Structure.” Journal of Biological Chemistry 293 (18): 6824–6843.
Biswas, S., Ghosh, S., Das, S., & Maitra, S. (2021). Female Reproduction: At the Crossroads of Endocrine Disruptors and Epigenetics. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 74(4), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-021-00403-4
Brezina, Paulina R., Raymond Anchan, and William G. Kearns. 2016. “Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy: What Technology Should You Use and What Are the Differences?” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 33 (7): 823–832.
Bultman, Scott J. 2017. “Interplay Between Diet, Gut Microbiota, Epigenetic Events, and Colorectal Cancer." Molecular Nutrition & Food Research 61 (1):1–12.
Cutting, Garry R. 2015. “Cystic Fibrosis Genetics: From Molecular Understanding to Clinical Application.” Nature Reviews Genetics 16 (1): 45–56.
D'Alessandro, Giuseppina., and Fabrizio d'Adda di Fagagna. 2017. “Transcription and DNA Damage: Holding Hands or Crossing Swords?” Journal of Molecular Biology 429 (21): 3215–3229.
De Craene, Johan-Owen, Dimitri L. Bertazzi, Séverine Bar, and Sylvie Friant. 2017. “Phosphoinositides, Major Actors in Membrane Trafficking and Lipid Signaling Pathways.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 18 (3): 1–20.
Deng, Lian, and Shuhua Xu. 2018. “Adaptation of Human Skin Color in Various Populations.” Hereditas 155 (1): 1–12.
Dever, Thomas E., Terri G. Kinzy, and Graham D. Pavitt. 2016. “Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae.” Genetics 203 (1): 65–107.
Eme, Laura, Anja Spang, Jonathan Lombard, Courtney W. Stairs, and Thijs J. G. Ettema. 2017. “Archaea and the Origin of Eukaryotes.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 15 (12): 711–723.
Gomez-Carballa, Alberto, Jacobo Pardo-Seco, Stefania Brandini, Alessandro Achilli, Ugo A. Perego, Michael D. Coble, Toni M. Diegoli, et al. 2018. “The Peopling of South America and the Trans-Andean Gene Flow of the First Settlers.” Genome Research 28 (6): 767–779.
Gvozdenov, Zlata, Janhavi Kolhe, and Brian C. Freeman. 2019. “The Nuclear and DNA-Associated Molecular Chaperone Network.” Cold Spring Harbour Perspectives in Biology 11 (10): a034009.
Harkins, Kelly M., and Anne C. Stone. 2015. “Ancient Pathogen Genomics: Insights into Timing and Adaptation.” Journal of Human Evolution 79: 137–149.
Jackson, Maria, Leah Marks, Gerhard H. W. May, and Joanna B. Wilson. 2018. “The Genetic Basis of Disease.” Essays in Biochemistry 62 (5): 643–723.
Lenormand, Thomas, Jan Engelstadter, Susan E. Johnston, Erik Wijnker, and Christopher R. Haag. 2016. “Evolutionary Mysteries in Meiosis.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371: 1–14.
Levy, Shawn E., and Richard M. Myers. 2016. “Advancements in Next-Generation Sequencing.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 17: 95–115.
Lindo, John, Emilia Huerta-Sánchez, Shigeki Nakagome, Morten Rasmussen, Barbara Petzelt, Joycelynn Mitchell, Jerome S. Cybulski, et al. 2016. "A Time Transect of Exomes from a Native American Population Before and After European Contact." Nature Communications 7: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13175.
Lu, Mengfei, Cathryn M. Lewis, and Matthew Traylor. 2017. “Pharmacogenetic Testing through the Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Company 23andme.” BMC Medical Genomics 10 (47): 1–8.
Ly, Lundi, Donovan Chan, Mahmoud Aarabi, Mylene Landry, Nathalie A. Behan, Amanda J. MacFarlane, and Jacquetta Trasler. 2017. “Intergenerational Impact of Paternal Lifetime Exposures to Both Folic Acid Deficiency and Supplementation on Reproductive Outcomes and Imprinted Gene Methylation.” Molecular Human Reproduction 23 (7): 461–477.
Ma, Wenxiu, Giancarlo Bonora, Joel B. Berletch, Xinxian Deng, William S. Noble, and Christine M. Disteche. 2018. “X-Chromosome Inactivation and Escape from X Inactivation in Mouse.” Methods in Molecular Biology 1861: 205–219.
Machiela, Mitchell J., Weiyin Zhou, Eric Karlins, Joshua N. Sampson, Neal D. Freedman, Qi Yang, Belynda Hicks, et al. 2016. “Female Chromosome X Mosaicism Is Age-Related and Preferentially Affects the Inactivated X Chromosome.” Nature Communications 7: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11843.
Mahdavi, Morteza, Mohammadreza Nassiri, Mohammad M. Kooshyar, Masoume Vakili-Azghandi, Amir Avan, Ryan Sandry, Suja Pillai, Alfred K. Lam, and Vinod Gopalan. 2019. “Hereditary Breast Cancer; Genetic Penetrance and Current Status with BRCA.” Journal of Cellular Physiology 234 (5): 5741–5750.
McDade, Thomas W., Calen P. Ryan, Meaghan J. Jones, Morgan K. Hoke, Judith Borja, Gregory E. Miller, Christopher W. Kuzawa, and Michael S. Kobor. 2019. “Genome-Wide Analysis of DNA Methylation in Relation to Socioeconomic Status During Development and Early Adulthood.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 169 (1): 3–11.
McLaren, Angus. Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945. Toronto: Oxford University Press; 1990.
Migeon, Barbara R. 2017. “Choosing the Active X: The Human Version of X Inactivation.” Trends in Genetics 33 (12): 899–909.
Myerowitz, Rachel. 1997. “Tay-Sachs Disease-Causing Mutations and Neutral Polymorphisms in the Hex A Gene.” Human Mutation 9 (3): 195–208.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2024, July 22). Endocrine Disruptors. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; United States Government. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine
Onufriev, Alexey V., and Helmut Schiessel. 2019. “The Nucleosome: From Structure to Function through Physics.” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 56: 119–130.
Peedicayil J. (2006). Epigenetic therapy--a new development in pharmacology. The Indian journal of medical research, 123(1), 17–24.
Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York, NY: Penguin Books; 2002. (Comments from Q&A with Pinker on the book, Published 10/30/2002 10:21 AM)
Quillen, Ellen E., Heather L. Norton, Esteban J. Parra, Frida Lona-Durazo, Khai C. Ang, Florin M. Illiescu, Laurel N. Pearson, et al. 2019. “Shades of Complexity: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Genetic Architecture of Human Skin.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 168 (67): 4–26.
Raspelli, Erica, and Roberta Fraschini. 2019. “Spindle Pole Power in Health and Disease.” Current Genetics 65 (4): 851–855.
Ravinet, M., R. Faria, R. K. Butlin, J. Galindo, N. Bierne, M. Rafajlovic, M. A. F. Noor, B. Mehlig, and A. M. Westram. 2017. “Interpreting the Genomic Landscape of Speciation: A Road Map for Finding Barriers to Gene Flow.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 30 (8): 1450–1477.
Regev, Aviv, Sarah A. Teichmann, Eric S. Lander, Ido Amit, Christophe Benoist, Ewan Birney, Bernd Bodenmiller, et al. 2017. “The Human Cell Atlas.” Elife 6e27041: 1–30. https://doi.org/10.7554.eLife.27041.
Roberts, Andrea L., Nicole Gladish, Evan Gatev, Meaghan J. Jones, Ying Chen, Julia L. MacIsaac, Shelley S. Tworoger, et al. 2018. “Exposure to Childhood Abuse Is Associated with Human Sperm DNA Methylation.” Translational Psychiatry 8 (194): 1–11.
Roger, Andrew J., Sergio A. Muñoz-Gómez, and Ryoma Kamikawa. 2017. “The Origin and Diversification of Mitochondria.” Current Biology 27 (21): R1177–R1192. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221731179X?via%3Dihub#!
Ségurel, Laure, and Céline Bon. 2017. “On the Evolution of Lactase Persistence in Humans.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 18: 297–319.
Sheth, Bhavisha P., and Vrinda S. Thaker. 2017. “DNA Barcoding and Traditional Taxonomy: An Integrated Approach for Biodiversity Conservation.” Genome 60 (7): 618–628.
Skloot, Rebecca. 2010. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
Snedeker, Jonathan, Matthew Wooten, and Xin Chen. 2017. “The Inherent Asymmetry of DNA Replication.” Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 33: 291–318.
Sullivan-Pyke, Chantae, and Anuja Dokras. 2018. “Preimplantation Genetic Screening and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 45 (1): 113–125.
Sweeney, M. F., Hasan, N., Soto, A. M., & Sonnenschein, C. (2015). Environmental endocrine disruptors: Effects on the human male reproductive system. Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders, 16(4), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11154-016-9337-4
Szostak, Jack W. 2017. “The Narrow Road to the Deep Past: In Search of the Chemistry of the Origin of Life.” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 56 (37): 11037–11043.
Tessema, Mathewos, Ulrich Lehmann, and Hans Kreipe. 2004. “Cell Cycle and No End.” Virchows Archiv European Journal of Pathology 444 (4): 313–323.
Tishkoff, Sarah A., Floyd A. Reed, Alessia Ranciaro, Benjamin F. Voight, Courtney C. Babbitt, Jesse S. Silverman, Kweli Powell, et al. 2007. “Convergent Adaptation of Human Lactase Persistence in Africa and Europe.” Nature Genetics 39 (1): 31–40.
Visootsak, Jeannie, and John M. Graham, Jr. 2006. “Klinefelter Syndrome and Other Sex Chromosomal Aneuploidies.” Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-1-42.
Wolfe, George C., dir. 2017. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. HBO Films, April 22, 2017. TV Movie.
Yamamoto, Fumi-ichiro, Henrik Clausen, Thayer White, John Marken, and Sen-itiroh Hakomori. 1990. “Molecular Genetic Basis of the Histo-Blood Group ABO System.” Nature 345 (6272): 229–233.
Yu, X., Zhao, H., Wang, R., Chen, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, W., Sun, Y., & Peng, A. (2024). Cancer epigenetics: from laboratory studies and clinical trials to precision medicine. Cell Death Discovery, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41420-024-01803-z
Zlotogora, Joël. 2003. “Penetrance and Expressivity in the Molecular Age.” Genetics in Medicine 5 (5): 347–352.
Zorina-Lichtenwalter, Katerina, Ryan N. Lichtenwalter, Dima V. Zaykin, Marc Parisien, Simon Gravel, Andrey Bortsov, and Luda Diatchenko. 2019. “A Study in Scarlet: MC1R as the Main Predictor of Red Hair and Exemplar of the Flip-Flop Effect.” Human Molecular Genetics 28 (12): 2093-2106.
Zwart, Haeh. 2018. “In the Beginning Was the Genome: Genomics and the Bi-Textuality of Human Existence.” New Bioethics 24 (1): 26–43.
Student contributors for this chapter from Salinda Hess' ANTH 203: Emma Costa, Shima Gahima, Will Lefebvre, Audrey Chékinaël.
Learn more about authors and editors, Hess' student contributions, and versioning history.
Learning Objectives
- Explain and identify the purpose of both DNA replication and the cell cycle.
- Identify key differences between mitosis and meiosis.
- Outline the process of protein synthesis, including transcription and translation.
- Use principles of Mendelian inheritance to predict genotypes and phenotypes of future generations.
- Explain complexities surrounding patterns of genetic inheritance and polygenic traits.
- Discuss challenges to and bioethical concerns of genetic testing.
Cells and Molecules
Molecules of Life
All organisms are composed of four basic types of molecules that are essential for cell structure and function: proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids (Figure 4.1). Proteins are crucial for cell shape and nearly all cellular tasks, including receiving signals from outside the cell and mobilizing intra-cellular responses. Lipids are a class of organic compounds that include fats, oils, and hormones. Carbohydrates are sugar molecules and serve as energy to cells in the form of glucose. Lastly, nucleic acids, including deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), carry genetic information about a living organism.
|
Molecule |
Definition |
Example |
|
Proteins |
Composed of one or more long chains of amino acids (i.e., basic units of protein) Often folded into complex 3D shapes that relate to function Proteins interact with other types of proteins and molecules |
Proteins come in different categories including structural (e.g., collagen, keratin, lactase, hemoglobin, cell membrane proteins), defense proteins (e.g, antibodies), enzymes (e.g., lactase), hormones (e.g., insulin), and motor proteins (e.g., actin) |
|
Lipids |
Insoluble in water due to hydrophilic (water-loving) head and a hydrophobic (water-repelling) tail |
Fats, such as triglycerides, store energy for your body Steroid hormones (e.g., estrogen and testosterone) act as chemical messengers to communicate between cells and tissues, as well as biochemical pathways inside of the cell |
|
Carbohydrates |
Large group of organic molecules that are composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms |
Starches and sugars, including blood glucose, provide cells with energy |
|
Nucleic Acids |
Carries the genetic information of an organism |
DNA RNA |
Cells
In 1665, Robert Hooke observed slices of plant cork using a microscope. Hooke noted that the microscopic plant structures he saw resembled cella, meaning “a small room” in Latin. Approximately two centuries later, biologists recognized the cell as being the most fundamental unit of life and that all life is composed of cells. Cellular organisms can be characterized as two main cell types: prokaryotes and eukaryotes (Figure 4.2).

Prokaryotes include bacteria and archaea, and they are composed of a single cell. Additionally, their DNA and organelles are not surrounded by individual membranes. Thus, no compartments separate their DNA from the rest of the cell (see Figure 4.2). It is well known that some bacteria can cause illness in humans. For instance, Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Salmonella contamination can result in food poisoning symptoms. Pneumonia and strep throat are caused by Streptococcal bacteria. Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a sexually transmitted bacterial disease. Although bacteria are commonly associated with illness, not all bacteria are harmful. For example, researchers are studying the relationship between the microbiome and human health. The bacteria that are part of the healthy human microbiome perform beneficial roles, such as digesting food, boosting the immune system, and even making vitamins (e.g., B12 and K).
Eukaryotes can be single-celled or multi-celled in their body composition. In contrast to prokaryotes, eukaryotes possess membranes that surround their DNA and organelles. An example of a single-celled eukaryote is the microscopic algae found in ponds (phytoplankton), which can produce oxygen from the sun. Yeasts are also single-celled, and fungi can be single- or multicellular. Plants and animals are all multicellular.
Although plant and animal cells have a surprising number of similarities, there are some key differences (Figure 4.3). For example, plant cells possess a thick outer cell membrane made of a fibrous carbohydrate called cellulose. Animal and plant cells also have different tissues. For most plants, the outermost layer of cells forms a waxy cuticle that helps to protect the cells and to prevent water loss. Humans have skin, which is the outermost cell layer that is predominantly composed of a tough protein called keratin. Overall, humans have a diversity of tissue types (e.g., cartilage, brain, and heart).

Animal Cell Organelles
An animal cell is surrounded by a double membrane called the phospholipid bilayer (Figure 4.4). A closer look reveals that this protective barrier is made of lipids and proteins that provide structure and function for cellular activities, such as regulating the passage of molecules and ions (e.g., H2O and sodium) into and out of the cell. Cytoplasm is the jelly-like matrix inside of the cell membrane. Part of the cytoplasm comprises organelles, which perform different specialized tasks for the cell (Figure 4.5). An example of an organelle is the nucleus, where the cell’s DNA is located.


Another organelle is the mitochondrion. Mitochondria are often referred to as “powerhouse centers” because they produce energy for the cell in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Depending on the species and tissue type, multicellular eukaryotes can have hundreds to thousands of mitochondria in each of their cells. Scientists have determined that mitochondria were once symbiotic prokaryotic organisms (i.e., helpful bacteria) that transformed into cellular organelles over time. This evolutionary explanation helps explain why mitochondria also have their own DNA, called mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). All organelles have important physiological functions and disease can occur when organelles do not perform their role optimally. Figure 4.6 lists other organelles found in the cell and their specialized cellular roles.
|
Cell structure |
Description |
|
Centrioles |
Assist with the organization of mitotic spindles, which extend and contract for the purpose of cellular movement during mitosis and meiosis. |
|
Cytoplasm |
Gelatinous fluid located inside of cell membrane that contains organelles. |
|
Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) |
Continuous membrane with the nucleus that helps transport, synthesize, modify, and fold proteins. Rough ER has embedded ribosomes, whereas smooth ER lacks ribosomes. |
|
Golgi body |
Layers of flattened sacs that receive and transmit messages from the ER to secrete and transport proteins within the cell. |
|
Lysosome |
Located in the cytoplasm; contains enzymes to degrade cellular components. |
|
Microtubule |
Involved with cellular movement including intracellular transport and cell division. |
|
Mitochondrion |
Responsible for cellular respiration, where energy is produced by converting nutrients into ATP. |
|
Nucleolus |
Resides inside of the nucleus and is the site of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) transcription, processing, and assembly. |
|
Nucleopore |
Pores in the nuclear envelope that are selectively permeable. |
|
Nucleus |
Contains the cell’s DNA and is surrounded by the nuclear envelope. |
|
Ribosome |
Located in the cytoplasm and also the membrane of the rough endoplasmic reticulum. Messenger RNA (mRNA) binds to ribosomes and proteins are synthesized. |
Introduction to Genetics
Genetics is the study of heredity. Biological parents pass down their genetic traits to their offspring. Although children resemble their parents, genetic traits often vary in appearance or molecular function. For example, two parents with normal color vision can sometimes produce a son with red-green colorblindness. Molecular geneticists study the biological mechanisms responsible for creating variation between individuals, such as DNA mutations (see Chapter 5), cell division, and genetic regulation.
Molecular anthropologists use genetic data to test anthropological questions. Some of these anthropologists utilize ancient DNA (aDNA), which is DNA that is extracted from anything once living, including human, animal, and plant remains. Over time, DNA becomes degraded (i.e., less intact), but specialized laboratory techniques can make copies of short degraded aDNA segments, which can then be reassembled to provide more complete DNA information.
DNA Structure
The discovery, in 1953, of the molecular structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Using X-ray crystallography, Rosalind Franklin (Figure 4.7) provided an image that clearly showed the double helix shape of DNA. Due to controversy, Franklin’s colleagues received more recognition for the DNA discovery. In 1962, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won the Nobel Prize, while Franklin, who had died in 1958, was not honoured. Today, her vital contributions and scientific skill are widely recognized.

The double helix shape of DNA can be described as a twisted ladder (Figure 4.8). More specifically, DNA is a double-stranded molecule with its two strands oriented in opposite directions (i.e., antiparallel). Each strand is composed of nucleotides with a sugar phosphate backbone. There are four different types of DNA nucleotides: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). The two DNA strands are held together by nucleotide base pairs, which have chemical bonding rules. The complementary base-pairing rules are as follows: A and T bond with each other, while C and G form a bond. The chemical bonds between A-T and C-G are formed by “weak” hydrogen atom interactions, which means the two strands can be easily separated. A DNA sequence is the order of nucleotide bases (A, T, G, C) along only one DNA strand. If one DNA strand has the sequence CATGCT, then the other strand will have a complementary sequence GTACGA. This is an example of a short DNA sequence. In reality, there are approximately three billion DNA base pairs in human cells.

DNA Is Highly Organized within the Nucleus
If you removed the DNA from a single human cell and stretched it out completely, it would measure approximately two meters (about 6.5 feet). Therefore, DNA molecules must be compactly organized in the nucleus. To achieve this, the double helix configuration of DNA undergoes coiling. An analogy would be twisting a string until coils are formed and then continuing to twist so that secondary coils are formed, and so on. To assist with coiling, DNA is first wrapped around proteins called histones. This creates a complex called chromatin, which resembles “beads on a string” (Figure 4.9). Next, chromatin is further coiled into a chromosome. Another important feature of DNA is that chromosomes can be altered from tightly coiled (chromatin) to loosely coiled (euchromatin). Most of the time, chromosomes in the nucleus remain in a euchromatin state so that DNA sequences are accessible for regulatory processes to occur.


Human body cells typically have 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes in each cell’s nucleus. An interesting fact is that the number of chromosomes an organism possesses varies by species, and this figure is not dependent upon the size or complexity of the organism. For instance, chimpanzees have a total of 48 chromosomes, while hermit crabs have 254. Chromosomes also have a distinct physical structure, including centromeres (the “center”) and telomeres (the ends) (Figure 4.10). Because of the centromeric region, chromosomes are described as having two different “arms,” where one arm is long and the other is shorter. Centromeres play an important role during cell division, which will be discussed in the next section. Telomeres are located at the ends of chromosomes; they help protect the chromosomes from degradation after every round of cell division.
Special Topic: First Nation Immunity and European Diseases—A Study of Ancient DNA

Beginning in the early fifteenth century, First Nations progressively suffered from high mortality rates as the result of colonization from foreign powers. European-borne diseases such as measles, tuberculosis, influenza, and smallpox are largely responsible for the population collapse of Indigenous peoples in the Americas. Many Europeans who immigrated to the Americas had lived in large sedentary populations, which also included coexisting with domestic animals and pests. Although a few prehistoric Indigenous populations can be characterized as large agricultural societies (especially in Mesoamerica), their overall culture, community lifestyle, and subsistence practices were markedly different from that of Europeans. Therefore, because they did not share the same urban living environments as Europeans, it is believed that Indigenous peoples were susceptible to many European diseases.

In 2016, a Nature article published by John Lindo and colleagues was the first to investigate whether pre-contact Indigenous peoples possessed a genetic susceptibility to European diseases. Their study included Tsimshians, a First Nation community from British Columbia (Figure 4.11a-b). DNA from both present-day and ancient individuals (who lived between 500 and 6,000 years ago) was analysed. The research team discovered that a change occurred in the HLA-DQA1 gene, which is a member of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) immune system molecules. MHC molecules are responsible for detecting and triggering an immune response against pathogens. Lindo and colleagues (2016) concluded that HLA-DQA1 gene helped Indigenous peoples adapt to their local environmental ecology. However, when European-borne epidemics occurred in the Northwest during the 1800s, a certain HLA-DQA1 DNA sequence variant (allele) associated with ancient Tsimshian immunity was no longer adaptive. As the result of past selective pressures from European diseases, present-day Tsimshians have different HLA-DQA1 allele frequencies. The precise role that HLA-DQA1 plays in immune adaptation requires further investigation. But overall, this study serves as an example of how studying ancient DNA from the remains of deceased individuals can help provide insight into living human populations and historical events.
DNA Replication and Cell Division
For life to continue and flourish, cells must be able to divide. Tissue growth and cellular damage repair are also necessary to maintain an organism throughout its life. All these rely on the dynamic processes of DNA replication and the cell cycle. The mechanisms highlighted in this section are tightly regulated and represent only part of the life cycle of a cell.
DNA Replication
DNA replication is the process by which new DNA is copied from an original DNA template. It is one phase of the highly coordinated cell cycle, and it requires a variety of enzymes with special functions. The creation of a complementary DNA strand from a template strand is described as semi-conservative replication. The result of semi-conservative replication is two separate double-stranded DNA molecules, each of which is composed of an original “parent” template strand and a newly synthesized “daughter” DNA strand.
DNA replication progresses in three steps referred to as initiation, elongation, and termination. During initiation, enzymes are recruited to specific sites along the DNA sequence (Figure 4.12). For example, an initiator enzyme, called helicase, “unwinds” DNA by breaking the hydrogen bonds between the two parent strands. The unraveling of the helix into two separated strands exposes the strands and creates a fork, which is the active site of DNA replication.

Elongation is the assembly of new DNA daughter strands from the exposed original parent strands. The two parent strands can further be classified as leading strand or lagging strand and are distinguished by the direction of replication. Enzymes called DNA polymerases read parent template strands in a specific direction. Complementary nucleotides are added, and the newly formed daughter strands will grow. On the leading parent strand, a DNA polymerase will create one continuous strand. The lagging parent strand is created in several disconnected sections and other enzymes fill in the missing nucleotide gaps between these sections.
Finally, termination refers to the end of DNA replication activity. It is signaled by a stop sequence in the DNA that is recognized by machinery at the replication fork. The end result of DNA replication is that the number of chromosomes are doubled so that the cell can divide into two.
DNA Mutations
DNA replication should result in the creation of two identical DNA nucleotide sequences. However, although DNA polymerases are quite precise during DNA replication, copying mistakes are estimated to occur every 107 DNA nucleotides. Variation from the original DNA sequence is known as a mutation (Refer to Chapter 5). Briefly, mutations can result in single-nucleotide changes, as well as the insertion or deletion of nucleotides and repeated sequences. Depending on where they occur in the genome, mutations can be deleterious (harmful). For example, mutations may occur in regions that control cell cycle regulation, which can result in cancer (see Special Topic: The Cell Cycle and Immortality of Cancer Cells). Many other types of mutations, however, are not harmful to an organism.
Regardless of their effect, the cell attempts to reduce the frequency of mutations that occur during DNA replication. To accomplish this, there are polymerases with proofreading capacities that can identify and correct mismatched nucleotides. These safeguards reduce the frequency of DNA mutations so that they only occur every 109 nucleotides.
Mitotic Cell Division
There are two types of cells in the body: germ cells (sperm and egg) and somatic cells. The body and its various tissues comprises somatic cells. Organisms that contain two sets of chromosomes in their somatic cells are called diploid organisms. Humans have 46 chromosomes and they are diploid because they inherit one set of chromosomes (n = 23) from each parent. As a result, they have 23 matching pairs of chromosomes, which are known as homologous chromosomes. As seen in Figure 4.13, homologous chromosome pairs vary in size and are generally numbered from largest (chromosome 1) to smallest (chromosome 22) with the exception of the 23rd pair, which is made up of the sex chromosomes (X and Y). Typically, the female sex is XX and the male sex is XY. Individuals inherit an X chromosome from their chromosomal mother and an X or Y from their chromosomal father.

To grow and repair tissues, somatic cells must divide. As discussed previously, for cell division to occur, a cell must first replicate its genetic material. During DNA replication, each chromosome produces double the amount of genetic information. The duplicated arms of chromosomes are known as sister chromatids, and they are attached at the centromeric region. To elaborate, the number of chromosomes stays the same (n = 46); however, the amount of genetic material is doubled in the cell as the result of replication.
Mitosis is the process of somatic cell division that gives rise to two diploid daughter cells (Figure 4.14). Once DNA and other organelles in the cell have finished replication, mitotic spindle fibres physically align each chromosome at the center of the cell. Next, the spindle fibres divide the sister chromatids and move each one to opposite sides of the cell. At this phase, there are 46 chromosomes on each side of a human cell. The cell can now divide into two fully separated daughter cells.

Meiotic Cell Division
Gametogenesis is the production of gametes (sperm and egg cells); it involves two rounds of cell division called meiosis. Similar to mitosis, the parent cell in meiosis is diploid. However, meiosis has a few key differences, including the number of daughter cells produced (four cells, which require two rounds of cell division to produce) and the number of chromosomes each daughter cell has (see Figure 4.14).
During the first round of division (known as meiosis I), each chromosome (n = 46) replicates its DNA so that sister chromatids are formed. Next, with the help of spindle fibres, homologous chromosomes align near the center of the cell and sister chromatids physically swap genetic material. In other words, the sister chromatids of matching chromosomes cross over with each other at matching DNA nucleotide positions. The occurrence of homologous chromosomes crossing over, swapping DNA, and then rejoining segments is called genetic recombination. The “genetic shuffling” that occurs in gametes increases organismal genetic diversity by creating new combinations of genes on chromosomes that are different from the parent cell. Genetic mutations can also arise during recombination. For example, there may be an unequal swapping of genetic material that occurs between the two sister chromatids, which can result in deletions or duplications of DNA nucleotides. Once genetic recombination is complete, homologous chromosomes are separated and two daughter cells are formed.
The daughter cells after the first round of meiosis are haploid, meaning they only have one set of chromosomes (n = 23). During the second round of cell division (known as meiosis II), sister chromatids are separated and two additional haploid daughter cells are formed. Therefore, the four resulting daughter cells have one set of chromosomes (n = 23), and they also have a genetic composition that is not identical to the parent cells nor to each other.
Although both sperm and egg gamete production undergo meiosis, they differ in the final number of viable daughter cells. In the case of spermatogenesis, four mature sperm cells are produced. Although four egg cells are also produced in oogenesis, only one of these egg cells will result in an ovum (mature egg). During fertilization, an egg cell and sperm cell fuse, which creates a diploid cell that develops into an embryo. The ovum also provides the cellular organelles necessary for embryonic cell division. This includes mitochondria, which is why humans, and most other multicellular eukaryotes, have the same mtDNA sequence as their mothers.
Chromosomal Disorders: Aneuploidies
During mitosis or meiosis, entire deletions or duplications of chromosomes can occur due to error. For example, homologous chromosomes may fail to separate properly, so one daughter cell may end up with an extra chromosome while the other daughter cell has one less. Cells with an unexpected (or abnormal) number of chromosomes are known as aneuploid. Adult or embryonic cells can be tested for chromosome number (karyotyping). Aneuploid cells are typically detrimental to a dividing cell or developing embryo, which can lead to a loss of pregnancy. However, the occurrence of individuals being born with three copies of the 21st chromosome is relatively common; this genetic condition is known as Down Syndrome. Moreover, individuals can also be born with aneuploid sex chromosome conditions such as XXY, XXX, and XO (referring to only one X chromosome).
Special Topic: The Cell Cycle and Immortality of Cancer Cells
DNA replication is part of a series of preparatory phases that a cell undergoes prior to cell division, collectively known as interphase (Figure 4.15). During interphase, the cell not only doubles its chromosomes through DNA replication, but it also increases its metabolic capacity to provide energy for growth and division. Transition into each phase of the cell cycle is tightly controlled by proteins that serve as checkpoints. If a cell fails to pass a checkpoint, then DNA replication and/or cell division will not continue. Some of the reasons why a cell may fail at a checkpoint is DNA damage, lack of nutrients to continue the process, or insufficient size. In turn, a cell may undergo apoptosis, which is a mechanism for cell death.

Unchecked cellular growth is a distinguishing hallmark of cancer. In other words, as cancer cells grow and proliferate, they acquire the capacity to avoid death and replicate indefinitely. This uncontrolled and continuous cell division is also known as “immortality.” As previously mentioned, most cells lose the ability to divide due to shortening of telomeres on the ends of chromosomes over time. One way in which cancer cells retain replicative immortality is that the length of their telomeres is continuously protected. Chemotherapy, often used to treat cancer, targets the cell cycle (especially cell division) to halt the propagation of genetically abnormal cells. Another therapeutic approach that continues to be investigated is targeting telomere activity to stop the division of cancer cells.

Researchers have exploited the immortality of cancer cells for molecular research. The oldest immortal cell line is HeLa cells (Figure 4.16), which were harvested from Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1955. At that time, extracted cells frequently died during experiments, but surprisingly HeLa cells continued to replicate. Propagation of Lacks’s cell line has significantly contributed to medical research, including contributing to ongoing cancer research and helping to test the polio vaccine in the 1950s. However, Lacks had not given her consent for her tumor biopsy to be used in cell culture research. Moreover, her family was unaware of the extraction and remarkable application of her cells for two decades. The history of HeLa cell origin was first revealed in 1976. The controversy voiced by the Lacks family was included in an extensive account of HeLa cells published in Rebecca Skloot’s 2010 book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. A film based on the book was also released in 2017 (Wolfe 2017).
Protein Synthesis
At the beginning of the chapter, we defined proteins as strings of amino acids that fold into complex 3-D shapes. There are 20 standard amino acids that can be strung together in different combinations in humans, and the result is that proteins can perform an impressive amount of different functions. For instance, muscle fibres are proteins that help facilitate movement. A special class of proteins (immunoglobulins) help protect the organism by detecting disease-causing pathogens in the body. Protein hormones, such as insulin, help regulate physiological activity. Blood hemoglobin is a protein that transports oxygen throughout the body. Enzymes are also proteins, and they are catalysts for biochemical reactions that occur in the cell (e.g., metabolism). Larger-scale protein structures can be visibly seen as physical features of an organism (e.g., hair and nails).
Transcription and Translation

Nucleotides in our DNA provide the coding instructions on how to make proteins. Making proteins, also known as protein synthesis, can be broken down into two main steps referred to as transcription and translation. The purpose of transcription, the first step, is to make an ribonucleic acid (RNA) copy of our genetic code. Although there are many different types of RNA molecules that have a variety of functions within the cell, we will mainly focus on messenger RNA (mRNA). Transcription concludes with the processing (splicing) of the mRNA. The second step, translation, uses mRNA as the instructions for chaining together amino acids into a new protein molecule (Figure 4.17).

Unlike double-stranded DNA, RNA molecules are single-stranded nucleotide sequences (Figure 4.18). Additionally, while DNA contains the nucleotide thymine (T), RNA does not—instead its fourth nucleotide is uracil (U). Uracil is complementary to (or can pair with) adenine (A), while cytosine (C) and guanine (G) continue to be complementary to each other.
For transcription to proceed, a gene must first be turned “on” by the cell. A gene is a segment of DNA that codes for RNA, and genes can vary in length from a few hundred to as many as two million base pairs in length. The double-stranded DNA is then separated, and one side of the DNA is used as a coding template that is read by RNA polymerase. Next, complementary free-floating RNA nucleotides are linked together (Figure 4.19) to form a single-stranded mRNA. For example, if a DNA template is TACGGATGC, then the newly constructed mRNA sequence will be AUGCCUACG.
Genes contain segments called introns and exons. Exons are considered “coding” while introns are considered “noncoding”—meaning the information they contain will not be needed to construct proteins. When a gene is first transcribed into pre-mRNA, introns and exons are both included (Figure 4.20). However, once transcription is finished, introns are removed in a process called splicing. During splicing, a protein/RNA complex attaches itself to the pre-mRNA. Next, introns are removed and the remaining exons are connected, thus creating a shorter mature mRNA that serves as a template for building proteins.


As described above, the result of transcription is a single-stranded mRNA copy of a gene. Translation is the process by which amino acids are chained together to form a new protein. During translation, the mature mRNA is transported outside of the nucleus, where it is bound to a ribosome (Figure 4.21). The nucleotides in the mRNA are read in triplets, which are called codons. Each mRNA codon corresponds to an amino acid, which is carried to the ribosome by a transfer RNA (tRNA). Thus, tRNAs is the link between the mRNA molecule and the growing amino acid chain.

Continuing with our mRNA sequence example from above, the mRNA sequence AUG-CCU-ACG codes for three amino acids. Using a codon table (Figure 4.22), AUG is a codon for methionine (Met), CCU is proline (Pro), and ACG is threonine (Thr). Therefore, the protein sequence is Met-Pro-Thr. Methionine is the most common “start codon” (AUG) for the initiation of protein translation in eukaryotes. As the ribosome moves along the mRNA, the growing amino acid chain exits the ribosome and folds into a protein. When the ribosome reaches a “stop” codon (UAA, UAG, or UGA), the ribosome stops adding any new amino acids, detaches from the mRNA, and the protein is released. Depending upon the amino acid sequence, a linear protein may undergo additional “folding.” The final three-dimensional protein shape is integral to completing a specific structural or functional task.
Dig Deeper: Protein Synthesis
To see protein synthesis in animation, please check out the From DNA to Protein video on YourGenome.org.

Mendelian Genetics

Gregor Johann Mendel (1822–1884) is often described as the “Father of Genetics.” Mendel was a monk who conducted pea plant breeding experiments in a monastery located in the present-day Czech Republic (Figure 4.23). After several years of experiments, Mendel presented his work to a local scientific community in 1865 and published his findings the following year. Although his meticulous effort was notable, the importance of his work was not recognized for another 35 years. One reason for this delay in recognition is that his findings did not agree with the predominant scientific viewpoints on inheritance at the time. For example, it was believed that parental physical traits “blended” together and offspring inherited an intermediate form of that trait. In contrast, Mendel showed that certain pea plant physical traits (e.g., flower color) were passed down separately to the next generation in a statistically predictable manner. Mendel also observed that some parental traits disappeared in offspring but then reappeared in later generations. He explained this occurrence by introducing the concept of “dominant” and “recessive” traits. Mendel established a few fundamental laws of inheritance, and this section reviews some of these concepts. Moreover, the study of traits and diseases that are controlled by a single gene is commonly referred to as Mendelian genetics.

The physical appearance of a trait is called an organism’s phenotype. Figure 4.24 shows pea plant (Pisum sativum) phenotypes that were studied by Mendel, and in each of these cases the physical traits are controlled by a single gene. In the case of Mendelian genetics, a phenotype is determined by an organism’s genotype. A genotype consists of two gene copies, wherein one copy was inherited from each parent. Gene copies are also known as alleles (Figure 4.25), which means they are found in the same gene location on homologous chromosomes. Alleles have a nonidentical DNA sequence, which means their phenotypic effect can be different. In other words, although alleles code for the same trait, different phenotypes can be produced depending on which two alleles (i.e., genotypes) an organism possesses. For example, Mendel’s pea plants all have flowers, but their flower color can be purple or white. Flower color is therefore dependent upon which two color alleles are present in a genotype.

A Punnett square is a diagram that can help visualize Mendelian inheritance patterns. For instance, when parents of known genotypes mate, a Punnett square can help predict the ratio of Mendelian genotypes and phenotypes that their offspring would possess. When discussing genotype, biologists use upper and lower case letters to denote the different allele copies. Figure 4.26 is a Punnett square that includes two heterozygous parents for flower color (Bb). A heterozygous genotype means there are two different alleles for the same gene. Therefore, a pea plant that is heterozygous for flower color has one purple allele and one white allele. When an organism is homozygous for a specific trait, it means their genotype consists of two copies of the same allele. Using the Punnett square example, the two heterozygous pea plant parents can produce offspring with two different homozygous genotypes (BB or bb) or offspring that are heterozygous (Bb).

A pea plant with purple flowers could be heterozygous (Bb) or homozygous (BB). This is because the purple color allele (B) is dominant to the white color allele (b), and therefore it only needs one copy of that allele to phenotypically express purple flowers. Because the white flower allele is recessive, a pea plant must be homozygous for the recessive allele in order to have a white color phenotype (bb). As seen by the Punnett square example (Figure 4.26), three of four offspring will have purple flowers and the other one will have white flowers.
The Law of Segregation was introduced by Mendel to explain why we can predict the ratio of genotypes and phenotypes in offspring. As discussed previously, a parent will have two alleles for a certain gene (with each copy on a different homologous chromosome). The Law of Segregation states that the two copies will be segregated from each other and will each be distributed to their own gamete. We now know that the process where that occurs is meiosis.
Offspring are the products of two gametes combining, which means the offspring inherits one allele from each gamete for most genes. When multiple offspring are produced (like with pea plant breeding), the predicted phenotype ratios are more clearly observed. The pea plants Mendel studied provide a simplistic model to understand single-gene genetics. While many traits anthropologists are interested in have a more complicated inheritance (e.g., are informed by many genes), there are a few known Mendelian traits in humans. Additionally, some human diseases also follow a Mendelian pattern of inheritance (Figure 4.27). Because humans do not have as many offspring as other organisms, we may not recognize Mendelian patterns as easily. However, understanding these principles and being able to calculate the probability that an offspring will have a Mendelian phenotype is still important.
| Mendelian disorder | Gene |
| Alpha Thalassemia | HBA1 |
| Cystic Fibrosis | CFTR |
| Fragile X Syndrome | FMR1 |
| Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency | G6PD |
| Hemophilia A | F8 |
| Huntington disease | HTT |
| Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome | TYMP |
| Oculocutaneous Albinism: Type 1 | TYR |
| Polycystic Kidney Disease | PKHD1 |
| Sickle-cell anemia | HBB |
| Spinal Muscular Atrophy: SMN1 Linked | SMN1 |
| Tay-Sachs Disease | HEXA |
| Wilson Disease | ATP7B |
Example of Mendelian Inheritance: The ABO Blood Group System
In 1901, Karl Landsteiner at the University of Vienna published his discovery of ABO blood groups. While conducting blood immunology experiments in which he combined the blood of individuals who possess different blood cell types, he observed an agglutination (clotting) reaction. The presence of agglutination implies there is an incompatible immunological reaction; no agglutination will occur in individuals with the same blood type. This work was clearly important because it resulted in a higher survival rate of patients who received blood transfusions. Blood transfusions from someone with a different type of blood causes agglutinations, and the resulting coagulated blood can not easily pass through blood vessels, resulting in death. Landsteiner received the Nobel Prize (1930) for his discovery and explaination of the ABO blood group system.
Blood cell surface antigens are proteins that coat the surface of red blood cells, and antibodies are specifically “against” or “anti” to the antigens from other blood types. Thus, antibodies are responsible for causing agglutination between incompatible blood types. Understanding the interaction of antigens and antibodies helps to determine ABO compatibility amongst blood donors and recipients. Individuals that are blood type A have A antigens on the red blood cell surface, and anti-B antibodies, which will bind to B antigens should they come in contact. Alternatively, individuals with blood type B have B antigens and anti-A antibodies. Individuals with blood type AB have both A and B antigens but do not produce antibodies for the ABO system. This does not mean type AB does not have any antibodies present, just that specifically anti-A and anti-B antibodies are not produced. Individuals who are blood type O have nonspecific antigens and produce both anti-A and anti-B antibodies.
Figure 4.28 shows a table of the ABO allele system, which has a Mendelian pattern of inheritance. Both the A and B alleles function as dominant alleles, so the A allele always codes for the A antigen, and the B allele codes for the B antigen. The O allele differs from A and B, because it codes for a nonfunctional antigen protein, which means there is no antigen present on the cell surface of O blood cells. To have blood type O, two copies of the O allele must be inherited, one from each parent, thus the O allele is considered recessive. Therefore, someone who is a heterozygous AO genotype is phenotypically blood type A, and a genotype of BO is blood type B. The ABO blood system also provides an example of codominance, which is when both alleles are observed in the phenotype. This is true for blood type AB: when an individual inherits both the A and B alleles, then both A and B antigens will be present on the cell surface.

Also found on the surface of red blood cells is the rhesus group antigen, known as “Rh factor.” In reality, there are several antigens on red blood cells independent from the ABO blood system, however, the Rh factor is the second most important antigen to consider when determining blood donor and recipient compatibility. Rh antigens must also be considered when a pregnant mother and her baby have incompatible Rh factors. In such cases, a doctor can administer necessary treatment steps to prevent pregnancy complications and hemolytic disease, which is when the mother’s antibodies break down the newborn’s red blood cells.
An individual can possess the Rh antigen (be Rh positive) or lack the Rh antigen (be Rh negative). The Rh factor is controlled by a single gene and is inherited independently of the ABO alleles. Therefore, all blood types can either be positive (O+, A+, B+, AB+) or negative (O-, A-, B-, AB-).
Individuals with O+ red blood cells can donate blood to A+, B+, AB+, and O+ blood type recipients. Because O- individuals do not have AB or Rh antigens, they are compatible with all blood cell types and are referred to as “universal donors.” Individuals that are AB+ are considered to be “universal recipients” because they do not possess antibodies against other blood types.
Mendelian Patterns of Inheritance and Pedigrees
A pedigree can be used to investigate a family’s medical history by determining if a health issue is inheritable and will possibly require medical intervention. A pedigree can also help determine if it is a Mendelian recessive or dominant genetic condition. Figure 4.29 is a pedigree example of a family with Huntington’s disease, which has a Mendelian dominant pattern of inheritance. In a standard pedigree, males are represented by a square and females are represented by a circle. Biological family members are connected to a horizontal line, with biological parents above and offspring below. When an individual is affected with a certain condition, the square or circle is filled in as a solid color. With a dominant condition, at least one of the parents will have the disease and an offspring will have a 50% chance of inheriting the affected chromosome. Therefore, dominant genetic conditions tend to be present in every generation. In the case of Huntington’s, some individuals may not be diagnosed until later in adulthood, so parents may unknowingly pass this dominantly inherited disease to their children.

Because the probability of inheriting a disease-causing recessive allele is more rare, recessive medical conditions can skip generations. Figure 4.30 is an example of a family that carries a recessive cystic fibrosis mutation. A parent that is heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis allele has a 50% chance of passing down their affected chromosome to the next generation. If a child has a recessive disease, then it means both of their parents are carriers (heterozygous) for that condition. In most cases, carriers for recessive conditions show no serious medical symptoms. Individuals whose family have a known medical history for certain conditions sometimes seek family planning services (see the Genetic Testing section).

Pedigrees can also help distinguish if a health issue has either an autosomal or X-linked pattern of inheritance. As previously discussed, there are 23 pairs of chromosomes and 22 of these pairs are known as autosomes. The provided pedigree examples (Figure 4.29-30) are autosomally linked genetic diseases. This means the genes that cause the disease are on one of the chromosomes numbered 1 to 22. The conditions caused by genes located on the X chromosome are referred to as X-linked diseases.
Figure 4.31 depicts a family in which the mother is a carrier for the X-linked recessive disease Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). The mother is a carrier for DMD, so daughters and sons will have a 50% chance of inheriting the pathogenic DMD allele. Because females have two X chromosomes, females who inherit only one copy will not have the disease (although in rare cases, female carriers may show some symptoms of the disease). On the other hand, males who inherit a copy of an X-linked pathogenic DMD allele will typically be affected with the condition. Thus, males are more susceptible to X-linked conditions because they only have one X chromosome. Therefore, when evaluating a pedigree, if a higher proportion of males are affected with the disease, this could suggest the disease is X-linked recessive.
Compared to the X chromosome, the Y chromosome is smaller with only a few genes. Y-linked traits are therefore rare and can only be passed from a chromosomal father to a biological XY child.

Other Patterns of Inheritance
Complexity Surrounding Mendelian Inheritance
Pea plant trait genetics are relatively simple compared to what we know about genetic inheritance today. The vast majority of genetically controlled traits are not strictly dominant or recessive, so the relationship among alleles and predicting phenotype is often more complicated. For example, traits that exhibit incomplete dominance occur when a heterozygote exhibits a phenotype that is an intermediate phenotype of both alleles. In snapdragon flowers, the red flower color (R) is dominant and white is recessive (r). Therefore, the homozygous dominant RR is red and homozygous recessive rr is white. However, because the R allele is not completely dominant, the heterozygote Rr is a blend of red and white, which results in a pink flower (Figure 4.32).

An example of incomplete dominance in humans is the enzyme β-hexosaminidase A (Hex A), which is encoded by the gene HEXA. Patients with two dysfunctional HEXA alleles are unable to metabolize a specific lipid-sugar molecule (GM2 ganglioside); because of this, the molecule builds up and causes damage to nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. This condition is known as Tay-Sachs disease, and it usually appears in infants who are three to six months old. Most children with Tay-Sachs do not live past early childhood. Individuals who are heterozygous for the functional type HEXA allele and one dysfunctional allele have reduced Hex A activity. However, the amount of enzyme activity is still sufficient, so carriers do not exhibit any neurological phenotypes and appear healthy.
Some genes and alleles can also have higher penetrance than others. Penetrance can be defined as the proportion of individuals who have a certain allele and also express an expected phenotype. If a genotype always produces an expected phenotype, then those alleles are said to be fully penetrant. However, in the case of incomplete (or reduced) penetrance, an expected phenotype may not occur even if an individual possesses the alleles that are known to control a trait or cause a disease.
A well-studied example of genetic penetrance is the cancer-related genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Mutations in these genes can affect crucial processes such as DNA repair, which can lead to breast and ovarian cancers. Although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance, it does not mean an individual will develop cancer if they inherit a pathogenic allele. Several lifestyle and environmental factors can also influence the risk for developing cancer. Regardless, if a family has a history of certain types of cancers, then it is often recommended that genetic testing be performed for individuals who are at risk. Moreover, publically available genetic testing companies are now offering health reports that include BRCA1 and BRCA2 allele testing (see the Genetic Testing section).
Polygenic Traits
While Mendelian traits tend to be influenced by a single gene, the vast majority of human phenotypes are polygenic traits. The term polygenic means “many genes.” Therefore, a polygenic trait is influenced by many genes that work together to produce the phenotype. Human phenotypes such as hair color, eye color, height, and weight are examples of polygenic traits. Hair color, for example, is largely determined by the type and quantity of a pigment called melanin, which is produced by a specialized cell type within the skin called melanocytes. The quantity and ratio of melanin pigments determine black, brown, blond, and red hair colors. MC1R is a well-studied gene that encodes a protein expressed on the surface of melanocytes that is involved in the production of eumelanin pigment. Typically, people with two functional copies of MC1R have brown hair. People with reduced functioning MC1R allele copies tend to produce pheomelanin, which results in blond or red hair. However, MC1R alleles have variable penetrance, and studies are continually identifying new genes (e.g., TYR, TYRP1, SLC24A5, and KITLG) that also influence hair color. Individuals with two nonfunctioning copies of the gene TYR have a condition called oculocutaneous albinism—their melanocytes are unable to produce melanin so these individuals have white hair, light eyes, and pale skin.
In comparison to Mendelian diseases, complex diseases (e.g., Type II diabetes, coronary heart disease, Alzheimer's, and schizophrenia) are more prevalent in humans. Complex diseases are polygenic, but their development is also influenced by physical, environmental, sociocultural, and individual lifestyle factors. Families can be more predisposed to certain diseases; however, complex diseases often do not have a clear pattern of inheritance.
Although research of complex traits and diseases continue, geneticists may not know all of the genes involved with a given complex disease. Additionally, how much genetic versus nongenetic determinants contribute to a disease phenotype can be difficult to decipher. Therefore, predicting individual medical risk and risk across different human populations is often a significant challenge. For instance, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) continue to be one of the leading causes of death around the world. Development of CVDs has been linked to nutrient exposure during fetal development, high fat and sedentary lifestyles, drug usage, adverse socioeconomic conditions, and various genes. Human environments are diverse, and public health research including the field of Human Biology can help identify risk factors and behaviors associated with chronic diseases. Large-scale clinical genetic studies with powerful bioinformatic approaches can also help elucidate some of these complex relationships.
Genomics and Epigenetics
A genome is all of the genetic material of an organism. In the case of humans, this includes 46 chromosomes and mtDNA. The human genome contains approximately three billion base pairs of DNA and has regions that are both noncoding and coding. Scientists now estimate that the human genome contains 20,000–25,000 protein-coding genes, with each chromosome containing a few hundred to a few thousand genes. As our knowledge of heredity increases, researchers have begun to realize the importance of epigenetics, or changes in gene expression that do not result in a change of the underlying DNA sequence. Epigenetics research is also crucial for unraveling gene regulation, which involves complex interactions between DNA, RNA, proteins, and the environment.
Genomics
The vast majority of the human genome is noncoding, meaning there are no instructions to make a protein or RNA product in these regions. Historically, noncoding DNA was referred to as “junk DNA” because these vast segments of the genome were thought to be irrelevant and nonfunctional. However, continual improvement of DNA sequencing technology along with worldwide scientific collaborations and consortia have contributed to our increased understanding of how the genome functions. Through these technological advances and collaborations, we have since discovered that many of these noncoding DNA regions are involved in dynamic genetic regulatory processes.
Genomics is a diverse field of molecular biology that focuses on genomic evolution, structure, and function; gene mapping; and genotyping (determining the alleles present). Evolutionary genomics determined that humans share about 98.8% percent of their DNA with chimpanzees. Given the phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees, having a DNA sequence difference of 1.2% seems surprising. However, a lot of genomics research is also focused on understanding how noncoding genomic regions influence how individual genes are turned “on” and “off” (i.e., regulated). Therefore, although DNA sequences are identical, regulatory differences in noncoding genetic regions (e.g., promoters) are believed to be largely responsible for the physical differences between humans and chimpanzees.
Further understanding of genomic regulatory elements can lead to new therapies and personalized treatments for a broad range of diseases. For example, targeting the regulatory region of a pathogenic gene to “turn off” its expression can prevent its otherwise harmful effects. Such molecular targeting approaches can be personalized based on an individual’s genetic makeup. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which seek to determine genes that are linked to complex traits and diseases, typically require significant computational efforts. This is because millions of DNA sequences must be analysed and GWAS sometimes include thousands of participants. During the beginning of the genomics field, most of the large-scale genomics studies only included North American, European, and East Asian participants and patients. Researchers are now focusing on increasing ethnic diversity in genomic studies and databases. In turn, accuracy of individual disease risk across all human populations will be improved and more rare disease–causing alleles will be identified.
Epigenetics
All cells within your body have the same copy of DNA. For example, a brain neuron has the same DNA blueprint as does a skin cell on your arm. Although these cells have the same genetic information, they are considered specialized. The reason all cells within the body have the same DNA but different morphologies and functions is that different subsets of genes are turned “on” and “off” within the different cell types. A more precise explanation is that there is differential expression of genes among different cell types. In the case of neuronal cells, a unique subset of genes are active that allow them to grow axons to send and receive messages. This subset of genes will be inactive in non-neuronal cell types such as skin cells. Epigenetics is a branch of genetics that studies how these genes are regulated through mechanisms that do not change the underlying DNA sequence.
The prefix epi- means “on, above, or near,” and epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation and histone modifications occur on, above, or near DNA. The addition of a methyl group (— CH₃) to DNA is known as DNA methylation (Figure 4.33). DNA methylation and other modifications made to the histones around which DNA are wrapped are thought to make chromatin more compact. This DNA is inaccessible to transcription factors and RNA polymerases, thus preventing genes from being turned on (i.e., transcribed). Other histone modifications have the opposite effect by loosening chromatin, which makes genes accessible to transcription factors.

It is important to note that environmental factors can alter DNA methylation and histone modifications and also that these changes can be passed from generation to generation. For example, someone’s epigenetic profile can be altered during a stressful time (e.g., natural disasters, famine, etc.), and those regulatory changes can be inherited by the next generation. Moreover, our epigenetic expression profile changes as we age. For example, certain places in our genome become “hyper” or “hypo” methylated over time. Identical twins also have epigenetic profiles that become more different as they age. Researchers are only beginning to understand the significance of these genome-wide epigenetic changes. Scientists have also discovered that changes in epigenetic modifications can alter gene expression in ways that contribute to diseases. It is also important to note that, unlike DNA mutations (which permanently change the nucleotide sequence), epigenetic changes can be easily reversed. A lot of research now focuses on how drugs can alter or modulate changes in DNA methylation and histone modifications to treat diseases such as cancer.
Environmental Disruptors and Their Impact on Human Reproductive Systems
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) defines endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) as synthetic or natural compounds that interfere with the body’s hormonal systems. Found in pesticides, plastics, industrial chemicals, and pollutants, EDCs can mimic, block, or alter the natural action of hormones (NIEHS, 2024). Their effects on reproductive health are profound, particularly during critical developmental windows while also affecting subsequent generations through epigenetic changes.
NIEHS declared EDC’s:
| Atrazine | one of the most commonly applied herbicides in the world, often used to control weeds in corn, sorghum, and sugarcane crops. |
| Bisphenol A (BPA) | used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It is used in manufacturing, food packaging, toys, and other applications. BPA resins may be found in the lining of some canned foods and beverages. |
| Dioxins | a byproduct of certain manufacturing processes, such as herbicide production and paper bleaching. They can be released into the air from waste burning and wildfires. |
| Perchlorate | a colorless salt manufactured and used as an industrial chemical to make rockets, explosives, and fireworks, which can be found in some groundwater. |
| Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | a large group of chemicals used widely in industrial applications, such as firefighting foam, nonstick pans, paper, and textile coatings. |
| Phthalates | a large group of compounds used as liquid plasticizers. They are found in hundreds of products including some food packaging, cosmetics, fragrances, children’s toys, and medical device tubing. Cosmetics that may contain phthalates include nail polish, hair spray, aftershave lotion, cleanser, and shampoo. |
| Phytoestorgens | naturally occurring substances with hormone-like activity found in some plants; they may have a similar effect to estrogen produced by the body. Soy foods, for example, contain phytoestrogens. |
| Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) | used to make flame retardants for products such as furniture foam and carpet. |
| Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) | used to make electrical equipment, such as transformers, and are in hydraulic fluids, heat transfer fluids, lubricants, and plasticizers. PCBs were mass-produced globally until they were banned in 1979. |
| Triclosan | an ingredient that was previously added to some antimicrobial and personal care products, like liquid body wash and soaps. |
The Male Reproductive System: Vulnerabilities, Epigenetics, and Disruptions
The male reproductive system is highly sensitive to hormonal interference, especially during prenatal and early postnatal development. Over the past 50 years, epidemiological data gathered by the NIEHS has revealed alarming changes: increased cases of prostate and testicular cancers, male-descended testes, and anatomical malformations of male genitalia (Sweeney Et al., 2015). These changes are accompanied by a global decline in sperm quality, underscoring the widespread vulnerability of male reproductive health to environmental factors. The testes, as the site of sperm production and testosterone synthesis, are particularly susceptible to EDC interference. Proper testicular development depends on tightly regulated hormonal signalling, which EDCs can disrupt by mimicking or blocking hormones like testosterone and estrogen, leading to improper testicular formation and increased risk of testicular cancer. Prostate development is also a target for EDC interference. African American men, for example, exhibit twice the risk of developing prostate cancer than Caucasian men. This disparity has been attributed to hereditary, lifestyle, and environmental factors, often causing elevated maternal estrogen levels during gestation. This prenatal exposure to EDCs can mimic estrogen and predispose developing prostate tissues to cancerous changes in adulthood (2015).
The Female Reproductive System: Epigenetics and Fertility Challenges
Female fertility relies on a delicate hormonal balance to regulate processes such as ovulation, implantation, and pregnancy. EDCs can disrupt this balance by mimicking, antagonizing, or altering the action of hormones. Their interference contributes to a wide range of reproductive disorders, including early puberty, premature ovarian failure, anovulation, and infertility. Epigenetics plays a central role in female reproductive health. DNA methylation, histone modifications, and ncRNA generation are crucial for regulating ovarian and uterine function; However, EDCs can affect these regulatory mechanisms. An example of this is primordial germ cells (PGCs) in female embryos, which need to undergo extensive epigenetic reprogramming during development (Biswas Et al., 2021). This process erases genomic imprinting and reactivates the inactive X chromosome, creating a "blank slate" for the next generation; however, EDCs can disrupt this critical period of epigenetic resetting, leading to long-term consequences for reproductive health.
The ovarian follicle–the functional unit of female reproduction–is particularly vulnerable to these chemicals. Being exposed to EDCs can deplete the pool of these follicles, leading to temporary or permanent infertility (2021). Additionally, EDCs interfere with estrogen receptor function, a crucial regulator of female reproductive processes. These chemicals bind to these receptors, altering the recruitment of enzymes involved in histone modification and chromatin remodelling; this disrupts gene expression patterns critical for ovarian and uterine health. One striking example is diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen once prescribed to pregnant women (2021). DES exposure has been linked to ovarian cancer in subsequent generations, highlighting the transgenerational effects of EDCs on the female reproductive system. In severe cases, EDCs induce multigenerational reproductive disorders, as observed in studies linking DES to ovarian cancer in the grandchildren of exposed individuals.
Epigenetic Therapy
Heritable Changes and Some Related Drugs
As has been said, epigenetics involves heritable changes in gene expression, without involving DNA alteration. These changes, being heritable and often involving abnormal DNA methylation patterns within the four DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) or histone modifications in chromatin, can lead to disease development. DNMTs (DNMT1, DNMT2, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B) have functions specific to themselves and are at the core of the DNA methylation process. Regarding the histone modifications mentioned, histones have been recognized to mutate under various mechanisms, such as acetylation, methylation and phosphorylation. The acetylation of histones involves histone acetyltransferases (HATs), which are associated with the activation of gene transcription. This process is reversed by the deacetylation of histones, which is associated with the silencing of gene transcription under histone deacetylases (HDACs). (Peedicayil, 2006)
Epigenetic therapy, with the use of specialized drug developments, aims to correct epigenetic defects, which are reversible under pharmacological intervention, by targeting enzymes such as HATs, HDACs and DNMTs, as well as histone methyltransferases. For instance, certain drugs are being developed as DNMT inhibitors, stopping the methylation of DNA associated with inappropriate transcriptional silencing of genes, and potentially increasing haemoglobin F to help patients affected by sickle cell anemia. These DNMT inhibitor drugs have been classified under three categories based on their structures: nucleoside analogue DNMT inhibitors, non-nucleoside analogue DNMT inhibitors, and antisense oligonucleotides (2006). Nucleoside analogue DNMT inhibitors are analogues of cytosine, the nucleotide affected by methylation from DNMTs, and are incorporated into replicating DNA, replacing cytosine, thus being S-phase-specific drugs. Non-nucleoside analogue DNMT inhibitors are researched to reduce the myelotoxic effects of drugs directly incorporated into the DNA, and are brought into the patient differently. Antisense oligonucleotides are drugs made up of sequences of nucleotides complementary to mRNAs, made to block translation, by acting on the DNMT1 for instance. Additionally, drugs such as HDAC inhibitors help maintain the acetylation of histones, leading to apoptosis, growth arrest or differentiation of tumour cells, giving this drug an anticancer effect, suppressing tumour growth. (2006)
Implications with Cancers
Research published in The Indian Journal for Medical Research has shown that these drugs show promising results in cancer treatment trials involving solid tumours and hematological malignancies. However, they have limitations, for instance, the fact that DNMT and HDAC inhibitors could activate oncogenes due to limited specificity, leading to further tumor progression; or their high myelotoxicity levels, a side effect thought to be due to their incorporation into DNA, and nucleotide analogue inhibitors (2006). Though that is the case, it is important to know that epigenetic drugs alone or in combination with conventional anticancer drugs, may prove to be a significant advance over the use of conventional anticancer drugs, and may also be a way to prevent diseases. Additionally, combination therapy strategies targeting various epigenetic markers, such as DNMTs for cancer-related genes and non-selective HDAC inhibitors, have been shown to yield promising results, simultaneously inducing the expression of tumor suppressor genes and inhibiting the expression of key oncogenes. As recently explored by researchers in Cell Death Discovery, this specific case of combination therapy would synergistically induce gene expression while maintaining the selectivity required to increase targeting of particular tumor types based on gene expression profiles. (Yu Et al., 2024)
To date, the majority of cases in which epigenetic defects have led to disease pathogenesis are cancers (Peedicayil, 2006), cancer cells often developing due to uncontrolled cell growth and resistance to cell death mechanisms, made possible with abnormal DNA methylation patterns as well as histone modifications (Yu Et al., 2024). Epigenetic alterations have therefore been identified within the core of tumor progression mechanisms in cancer cells, including tumorigenesis, promotion, progression, and recurrence, suggesting epigenetic heterogeneity at the cellular level (2024). Certain drugs have been developed, showing specifically good results for cancer treatments, by inhibiting enzymes such as KMTs and KDMs. These can be added to the growing list of drugs fitting into epigenetic therapy, including DNMT and HDAC inhibitors, as well as combination therapy treatments, for cancer and other diseases.
Purpose of Study and Future Developments
Studying the link between epigenetics and diseases is crucial for multiple reasons, one of which is enabling scientists and researchers to better understand disease mechanisms, detect abnormal epigenetic changes, and, in turn, develop more effective treatments or possibly even prevent diseases from developing in the first place. As previously mentioned, epigenetic therapy has been shown to bring promising results in drug trials surrounding cancer treatments. Still, the range of diseases to be treated with this new pharmacology approach is vast, molecules other than DNMTs and HDACs being related to epigenetic mechanisms within gene expression, such as BET proteins and KDMs, potentially being a source of new medications or treatments (Yu Et al., 2024; Peedicayil, 2006). Additionally, by understanding someone's epigenetic profile, a form of personalized “precision medicine” (2024, p. 8) is developed, offering less toxic and more effective treatments with fewer undesired side effects. Researchers expanding this field of knowledge would be able to understand, in more concrete terms, how external factors are linked to epigenetic changes and, consequently, disease risk, potentially halting disease progression and developing new prevention mechanisms. Personalized medicine combines both genetic and epigenetic data, including gene expression profiles, DNA methylation patterns, histone modification profiles, and identified biomarkers, to create precise disease management and prediction.
It is crucial to keep in mind that diseases like cancer are linked to major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, which could be reduced with therapeutic medicine such as epigenetic therapy, aiming to detect cancer biomarkers to improve risk assessment, diagnosis, and targeted treatment interventions, limiting the burden of chronic and life-threatening diseases. With the advancement of epigenetic therapies, new sequencing techniques, as well as AI (2024), have opened avenues to establish precision diagnostics and therapeutics for patients.
With this said, epigenetics is a relatively new area of scientific research. This field has exploded in the last few decades, especially with the advancement of technologies that allow researchers to examine DNA methylation patterns, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA molecules across the genome. While the potential of epigenetics in explaining complex diseases, including those linked to environmental factors such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), is immense, we’ve identified two key challenges. One major limitation is the complexity and variability of epigenetic marks. These modifications can differ significantly across cell types, tissues, and even individuals, making it difficult to generalize findings.
Additionally, epigenetic changes are dynamic and can fluctuate over time, which complicates the task of linking them to specific environmental exposures or health outcomes. Another challenge lies in the transgenerational aspect of epigenetics. While it's clear that epigenetic changes can be passed from one generation to the next, the mechanisms behind this inheritance are not fully understood. It's also difficult to pinpoint exactly when and how these modifications occur in development, especially since environmental exposures may affect individuals at different stages of their life, with varying effects depending on the timing and dose.
Special Topic: Epigenetics and X Chromosome Inactivation

Mary Lyon was a British geneticist who presented a hypothesis for X chromosome inactivation (called the Lyon hypothesis) based on her work and other studies of the day. Females inherit two X chromosomes, one from each parent. Males have one functional X chromosome; however, this does not mean females have more active genes than males. During the genetic embryonic development of many female mammals, one of the X chromosomes is inactivated at random, so females have one functional X chromosome. The process of X chromosome inactivation in females occurs through epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation and histone modifications. Recent studies have analysed the role of a long noncoding RNA called X-inactive specific transcript (XIST), which is largely responsible for the random silencing of one of the X chromosomes. The presence of two X chromosomes is the signal for XIST RNA to be expressed so that one X chromosome can be inactivated. However, some cells may have an active paternal X chromosome while other cells may have an active maternal X chromosome. This phenomenon is easily seen in calico and tortoiseshell cats (Figure 4.34). In cats, the gene that controls coat color is found on the X chromosome. During early embryo development, random inactivation of X chromosomes gives rise to populations of cells that express black or orange, which results in the unique coat patterning. Therefore, calico cats are typically always female.
Genetic Testing
To assist with public health efforts, newborn screening for genetic diseases has been available in the United States for over 50 years. One of the first available genetic tests was to confirm a phenylketonuria (PKU) diagnosis in infants, which is easily treatable with a dietary change. Currently, each state decides what genes are included on newborn screening panels and some states even have programs to help with infant medical follow-ups. There are now hundreds of laboratories that provide testing for a few thousand different genes that can inform medical decisions for infants and adults. Moreover, genetic testing has been made available publicly to anyone without the assistance of medical professionals.
Clinical Testing
Clinical genetics tests assist patients with making medically informed decisions about family planning and health. Applications of this technology include assistance with in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, embryo genetic screening, and personalized medicine such as matching patients to cancer therapies. To ensure accuracy of patient genetic screening, it is important that all clinical laboratories are regulated. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) are United States federal standards that all human laboratory testing clinics must follow. A major benefit provided by some clinical genetic testing companies is access to genetic counselors, who have specialized education and training in medical genetics and counseling. For individuals with a family history of genetic disease, a physician may recommend genetic carrier screening to see if there is a risk for passing on a disease to a child. Genetic counselors provide expertise with interpretation of genetic testing results, as well as help guide and support patients when making impactful medical decisions.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
From the late nineteenth century to the present, humanity’s desire to direct its own biological destiny has raised profound questions for biological anthropologists. The study of human evolution is not only a scientific exploration of change over time—it is also a reflection of how societies interpret difference, fitness, and social value. The history of eugenics, and its modern echoes in genomic technology, reveal how evolutionary theory can be misused to justify inequality, as well as how culture continues to shape the biological future of our species.
The roots of eugenics lie in Social Darwinism, where figures such as Francis Galton (a cousin of Darwin) believed that basic natural selection was insufficient, opting for more involved methods of social engineering through selective breeding. This perspective assumed that complex human traits such as intelligence, morality, or poverty could be biologically inherited and thus controlled. In this view, biological determinism replaced social responsibility, and “fitness” became a political and cultural judgment rather than a biological one.
Throughout the early twentieth century, eugenic policies spread across the globe, shaping laws and public health initiatives. In Canada, government-backed programs continuing into the 1970s, enforced the sterilization of Indigenous women, coercing them with threats of withdrawing future healthcare. Germany famously drew upon such precedents in developing its racial hygiene programs during the Second World War, transforming eugenic ideology into a state-sponsored campaign of genocide. Even by the late twentieth century, echoes of eugenics persisted in Peru, where population control initiatives targeted Indigenous communities for compulsory sterilization.
In the modern genomic era, new technologies involving gene therapy and genetic testing present both promise and fear. The ability to modify or select genes reawakens many of the same moral dilemmas that eugenics once posed. From a biological anthropological perspective, the danger lies not in studying or applying genetics itself, but in assuming that genes alone determine destiny. The human ecosystem operates within systems where culture, environment, and biology continuously interact; attempts to reduce behaviour, intelligence, or worth to genetic codes ignore these relationships that define humanity.
As Steven Pinker argues when commenting on his book The Blank Slate, there have been two ideologies that have led to genocide: eugenics and Marxism. Marxism disregarded the idea of biology and race as well as human nature. Thus, it is not solely inheritance (genes) that leads to genocide, but the overall belief that humanity can and should be remade through coercive means. Biological anthropology reminds us that human variation—both cultural and genetic—is the foundation of adaptability. To purposely limit diversity through selective reproduction or genetic homogenization is to weaken humans’ capacity to evolve, both biologically and ethically.
Discussion questions
- What are the limits in parental selection for an offspring’s genetics?
- Consider the 1-child policy in China. What are some of the problems engendered by that policy?
Review Questions
- What is the purpose of DNA replication? Explain in a few sentences what happens during DNA replication. When do DNA mutations happen? And how does this create phenotypic variation (i.e., different phenotypes of the same physical trait)?
- Using your own words, what are homologous chromosomes and sister chromatids? What are the key differences between mitosis and meiosis?
- Determine if the pedigree diagram below (Figure 4.40) represents an autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, or X-linked recessive pattern of inheritance. You should write the genotype (i.e., AA, Aa, or aa) above each square to help you (note: there may sometimes be two possible answers for a square’s genotype). Please also explain why you concluded a particular pattern of inheritance.

- Use base pairing rules to transcribe the following DNA template sequence into mRNA: GTAAAGGTGCTGGCCATC. Next, use the protein codon table (see Figure 4.21) to translate the sequence. In regard to transcription, explain what the significance is of the first and last codon/protein in the sequence.
- In your opinion, what do you think the benefits are of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing? What are the drawbacks and/or greater ethical concerns? Do you think benefits outweigh concerns?
- Imagine that you submit your DNA sample to a genetic testing company and among the various diseases for which they test, there is an allele that is associated with late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. You have the option to view your Alzheimer’s result or to not view your result. What do you do and why?
Key Terms
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP): A high-energy compound produced by mitochondria that powers cellular processes.
Allele: A nonidentical DNA sequence found in the same gene location on a homologous chromosome, or gene copy, that codes for the same trait but produces a different phenotype.
Amino acids: Organic molecules that are the building blocks of protein. Each of the 20 different amino acids have their own unique chemical property. Amino acids are chained together to form proteins.
Ancient DNA (aDNA): DNA that is extracted from organic remains and that often dates from hundreds to thousands of years ago. Also, aDNA is typically degraded (i.e., damaged) due to exposure to the elements such as heat, acidity, and humidity.
Aneuploid: A cell with an unexpected amount of chromosomes. The loss or gain of chromosomes can occur during mitotic or meiotic division.
Antibodies: Immune-related proteins that can detect and bind to foreign substances in the blood such as pathogens.
Apoptosis: A series of molecular steps that is activated leading to cell death. Apoptosis can be activated when a cell fails checkpoints during the cell cycle; however, cancer cells have the ability to avoid apoptosis.
Autosomal: Refers to a pattern of inheritance in which an allele is located on an autosome (non sex chromosome).
Base pairs: Chemical bonding between nucleotides. In DNA, adenine (A) pairs with thymine (T) and cytosine (C) pairs with guanine (G); in RNA, adenine (A) always pairs with uracil (U).
Carbohydrate: Molecules composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms that can be broken down to supply energy.
Carrier: An individual who has a heterozygous genotype that is typically associated with a disease.
Cell cycle: A cycle the cell undergoes with checkpoints between phases to ensure that DNA replication and cell division occur properly.
Cell surface antigen: A protein that is found on a red blood cell’s surface.
Centromere: A structural feature that is defined as the “center” of a chromosome and that creates two different arm lengths. This term also refers to the region of attachment for microtubules during mitosis and meiosis.
Chromatin: DNA wrapped around histone complexes. During cell division, chromatin becomes a condensed chromosome.
Chromosome: DNA molecule that is wrapped around protein complexes, including histones.
Codominance: The effects of both alleles in a genotype can be seen in the phenotype.
Codons: A sequence that comprises three DNA nucleotides that together code for a protein.
Complex diseases: A category of diseases that are polygenic and are also influenced by environment and lifestyle factors.
Cytoplasm: The “jelly-like” matrix inside of the cell that contains many organelles and other cellular molecules.
Deleterious: A mutation that increases an organism’s susceptibility to disease.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA): A molecule that carries the hereditary information passed down from parents to offspring. DNA can be described as a “double helix”’ shape. It includes two chains of nucleotides held together by hydrogen bonds with a sugar phosphate backbone.
Diploid: Refers to an organism or cell with two sets of chromosomes.
DNA methylation: Methyl groups bind DNA, which modifies the transcriptional activity of a gene by turning it “on” or “off.”
DNA polymerase: Enzyme that adds nucleotides to existing nucleic acid strands during DNA replication. These enzymes can be distinguished by their processivity (e.g., DNA replication).
DNA replication: Cellular process in which DNA is copied and doubled.
DNA sequence: The order of nucleotide bases. A DNA sequence can be short, long, or representative of entire chromosomes or organismal genomes.
Dominant: Refers to an allele for which one copy is sufficient to be visible in the phenotype.
Elongation: The assembly of new DNA from template strands with the help of DNA polymerases.
Enzymes: Proteins responsible for catalyzing (accelerating) various biochemical reactions in cells.
Epigenetic profile: The methylation pattern throughout a genome—that is, which genes (and other genomic sites) are methylated and unmethylated.
Epigenetics: Changes in gene expression that do not result in a change of the underlying DNA sequence. These changes typically involve DNA methylation and histone modifications. These changes are reversible and can also be inherited by the next generation.
Euchromatin: Loosely coiled chromosomes found within the nucleus that are accessible for regulatory processing of DNA.
Eukaryote: Single-celled or multicelled organism characterized by a distinct nucleus, with each organelle surrounded by its own membrane.
Exon: Protein-coding segment of a gene.
Gametes: Haploid cells referred to as an egg and sperm that will fuse together during sexual reproduction to form a diploid organism.
Gene: Segment of DNA that contains protein-coding information and various regulatory (e.g., promoter) and noncoding (e.g., introns) regions.
Genetic recombination: A cellular process that occurs during meiosis I in which homologous chromosomes pair up and sister chromatids on different chromosomes physically swap genetic information.
Genome: All the genetic information of an organism.
Genotype: The combination of two alleles that code for or are associated with the same gene.
Genotyping: A molecular procedure that is performed to test for the presence of certain alleles or to discover new ones.
Germ cells: Specialized cells that form gametes (egg and sperm cells).
Haploid: Cell or organism with one set of chromosomes (n = 23).
Helicase: A protein that breaks the hydrogen bonds that hold double-stranded DNA together.
Heterozygous: Genotype that consists of two different alleles.
Histones: Proteins that DNA wraps around to assist with DNA organization within the nucleus.
Homologous chromosomes: A matching pair of chromosomes wherein one chromosome is maternally inherited and the other is paternally inherited.
Homozygous: Genotype that consists of two identical alleles.
Incomplete dominance: Heterozygous genotype that produces a phenotype that is a blend of both alleles.
Initiation: The recruitment of proteins to separate DNA strands and begin DNA replication.
Interphase: Preparatory period of the cell cycle when increased metabolic demand allows for DNA replication and doubling of the cell prior to cell division.
Introns: Segment of DNA that does not code for proteins.
Karyotyping: The microscopic procedure wherein the number of chromosomes in a cell is determined.
Lagging strand: DNA template strand that is opposite to the leading strand during DNA replication. This strand is created in several disconnected sections and other enzymes fill in the missing nucleotide gaps between these sections.
Leading strand: DNA template strand in which replication proceeds continuously.
Lipids: Fatty acid molecules that serve various purposes in the cell, including energy storage, cell signaling, and structure.
Meiosis: The process that gametes undergo to divide. The end of meiosis results in four haploid daughter cells.
Mendelian genetics: A classification given to phenotypic traits that are controlled by a single gene.
Messenger RNA (mRNA): RNA molecule that is transcribed from DNA. Its tri-nucleotide codons are “read” by a ribosome to build a protein.
Microarray technology: A genotyping procedure that utilizes a microarray chip, which is a collection of thousands of short nucleotide sequences attached to a solid surface that can probe genomic DNA.
Microbiome: The collective genomes of the community of microorganisms that humans have living inside of their bodies.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA): Circular DNA segment found in mitochondria that is inherited maternally.
Mitochondrion: Specialized cellular organelle that is the site for energy production. It also has its own genome (mtDNA).
Mitosis: The process that somatic cells undergo to divide. The end of mitosis results in two diploid daughter cells.
Molecular anthropologists: Individuals who use molecular techniques (primarily genetics) to compare ancient and modern populations and to study living populations of humans and nonhuman primates.
Molecular geneticists: Biologists that study the structure and function of genes.
Mutation: A nucleotide sequence variation from the template DNA strand that can occur during replication. Mutations can also happen during recombination.
Next-generation sequencing: A genotyping technology that involves producing millions of nucleotide sequences (from a single DNA sample) that are then read with a sequencing machine. It can be used for analyzing entire genomes or specific regions and requires extensive program-based applications.
Nuclear envelope: A double-layered membrane that encircles the nucleus.
Nucleic acid: A complex structure (like DNA or RNA) that carries genetic information about a living organism.
Nucleotide: The basic structural component of nucleic acids, which includes DNA (A, T, C, and G) and RNA (A, U, C, and G).
Nucleus: Double-membrane cellular organelle that helps protect DNA and also regulates nuclear activities.
Organelle: A structure within a cell that performs specialized tasks that are essential for the cell. There are different types of organelles, each with its own function.
Pathogenic: A genetic mutation (i.e., allele) that has a harmful phenotypic disease-causing effect.
Pedigree: A diagram of family relationships that indicates which members may have or carry certain genetic and/or phenotypic traits.
Penetrance: The proportion of how often the possession of an allele results in an expected phenotype. Some alleles are more penetrant than others.
Phenotype: The physical appearance of a given trait.
Phospholipid bilayer: Two layers of lipids that form a barrier due to the properties of a hydrophilic (water-loving) head and a hydrophobic (water-repelling) tail.
Polygenic trait: A phenotype that is controlled by two or more genes.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR): A molecular biology procedure that can make copies of genomic DNA segments. A small amount of DNA is used as a starting template and is then used to make millions of copies.
Prokaryote: A single-celled organism characterized by the lack of a nucleus and membrane-enclosed organelles.
Promoter: The region of a gene that initiates transcription. Transcription factors can bind and DNA methylation may occur at a promoter site, which can modify the transcriptional activities of a gene.
Protein: Chain of amino acids that folds into a three-dimensional structure that allows a cell to function in a variety of ways.
Protein synthesis: A multi-step process by which amino acids are strung together by RNA machinery read from a DNA template.
Recessive: Refers to an allele whose effect is not normally seen unless two copies are present in an individual’s genotype.
Ribonucleic acid (RNA): Single-stranded nucleic acid molecule.There are different RNAs found within cells and they perform a variety of functions, such as cell signaling and involvement in protein synthesis.
Ribosomal RNA (rRNA): A ribosome-bound molecule that is used to correctly assemble amino acids into proteins.
Ribosome: An organelle in the cell found in the cytoplasm or endoplasmic reticulum. It is responsible for reading mRNA and protein assemblage.
RNA polymerase: An enzyme that catalyzes the process of making RNA from a DNA template.
Sanger-sequencing: A process that involves the usage of fluorescently labeled nucleotides to visualize DNA (PCR fragments) at the nucleotide level.
Semi-conservative replication: DNA replication in which new DNA is replicated from an existing DNA template strand.
Sequencing: A molecular laboratory procedure that produces the order of nucleotide bases (i.e., sequences).
Sister chromatids: During DNA replication, sister chromatids are produced on the chromosome. In cell division, sister chromatids are pulled apart so that two cells can be formed. In meiosis, sister chromatids are also the sites of genetic recombination.
Somatic cells: Diploid cells that comprise body tissues and undergo mitosis for maintenance and repair of tissues.
Splicing: The process by which mature mRNAs are produced. Introns are removed (spliced) and exons are joined together.
Sugar phosphate backbone: A biochemical structural component of DNA. The “backbone” consists of deoxyribose sugars and phosphate molecules.
Telomere: A compound structure located at the ends of chromosomes to help protect the chromosomes from degradation after every round of cell division.
Termination: The halt of DNA replication activity that occurs when a DNA sequence “stop” codon is encountered.
Tissue: A cluster of cells that are morphologically similar and perform the same task.
Transcription: The process by which DNA nucleotides (within a gene) are copied, which results in a messenger RNA molecule.
Transcription factors: Proteins that bind to regulatory regions of genes (e.g., promoter) and increase or decrease the amount of transcriptional activity of a gene, including turning them “on” or “off.”
Transfer RNA (tRNA): RNA molecule involved in translation. Transfer RNA transports amino acids from the cell’s cytoplasm to a ribosome.
Translation: The process by which messenger RNA codons are read and amino acids are “chained together” to form proteins.
X-linked: Refers to a pattern of inheritance where the allele is located on the X or Y chromosome.
For Further Exploration
National Human Genome Research Institute
NOVA. 2018. Gene Sequencing Speeds Diagnosis of Deadly Newborn Diseases. NOVA, March 7, 2018. Accessed January 31, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/newborn-gene-sequencing/.
Zimmer, Carl. N.d. “Carl Zimmer’s Game of Genomes.” STATnews. Accessed January 31, 2023. https://www.statnews.com/feature/game-of-genomes/season-one/.
Illumina. 2016. “Illumina Sequencing by Synthesis.” YouTube.com, October 5, 2016. Accessed January 31, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCd6B5HRaZ8.
References
Aartsma-Rus, Annemieke, Ieke B. Ginjaar, and Kate Bushby. 2016. “The Importance of Genetic Diagnosis for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.” Journal of Medical Genetics 53 (3): 145–151.
Acuna-Hidalgo, Rocio, Joris A. Veltman, and Alexander Hoischen. 2016. “New Insights into the Generation and Role of De Novo Mutations in Health and Disease.” Genome Biology 17 (241): 1–19.
Albert, Benjamin, Susanna Tomassetti, Yvonne Gloor, Daniel Dilg, Stefano Mattarocci, Slawomir Kubik, Lukas Hafner, and David Shore. 2019. "Sfp1 Regulates Transcriptional Networks Driving Cell Growth and Division through Multiple Promoter-Binding Modes." Genes & Development 33 (5–6): 288–293.
Almathen, Faisal, Haitham Elbir, Hussain Bahbahani, Joram Mwacharo, and Olivier Hanotte. 2018. “Polymorphisms in Mc1r and Asip Genes Are Associated with Coat Color Variation in the Arabian Camel.” Journal of Heredity 109 (6): 700–706.
Ballester, Leomar Y., Rajyalakshmi Luthra, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna, and Rajesh R. Singh. 2016. “Advances in Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing: Target Enrichment and Sequencing Technologies.” Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 16 (3): 357–372.
Baranovskiy, Andrey G., Vincent N. Duong, Nigar D. Babayeva, Yinbo Zhang, Youri I. Pavlov, Karen S. Anderson, and Tahir H. Tahirov. 2018. “Activity and Fidelity of Human DNA Polymerase Alpha Depend on Primer Structure.” Journal of Biological Chemistry 293 (18): 6824–6843.
Biswas, S., Ghosh, S., Das, S., & Maitra, S. (2021). Female Reproduction: At the Crossroads of Endocrine Disruptors and Epigenetics. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 74(4), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-021-00403-4
Brezina, Paulina R., Raymond Anchan, and William G. Kearns. 2016. “Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy: What Technology Should You Use and What Are the Differences?” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 33 (7): 823–832.
Bultman, Scott J. 2017. “Interplay Between Diet, Gut Microbiota, Epigenetic Events, and Colorectal Cancer." Molecular Nutrition & Food Research 61 (1):1–12.
Cutting, Garry R. 2015. “Cystic Fibrosis Genetics: From Molecular Understanding to Clinical Application.” Nature Reviews Genetics 16 (1): 45–56.
D'Alessandro, Giuseppina., and Fabrizio d'Adda di Fagagna. 2017. “Transcription and DNA Damage: Holding Hands or Crossing Swords?” Journal of Molecular Biology 429 (21): 3215–3229.
De Craene, Johan-Owen, Dimitri L. Bertazzi, Séverine Bar, and Sylvie Friant. 2017. “Phosphoinositides, Major Actors in Membrane Trafficking and Lipid Signaling Pathways.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 18 (3): 1–20.
Deng, Lian, and Shuhua Xu. 2018. “Adaptation of Human Skin Color in Various Populations.” Hereditas 155 (1): 1–12.
Dever, Thomas E., Terri G. Kinzy, and Graham D. Pavitt. 2016. “Mechanism and Regulation of Protein Synthesis in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae.” Genetics 203 (1): 65–107.
Eme, Laura, Anja Spang, Jonathan Lombard, Courtney W. Stairs, and Thijs J. G. Ettema. 2017. “Archaea and the Origin of Eukaryotes.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 15 (12): 711–723.
Gomez-Carballa, Alberto, Jacobo Pardo-Seco, Stefania Brandini, Alessandro Achilli, Ugo A. Perego, Michael D. Coble, Toni M. Diegoli, et al. 2018. “The Peopling of South America and the Trans-Andean Gene Flow of the First Settlers.” Genome Research 28 (6): 767–779.
Gvozdenov, Zlata, Janhavi Kolhe, and Brian C. Freeman. 2019. “The Nuclear and DNA-Associated Molecular Chaperone Network.” Cold Spring Harbour Perspectives in Biology 11 (10): a034009.
Harkins, Kelly M., and Anne C. Stone. 2015. “Ancient Pathogen Genomics: Insights into Timing and Adaptation.” Journal of Human Evolution 79: 137–149.
Jackson, Maria, Leah Marks, Gerhard H. W. May, and Joanna B. Wilson. 2018. “The Genetic Basis of Disease.” Essays in Biochemistry 62 (5): 643–723.
Lenormand, Thomas, Jan Engelstadter, Susan E. Johnston, Erik Wijnker, and Christopher R. Haag. 2016. “Evolutionary Mysteries in Meiosis.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371: 1–14.
Levy, Shawn E., and Richard M. Myers. 2016. “Advancements in Next-Generation Sequencing.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 17: 95–115.
Lindo, John, Emilia Huerta-Sánchez, Shigeki Nakagome, Morten Rasmussen, Barbara Petzelt, Joycelynn Mitchell, Jerome S. Cybulski, et al. 2016. "A Time Transect of Exomes from a Native American Population Before and After European Contact." Nature Communications 7: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13175.
Lu, Mengfei, Cathryn M. Lewis, and Matthew Traylor. 2017. “Pharmacogenetic Testing through the Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Company 23andme.” BMC Medical Genomics 10 (47): 1–8.
Ly, Lundi, Donovan Chan, Mahmoud Aarabi, Mylene Landry, Nathalie A. Behan, Amanda J. MacFarlane, and Jacquetta Trasler. 2017. “Intergenerational Impact of Paternal Lifetime Exposures to Both Folic Acid Deficiency and Supplementation on Reproductive Outcomes and Imprinted Gene Methylation.” Molecular Human Reproduction 23 (7): 461–477.
Ma, Wenxiu, Giancarlo Bonora, Joel B. Berletch, Xinxian Deng, William S. Noble, and Christine M. Disteche. 2018. “X-Chromosome Inactivation and Escape from X Inactivation in Mouse.” Methods in Molecular Biology 1861: 205–219.
Machiela, Mitchell J., Weiyin Zhou, Eric Karlins, Joshua N. Sampson, Neal D. Freedman, Qi Yang, Belynda Hicks, et al. 2016. “Female Chromosome X Mosaicism Is Age-Related and Preferentially Affects the Inactivated X Chromosome.” Nature Communications 7: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11843.
Mahdavi, Morteza, Mohammadreza Nassiri, Mohammad M. Kooshyar, Masoume Vakili-Azghandi, Amir Avan, Ryan Sandry, Suja Pillai, Alfred K. Lam, and Vinod Gopalan. 2019. “Hereditary Breast Cancer; Genetic Penetrance and Current Status with BRCA.” Journal of Cellular Physiology 234 (5): 5741–5750.
McDade, Thomas W., Calen P. Ryan, Meaghan J. Jones, Morgan K. Hoke, Judith Borja, Gregory E. Miller, Christopher W. Kuzawa, and Michael S. Kobor. 2019. “Genome-Wide Analysis of DNA Methylation in Relation to Socioeconomic Status During Development and Early Adulthood.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 169 (1): 3–11.
McLaren, Angus. Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945. Toronto: Oxford University Press; 1990.
Migeon, Barbara R. 2017. “Choosing the Active X: The Human Version of X Inactivation.” Trends in Genetics 33 (12): 899–909.
Myerowitz, Rachel. 1997. “Tay-Sachs Disease-Causing Mutations and Neutral Polymorphisms in the Hex A Gene.” Human Mutation 9 (3): 195–208.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2024, July 22). Endocrine Disruptors. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; United States Government. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine
Onufriev, Alexey V., and Helmut Schiessel. 2019. “The Nucleosome: From Structure to Function through Physics.” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 56: 119–130.
Peedicayil J. (2006). Epigenetic therapy--a new development in pharmacology. The Indian journal of medical research, 123(1), 17–24.
Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York, NY: Penguin Books; 2002. (Comments from Q&A with Pinker on the book, Published 10/30/2002 10:21 AM)
Quillen, Ellen E., Heather L. Norton, Esteban J. Parra, Frida Lona-Durazo, Khai C. Ang, Florin M. Illiescu, Laurel N. Pearson, et al. 2019. “Shades of Complexity: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Genetic Architecture of Human Skin.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 168 (67): 4–26.
Raspelli, Erica, and Roberta Fraschini. 2019. “Spindle Pole Power in Health and Disease.” Current Genetics 65 (4): 851–855.
Ravinet, M., R. Faria, R. K. Butlin, J. Galindo, N. Bierne, M. Rafajlovic, M. A. F. Noor, B. Mehlig, and A. M. Westram. 2017. “Interpreting the Genomic Landscape of Speciation: A Road Map for Finding Barriers to Gene Flow.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 30 (8): 1450–1477.
Regev, Aviv, Sarah A. Teichmann, Eric S. Lander, Ido Amit, Christophe Benoist, Ewan Birney, Bernd Bodenmiller, et al. 2017. “The Human Cell Atlas.” Elife 6e27041: 1–30. https://doi.org/10.7554.eLife.27041.
Roberts, Andrea L., Nicole Gladish, Evan Gatev, Meaghan J. Jones, Ying Chen, Julia L. MacIsaac, Shelley S. Tworoger, et al. 2018. “Exposure to Childhood Abuse Is Associated with Human Sperm DNA Methylation.” Translational Psychiatry 8 (194): 1–11.
Roger, Andrew J., Sergio A. Muñoz-Gómez, and Ryoma Kamikawa. 2017. “The Origin and Diversification of Mitochondria.” Current Biology 27 (21): R1177–R1192. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221731179X?via%3Dihub#!
Ségurel, Laure, and Céline Bon. 2017. “On the Evolution of Lactase Persistence in Humans.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 18: 297–319.
Sheth, Bhavisha P., and Vrinda S. Thaker. 2017. “DNA Barcoding and Traditional Taxonomy: An Integrated Approach for Biodiversity Conservation.” Genome 60 (7): 618–628.
Skloot, Rebecca. 2010. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
Snedeker, Jonathan, Matthew Wooten, and Xin Chen. 2017. “The Inherent Asymmetry of DNA Replication.” Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 33: 291–318.
Sullivan-Pyke, Chantae, and Anuja Dokras. 2018. “Preimplantation Genetic Screening and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 45 (1): 113–125.
Sweeney, M. F., Hasan, N., Soto, A. M., & Sonnenschein, C. (2015). Environmental endocrine disruptors: Effects on the human male reproductive system. Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders, 16(4), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11154-016-9337-4
Szostak, Jack W. 2017. “The Narrow Road to the Deep Past: In Search of the Chemistry of the Origin of Life.” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 56 (37): 11037–11043.
Tessema, Mathewos, Ulrich Lehmann, and Hans Kreipe. 2004. “Cell Cycle and No End.” Virchows Archiv European Journal of Pathology 444 (4): 313–323.
Tishkoff, Sarah A., Floyd A. Reed, Alessia Ranciaro, Benjamin F. Voight, Courtney C. Babbitt, Jesse S. Silverman, Kweli Powell, et al. 2007. “Convergent Adaptation of Human Lactase Persistence in Africa and Europe.” Nature Genetics 39 (1): 31–40.
Visootsak, Jeannie, and John M. Graham, Jr. 2006. “Klinefelter Syndrome and Other Sex Chromosomal Aneuploidies.” Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-1-42.
Wolfe, George C., dir. 2017. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. HBO Films, April 22, 2017. TV Movie.
Yamamoto, Fumi-ichiro, Henrik Clausen, Thayer White, John Marken, and Sen-itiroh Hakomori. 1990. “Molecular Genetic Basis of the Histo-Blood Group ABO System.” Nature 345 (6272): 229–233.
Yu, X., Zhao, H., Wang, R., Chen, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, W., Sun, Y., & Peng, A. (2024). Cancer epigenetics: from laboratory studies and clinical trials to precision medicine. Cell Death Discovery, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41420-024-01803-z
Zlotogora, Joël. 2003. “Penetrance and Expressivity in the Molecular Age.” Genetics in Medicine 5 (5): 347–352.
Zorina-Lichtenwalter, Katerina, Ryan N. Lichtenwalter, Dima V. Zaykin, Marc Parisien, Simon Gravel, Andrey Bortsov, and Luda Diatchenko. 2019. “A Study in Scarlet: MC1R as the Main Predictor of Red Hair and Exemplar of the Flip-Flop Effect.” Human Molecular Genetics 28 (12): 2093-2106.
Zwart, Haeh. 2018. “In the Beginning Was the Genome: Genomics and the Bi-Textuality of Human Existence.” New Bioethics 24 (1): 26–43.
Student contributors for this chapter from Salinda Hess' ANTH 203: Corin Laberge, Hazel Moorcroft, Isabella Michel, Julian J. Pantoja Quiroz
Learn more about authors and editors, Hess' student contributions, and versioning history.
Learning Objectives
- Outline a 21st-century perspective of the Modern Synthesis.
- Define populations and population genetics as well as the methods used to study them.
- Identify the forces of evolution and become familiar with examples of each.
- Discuss the evolutionary significance of mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection.
- Explain how allele frequencies can be used to study evolution as it happens.
- Contrast micro- and macroevolution.
It’s hard for us, with our typical human life spans of less than 100 years, to imagine all the way back, 3.8 billion years ago, to the origins of life. Scientists still study and debate how life came into being and whether it originated on Earth or in some other region of the universe (including some scientists who believe that studying evolution can reveal the complex processes that were set in motion by God or a higher power). What we do know is that a living single-celled organism was present on Earth during the early stages of our planet’s existence. This organism had the potential to reproduce by making copies of itself, just like bacteria, many amoebae, and our own living cells today. In fact, with modern technologies, we can now trace genetic lineages, or phylogenies, and determine the relationships between all of today’s living organisms—eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi, etc.), archaea, and bacteria—on the branches of the phylogenetic tree of life (Figure 5.1).

Looking at the common sequences in modern genomes, we can even make educated guesses about the likely genetic sequence of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all living things. Through a wondrous series of mechanisms and events over nearly four billion years, that ancient single-celled organism gave rise to the rich diversity of species that fill the lands, seas, and skies of our planet. This chapter explores the mechanisms by which that amazing transformation occurred and considers some of the crucial scientific experiments that shaped our current understanding of the evolutionary process.
Population Genetics
Defining Populations and the Variations within Them
One of the major breakthroughs in understanding the mechanisms of evolutionary change came with the realization that evolution takes place at the level of populations, not within individuals. In the biological sciences, a population is defined as a group of individuals of the same species who are geographically near enough to one another that they can breed and produce new generations of individuals.
For the purpose of studying evolution, we recognize populations by their even smaller units: genes. Remember, a gene is the basic unit of information that encodes the proteins needed to grow and function as a living organism. Each gene can have multiple alleles, or variants—each of which may produce a slightly different protein. Each individual, for genetic inheritance purposes, carries a collection of genes that can be passed down to future generations. For this reason, in population genetics, we think of populations as gene pools, which refers to the entire collection of genetic material in a breeding community that can be passed on from one generation to the next.
For genes carried on our human chromosomes (our nuclear DNA), we inherit two copies of each, one from each parent. This means we may carry two of the same alleles (a homozygous genotype) or two different alleles (a heterozygous genotype) for each nuclear gene.
Defining Evolution
In order to understand evolution, it’s crucial to remember that evolution is always studied at the population level. Also, if a population were to stay exactly the same from one generation to the next, it would not be evolving. So evolution requires both a population of breeding individuals and some kind of a genetic change occurring within it. Thus, the simple definition of evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over time. What do we mean by allele frequencies? Allele frequencies refer to the ratio, or percentage, of one allele (one variant of a gene) compared to the other alleles for that gene within the study population (Figure 5.2). By contrast, genotype frequencies are the ratios or percentages of the different homozygous and heterozygous genotypes in the population. Because we carry two alleles per genotype, the total count of alleles in a population will usually be exactly double the total count of genotypes in the same population (with the exception being rare cases in which an individual carries a different number of chromosomes than the typical two; e.g., Down syndrome results when a child carries three copies of Chromosome 21).

The Forces of Evolution
Today, we recognize that evolution takes place through a combination of mechanisms: mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. These mechanisms are called the “forces of evolution”; together they account for all the genotypic variation observed in the world today. Keep in mind that each of these forces was first defined and then tested—and retested—through the experimental work of the many scientists who contributed to the Modern Synthesis.
Mutation
The first force of evolution we will discuss is mutation, and for good reason: mutation is the original source of all the genetic variation found in every living thing. Imagine all the way back in time to the very first single-celled organism, floating in Earth’s primordial sea. Based on what we observe in simple, single-celled organisms today, that organism probably spent its lifetime absorbing nutrients and dividing to produce cloned copies of itself. While the numbers of individuals in that population would have grown (as long as the environment was favourable), nothing would have changed in that perfectly cloned population. There would not have been variety among the individuals. It was only through a copying error—the introduction of a mutation, or change, into the genetic code—that new alleles were introduced into the population.
After many generations have passed in our primordial population, mutations have created distinct chromosomes. The cells are now amoeba-like, larger than many of their tiny bacterial neighbours, who have long since become their favourite source of nutrients. Without mutation to create this diversity, all living things would still be identical to LUCA, our universal ancestor (Figure 5.3).

When we think of genetic mutation, we often first think of deleterious mutations—the ones associated with negative effects such as the beginnings of cancers or heritable disorders. The fact is, though, that every genetic adaptation that has helped our ancestors survive since the dawn of life is directly due to beneficial mutations—changes in the DNA that provided some sort of advantage to a given population at a particular moment in time. For example, a beneficial mutation allowed chihuahuas and other tropical-adapted dog breeds to have much thinner fur coats than their cold-adapted cousins the northern wolves, malamutes, and huskies.

Every one of us has genetic mutations. Yes, even you. The DNA in some of your cells today differs from the original DNA that you inherited when you were a tiny, fertilized egg. Mutations occur all the time in the cells of our skin and other organs, due to chemical changes in the nucleotides. Exposure to the UV radiation in sunlight is one common cause of skin mutations. Interaction with UV light causes UV crosslinking, in which adjacent thymine bases bind with one another (Figure 5.4). Many of these mutations are detected and corrected by DNA repair mechanisms, enzymes that patrol and repair DNA in living cells, while other mutations may cause a new freckle or mole or, perhaps, an unusual hair to grow. For people with the autosomal recessive disease xeroderma pigmentosum, these repair mechanisms do not function correctly, resulting in a host of problems especially related to sun exposure, including severe sunburns, dry skin, heavy freckling, and other pigment changes.
Most of our mutations exist in somatic cells, which are the cells of our organs and other body tissues. Those will not be passed onto future generations and so will not affect the population over time. Only mutations that occur in the gametes, the reproductive cells (i.e., the sperm or egg cells), will be passed onto future generations. When a new mutation pops up at random in a family lineage, it is known as a spontaneous mutation. If the individual born with this spontaneous mutation passes it on to his offspring, those offspring receive an inherited mutation. Geneticists have identified many classes of mutations and the causes and effects of many of these.
Point Mutations
A point mutation is a single-letter (single-nucleotide) change in the genetic code resulting in the substitution of one nucleic acid base for a different one. As you learned in Chapter 4, the DNA code in each gene is translated through three-letter “words” known as codons. So depending on how the point mutation changes the “word,” the effect it will have on the protein may be major or minor or may make no difference at all.
If a mutation does not change the resulting protein, then it is called a synonymous mutation. Synonymous mutations do involve a letter (nucleic acid) change, but that change results in a codon that codes for the same “instruction” (the same amino acid or stop code) as the original codon. Mutations that do cause a change in the protein are known as nonsynonymous mutations. Nonsynonymous mutations may change the resulting protein’s amino acid sequence by altering the DNA sequence that encodes the mRNA or by changing how the mRNA is spliced prior to translation (refer to Chapter 4 for more details).
Insertions and Deletions
In addition to point mutations, another class of mutations are insertions and deletions, or indels, for short. As the name suggests, these involve the addition (insertion) or removal (deletion) of one or more coding sequence letters (nucleic acids). These typically first occur as an error in DNA replication, wherein one or more nucleotides are either duplicated or skipped in error. Entire codons or sets of codons may also be removed or added if the indel is a multiple of three nucleotides.
Frameshift mutations are types of indels that involve the insertion or deletion of any number of nucleotides that is not a multiple of three (e.g., adding one or two extra letters to the code). Because these indels are not consistent with the codon numbering, they “shift the reading frame,” causing all the codons beyond the mutation to be misread. Like point mutations, small indels can also disrupt splice sites.
Transposable elements, or transposons, are fragments of DNA that can “jump” around in the genome. There are two types of transposons: retrotransposons are transcribed from DNA into RNA and then “reverse transcribed,” to insert the copied sequence into a new location in the DNA, and DNA transposons, which do not involve RNA. DNA transposons are clipped out of the DNA sequence itself and inserted elsewhere in the genome. Because transposable elements insert themselves into existing DNA sequences, they are frequent gene disruptors. At certain times, and in certain species, it appears that transposons became very active, likely accelerating the mutation rate (and thus, the genetic variation) in those populations during the active periods.
Chromosomal Alterations
The final major category of genetic mutations are changes at the chromosome level: crossover events, nondisjunction events, and translocations. Crossover events occur when DNA is swapped between homologous chromosomes while they are paired up during meiosis I. Crossovers are thought to be so common that some DNA swapping may happen every time chromosomes go through meiosis I. Crossovers don’t necessarily introduce new alleles into a population, but they do make it possible for new combinations of alleles to exist on a single chromosome that can be passed to future generations. This also enables new combinations of alleles to be found within siblings who share the same parents. Also, if the fragments that cross over don’t break at exactly the same point, they can cause genes to be deleted from one of the homologous chromosomes and duplicated on the other.
Nondisjunction events occur when the homologous chromosomes (in meiosis I) or sister chromatids (in meiosis II and mitosis) fail to separate after pairing. The result is that both chromosomes or chromatids end up in the same daughter cell, leaving the other daughter cell without any copy of that chromosome (Figure 5.5). Most nondisjunctions at the gamete level are fatal to the embryo. The most widely known exception is Trisomy 21, or Down syndrome, which results when an embryo inherits three copies of Chromosome 21: two from one parent (due to a nondisjunction event) and one from the other (Figure 5.6). Trisomies (triple chromosome conditions) of Chromosomes 18 (Edwards syndrome) and 13 (Patau syndrome) are also known to result in live births, but the children usually have severe complications and rarely survive beyond the first year of life.


Sex chromosome trisomies (XXX, XXY, XYY) and X chromosome monosomies (inheritance of an X chromosome from one parent and no sex chromosome from the other) are also survivable and fairly common. The symptoms vary but often include atypical sexual characteristics, either at birth or at puberty, and often result in sterility. The X chromosome carries unique genes that are required for survival; therefore, Y chromosome monosomies are incompatible with life.
Chromosomal translocations involve transfers of DNA between nonhomologous chromosomes. This may involve swapping large portions of two or more chromosomes. The exchanges of DNA may be balanced or unbalanced. In balanced translocations, the genes are swapped, but no genetic information is lost. In unbalanced translocations, there is an unequal exchange of genetic material, resulting in duplication or loss of genes. Translocations result in new chromosomal structures called derivative chromosomes, because they are derived or created from two different chromosomes. Translocations are often found to be linked to cancers and can also cause infertility. Even if the translocations are balanced in the parent, the embryo often won’t survive unless the baby inherits both of that parent’s derivative chromosomes (to maintain the balance).
Genetic Drift
The second force of evolution is commonly known as genetic drift. This is an unfortunate misnomer, as this force actually involves the drifting of alleles, not genes. Genetic drift refers to random changes (“drift”) in allele frequencies from one generation to the next. The genes are remaining constant within the population; it is only the alleles of the genes that are changing in frequency. The random nature of genetic drift is a crucial point to understand: it specifically occurs when none of the variant alleles confer an advantage.

Let’s imagine far back in time, again, to that ancient population of amoeba-like cells, subsisting and occasionally dividing, in the primordial sea. A mutation occurs in one of the cells that changes the texture of the cell membrane from a relatively smooth surface to a highly ruffled one (Figure 5.7). This has absolutely no effect on the cell’s quality of life or ability to reproduce. In fact, eyes haven’t evolved yet, so no one in the world at the time would even notice the difference. The cells in the population continue to divide, and the offspring of the ruffled cell inherit the ruffled membrane. The frequency (percentage) of the ruffled allele in the population, from one generation to the next, will depend entirely on how many offspring that first ruffled cell ends up having, and the random events that might make the ruffled alleles more common or more rare (such as population bottlenecks and founder effects, which are discussed below).
Sexual Reproduction and Random Inheritance
Tracking alleles gets a bit more complicated in our primordial cells when, after a number of generations, a series of mutations have created populations that reproduce sexually. These cells now must go through an extra round of cell division (meiosis) to create haploid gametes. The combination of two gametes is now required to produce each new diploid offspring.

In the earlier population, which reproduced via asexual reproduction, a cell either carried the smooth allele or the ruffled allele. With sexual reproduction, a cell inherits one allele from each parent, so there are homozygous cells that contain two smooth alleles, homozygous cells that contain two ruffled alleles, and heterozygous cells that contain one of each allele (Figure 5.8). If the new, ruffled allele happens to be dominant (and we’ll imagine that it is), the heterozygotes will have ruffled cell phenotypes but also will have a 50/50 chance of passing on a smooth allele to each offspring. As long as neither phenotype (ruffled nor smooth) provides any advantage over the other, the variation in the population from one generation to the next will remain completely random.
In sexually reproducing populations (including humans and many other animals and plants in the world today), that 50/50 chance of inheriting one or the other allele from each parent plays a major role in the random nature of genetic drift.
Population Bottlenecks
A population bottleneck occurs when the number of individuals in a population drops dramatically due to some random event. The most obvious, familiar examples are natural disasters. Tsunamis and hurricanes devastating island and coastal populations and forest fires and river floods wiping out populations in other areas are all too familiar. When a large portion of a population is randomly wiped out, the allele frequencies (i.e., the percentages of each allele) in the small population of survivors are often much different from the frequencies in the predisaster, or “parent,” population.
If such an event happened to our primordial ocean cell population—perhaps a volcanic fissure erupted in the ocean floor and only the cells that happened to be farthest from the spewing lava and boiling water survived—we might end up, by random chance, with a surviving population that had mostly ruffled alleles, in contrast to the parent population, which had only a small percentage of ruffles (Figure 5.9).

One of the most famous examples of a population bottleneck is the prehistoric disaster that led to the extinction of dinosaurs, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (often abbreviated K–Pg; previously K-T). This occurred approximately 66 million years ago. Dinosaurs and all their neighbours were going about their ordinary routines when a massive asteroid zoomed in from space and crashed into what is now the Gulf of Mexico, creating an impact so enormous that populations within hundreds of miles of the crash site were likely immediately wiped out. The skies filled with dust and debris, causing temperatures to plummet worldwide. It’s estimated that 75% of the world’s species went extinct as a result of the impact and the deep freeze that followed (Jablonski and Chaloner 1994).

The populations that emerged from the K-Pg extinction were markedly different from their pre-disaster communities. Surviving mammal populations expanded and diversified, and other new creatures appeared. The ecosystems of Earth were filled with new organisms and have never been the same (Figure 5.10).
Much more recently in geological time, during the colonial period, many human populations experienced bottlenecks as a result of the fact that imperial powers were inclined to slaughter communities who were reluctant to give up their lands and resources. This effect was especially profound in the Americas, where Indigenous populations faced the compounded effects of brutal warfare, exposure to new bacteria and viruses (against which they had no immunity), and ultimately segregation on resource-starved reservations. The populations in Europe, Asia, and Africa had experienced regular gene flow during the 10,000-year period in which most kinds of livestock were being domesticated, giving them many generations of experience building up immunity against zoonotic diseases (those that can pass from animals to humans). In contrast, the residents of the Americas had been almost completely isolated during those millennia, so all these diseases swept through the Americas in rapid succession, creating a major loss of genetic diversity in the Indigenous American population. It is estimated that between 50% and 95% of the Indigenous American populations died during the first decades after European contact, around 500 years ago (Livi-Bacci 2006).
An urgent health challenge facing humans today involves human-induced population bottlenecks that produce antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics are medicines prescribed to treat bacterial infections. The typical prescription includes enough medicine for ten days. People often feel better much sooner than ten days and sometimes decide to quit taking the medicine ahead of schedule. This is often a big mistake. The antibiotics have quickly killed off a large percentage of the bacteria—enough to reduce the symptoms and make you feel much better. However, this has created a bacterial population bottleneck. There are usually a small number of bacteria that survive those early days. If you take the medicine as prescribed for the full ten days, it’s quite likely that there will be no bacterial survivors. If you quit early, though, the survivors—who were the members of the original population who were most resistant to the antibiotic—will begin to reproduce again. Soon the infection will be back, possibly worse than before, and now all of the bacteria are resistant to the antibiotic that you had been prescribed.
Other activities that have contributed to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria include the use of antibacterial cleaning products and the inappropriate use of antibiotics as a preventative measure in livestock or to treat infections that are viral instead of bacterial (viruses do not respond to antibiotics). In 2017, the World Health Organization published a list of twelve antibiotic-resistant pathogens that are considered top priority targets for the development of new antibiotics (World Health Organization 2017).
Dig Deeper: The North American Elephant Seal: Thriving Bottleneck Populations That Still Face Genetic Defects
In 1892, the Northern Elephant Seal underwent a severe population bottleneck caused by commercial hunting, reducing the species to an estimated 20 individuals at the time. This drastic decline led to a substantial loss of genetic diversity–a common consequence of extreme population bottlenecks (Hoelzel Et al., 2024 & Weber Et al., 2000). While the population has since recovered to over 200,000 individuals, its genetic variability remains significantly low. Analyses of genetic markers, including allozymes, mitochondrial DNA, and microsatellites, consistently reflect this reduced diversity (Hoelzel Et al., 2024). Comparative studies further underscore this loss by highlighting the higher genetic variation observed in the Southern Elephant Seal, which did not experience similar population constraints (2024).

In a 2024 study for Nature, Ecology, and Evolution, Hoelzel and colleagues sequenced 260 modern and 8 historical genomes of the northern elephant seal. This comparison revealed a decrease in average heterozygosity from 0.00142 before the bottleneck to 0.000176 in the contemporary population, confirming the decline in genetic variation (2024). Hoelzel’s mitogenome tree further illustrates this loss, revealing only two significant lineages remaining post-bottleneck, with limited diversity within each. Among the issues of diversity, the population has shown an increased number of loss-of-function (LOF) alleles, suggesting that increased inbreeding has amplified the frequency of these detrimental alleles; this reduced genetic diversity negatively affects both male and female reproductive fitness. Females who practiced repetitive inbreeding had higher LOF alleles and subsequently weaned fewer pups per year over their lifetime, while male reproductive success was linked to specific LOF loci associated with sperm production (2024). Hoelzel uses the example of “Alpha-Male M12”–known for low paternity success despite frequent copulations–which was homozygous for non-functional versions of four out of five LOF loci related to sperm function (2024, p. 688). The species' mating system, characterized by extreme polygyny, further exacerbates the loss of genetic variation even with countless copulatory partners
Prior research published in Current Biology presents an empirical genetic assessment of this population bottleneck, highlighting its long-term genetic consequences, particularly the loss of mitochondrial diversity (Weber et al., 2000). In this research, Weber and colleagues note that random lineage sampling during the bottleneck led to the persistence of specific genetic variants by chance rather than through natural selection (2000). This research emphasizes that the loss of diversity poses potential future genetic vulnerabilities for the seals, and that further studies are crucial for understanding the full scope of these impacts on the seals' overall fitness (2000). In 2024, the work led by Hoelzen and company provided the missing data that the previous study had left unanswered. Their previously explored findings indicate that, although the seals have recovered in numbers, their genetic resilience remains compromised, leaving the population more vulnerable to future environmental pressures, such as climate change or resource shortages (Hoelzel Et al., 2024). Ultimately, while the population's size remains stable, the genetic consequences of the bottleneck indicate that past stochastic events continue to influence the seals' long-term fitness and adaptability.
This research indicates that the historical bottleneck continues to affect the seals' health and fitness, despite the population's recovery. Limited genetic diversity and the persistence of harmful alleles due to inbreeding have continued to handicap the species' ability to thrive in environmental challenges such as climate change and resource fluctuations (2024). This emphasizes the importance of incorporating genetic factors into conservation strategies, as populations that have rebounded may still harbour long-term genetic weaknesses. Moreover, the elephant seal’s history serves as a powerful example of how human actions —such as overhunting — can have long-lasting impacts on biodiversity, reinforcing the importance of understanding human-environment interactions in ecological and conservation contexts.
Founder Effects
Founder effects occur when members of a population leave the main or “parent” group and form a new population that no longer interbreeds with the other members of the original group. Similar to survivors of a population bottleneck, the newly founded population often has allele frequencies that are different from the original group. Alleles that may have been relatively rare in the parent population can end up being very common due to the founder effect. Likewise, recessive traits that were seldom seen in the parent population may be seen frequently in the descendants of the offshoot population.
One striking example of the founder effect was first noted in the Dominican Republic in the 1970s. During a several-year period, eighteen children who had been born with female genitalia and raised as girls suddenly grew penises at puberty. This culture tended to value sons over daughters, so these transitions were generally celebrated. They labeled the condition guevedoces, which translates to “penis at twelve,” due to the average age at which this occurred. Scientists were fascinated by the phenomenon.
Genetic and hormonal studies revealed that the condition, scientifically termed 5-alpha reductase deficiency, is an autosomal recessive syndrome that manifests when a child having both X and Y sex chromosomes inherits two nonfunctional (mutated) copies of the SRD5A2 gene (Imperato-McGinley & Zhu 2002). These children develop testes internally, but the 5-alpha reductase 2 steroid, which is necessary for development of male genitals in babies, is not produced. In absence of this male hormone, the baby develops female-looking genitalia (in humans, “female” is the default infant body form, if the full set of the necessary male hormones are not produced). At puberty, however, a different set of male hormones are produced by other fully functional genes. These hormones complete the male genital development that did not happen in infancy. This condition became quite common in the Dominican Republic during the 1970s due to founder effect—that is, the mutated SRD5A2 gene happened to be much more common among the Dominican Republic’s founding population than in the parent populations. (The Dominican population derives from a mixture of Indigenous Americans [Taino] peoples, West Africans, and Western Europeans.) Five-alpha reductase syndrome has since been observed in other small, isolated populations around the world.
Founder effect is closely linked to the concept of inbreeding, which in population genetics does not necessarily mean breeding with immediate family relatives. Instead, inbreeding refers to the selection of mates exclusively from within a small, closed population—that is, from a group with limited allelic variability. This can be observed in small, physically isolated populations but also can happen when cultural practices limit mates to a small group. As with the founder effect, inbreeding increases the risk of inheriting two copies of any nonfunctional (mutant) alleles.
The Amish in the United States are a population that, due to their unique history and cultural practices, emerged from a small founding population and have tended to select mates from within their groups. The Old Order Amish population of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has approximately 50,000 current members, all of whom can trace their ancestry back to a group of approximately 80 individuals. This small founding population immigrated to the United States from Switzerland in the mid-1700s to escape religious persecution. Since the Amish keep to themselves and almost exclusively select mates from within their own communities, they have more recessive traits compared to their parent population.

One of the genetic conditions that has been observed much more frequently in the Lancaster County Amish population is Ellis-van Creveld syndrome, which is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by short stature (dwarfism), polydactyly (the development of more than five digits [fingers or toes] on the hands or feet], abnormal tooth development, and heart defects (Figure 5.12). Among the general world population, Ellis-van Creveld syndrome is estimated to affect approximately 1 in 60,000 individuals; among the Old Order Amish of Lancaster County, the rate is estimated to be as high as 1 in every 200 births (D’Asdia Et al. 2013).
One important insight that has come from the study of founder effects is that a limited gene pool carries a much higher risk for genetic diseases. Genetic diversity in a population greatly reduces these risks.
Gene Flow
The third force of evolution is traditionally called gene flow. As with genetic drift, this is a misnomer, because it refers to flowing alleles, not genes. (All members of the same species share the same genes; it is the alleles of those genes that may vary.) Gene flow refers to the movement of alleles from one population to another. In most cases, gene flow can be considered synonymous with migration.
Returning again to the example of our primordial cell population, let’s imagine that, after the volcanic fissure opened up in the ocean floor, wiping out the majority of the parent population, two surviving populations developed in the waters on opposite sides of the fissure. Ultimately, the lava from the fissure cooled into a large island that continued to provide a physical barrier between the populations (Figure 5.13).

In the initial generations after the eruption, due to founder effect, isolation, and random inheritance (genetic drift), the population to the west of the islands contained a vast majority of the ruffled membrane alleles while the eastern population carried only the smooth alleles. Ocean currents in the area typically flowed from east to west, sometimes carrying cells (facilitating gene flow) from the eastern (smooth) population to the western (ruffled) population. Due to the ocean currents, it was almost impossible for any cells from the western population to be carried eastward. Thus, for inheritance purposes, the eastern (smooth) population remained isolated. In this case, the gene flow is unidirectional (going only in one direction) and unbalanced (only one population is receiving the new alleles).
Among humans, gene flow is often described as admixture. In forensic cases, anthropologists and geneticists are often asked to estimate the ancestry of unidentified human remains to help determine whether they match any missing persons’ reports. This is one of the most complicated tasks in these professions because, while “race” or “ancestry” involves simple checkboxes on a missing person’s form, among humans today there are no truly distinct genetic populations. All modern humans are members of the same fully breeding compatible species, and all human communities have experienced multiple episodes of gene flow (admixture), leading all humans today to be so genetically similar that we are all members of the same (and only surviving) human subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens.
Gene flow between otherwise isolated nonhuman populations is often termed hybridization.. One example of this involves the hybridization and spread of Scutellata honey bees (a.k.a. “killer bees”) in the Americas. All honey bees worldwide are classified as Apis mellifera. Due to distinct adaptations to various environments around the world, there are 28 different subspecies of Apis mellifera.
During the 1950s, a Brazilian biologist named Warwick E. Kerr experimented with hybridizing African and European subspecies of honey bees to try to develop a strain that was better suited to tropical environments than the European honey bees that had long been kept by North American beekeepers. Dr. Kerr was careful to contain the reproductive queens and drones from the African subspecies, but in 1957, a visiting beekeeper accidentally released 26 queen bees of the Scutellata subspecies (Apis mellifera scutellata) from southern Africa into the Brazilian countryside. The Scutellata bees quickly interbred with local European honey bee populations. The hybridized bees exhibited a much more aggressively defensive behaviour, fatally or near-fatally attacking many humans and livestock that ventured too close to their hives. The hybridized bees spread throughout South America and reached Mexico and California by 1985. By 1990, permanent colonies had been established in Texas, and by 1997, 90% of trapped bee swarms around Tucson, Arizona, were found to be Scutellata hybrids (Sanford 2006).
Another example involves the introduction of the Harlequin ladybeetle, Harmonia axyridis, native to East Asia, to other parts of the world as a “natural” form of pest control. Harlequin ladybeetles are natural predators of some of the aphids and other crop-pest insects. First introduced to North America in 1916, the “biocontrol” strains of Harlequin ladybeetles were considered to be quite successful in reducing crop pests and saving farmers substantial amounts of money. After many decades of successful use in North America, biocontrol strains of Harlequin ladybeetles were also developed in Europe and South America in the 1980s.
Over the seven decades of biocontrol use, the Harlequin ladybeetle had never shown any potential for development of wild colonies outside of its native habitat in China and Japan. New generations of beetles always had to be reared in the lab. That all changed in 1988, when a wild colony took root near New Orleans, Louisiana. Either through admixture with a native ladybeetle strain, or due to a spontaneous mutation, a new allele was clearly introduced into this population that suddenly enabled them to survive and reproduce in a wide range of environments. This population spread rapidly across the Americas and had reached Africa by 2004.
In Europe, the invasive, North American strain of Harlequin ladybeetle admixed with the European strain (Figure 5.14), causing a population explosion (Lombaert Et al. 2010). Even strains specifically developed to be flightless (to curtail the spreading) produced flighted offspring after admixture with members of the North American population (Facon Et al. 2011). The fast-spreading, invasive strain has quickly become a disaster, out-competing native ladybeetle populations (some to the point of extinction), causing home infestations, decimating fruit crops, and contaminating many batches of wine with their bitter flavour after being inadvertently harvested with the grapes (Pickering Et al. 2004).

Natural Selection
The final force of evolution is natural selection. This is the evolutionary process that Charles Darwin first brought to light, and it is what the general public typically evokes when considering the process of evolution. Natural selection occurs when certain phenotypes confer an advantage or disadvantage in survival and/or reproductive success. The alleles associated with those phenotypes will change in frequency over time due to this selective pressure. It’s also important to note that the advantageous allele may change over time (with environmental changes) and that an allele that had previously been benign may become advantageous or detrimental. Of course, dominant, recessive, and codominant traits will be selected upon a bit differently from one another. Because natural selection acts on phenotypes rather than the alleles themselves, deleterious (disadvantageous) alleles can be retained by heterozygotes without any negative effects.
In the case of our primordial ocean cells, up until now, the texture of their cell membranes has been benign. The frequencies of smooth to ruffled alleles, and smooth to ruffled phenotypes, has changed over time, due to genetic drift and gene flow. Let’s now imagine that the Earth’s climate has cooled to a point that the waters frequently become too cold for survival of the tiny bacteria that are the dietary staples of our smooth and ruffled cell populations. The way amoeba-like cells “eat” is to stretch out the cell membrane, almost like an arm, to encapsulate, then ingest, the tiny bacteria. When the temperatures plummet, the tiny bacteria populations plummet with them. Larger bacteria, however, are better able to withstand the temperature change.
The smooth cells were well-adapted to ingesting tiny bacteria but poorly suited to encapsulating the larger bacteria. The cells with the ruffled membranes, however, are easily able to extend their ruffles to encapsulate the larger bacteria. They also find themselves able to stretch their entire membrane to a much larger size than their smooth-surfaced neighbours, allowing them to ingest more bacteria at a given time and to go for longer periods between feedings (Figure 5.15).

The smooth and ruffled traits, which had previously offered no advantage or disadvantage while food was plentiful, now are subject to natural selection. During the cold snaps, at least, the ruffled cells have a definite advantage. We can imagine that the western population that has mostly ruffled alleles will continue to do well, while the eastern population is at risk of dying out if the smaller bacteria remain scarce and no ruffled alleles are introduced.
A classic example of natural selection involves the study of an insect called the peppered moth (Biston betularia) in England during the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the peppered moth population was predominantly light in colour, with dark (pepper-like) speckles on the wings. The “peppered” colouration was very similar to the appearance of the bark and lichens that grew on the local trees (Figure 5.16). This helped to camouflage the moths as they rested on a tree, making it harder for moth-eating birds to find and snack on them. There was another phenotype that popped up occasionally in the population. These individuals were heterozygotes that carried an overactive, dominant pigment allele, producing a solid black colouration. As you can imagine, the black moths were much easier for birds to spot, making this phenotype a real disadvantage.
The situation changed, however, as the Industrial Revolution took off. Large factories began spewing vast amounts of coal smoke into the air, blanketing the countryside, including the lichens and trees, in black soot. Suddenly, it was the light-coloured moths that were easy for birds to spot and the black moths that held the advantage. The frequency of the dark pigment allele rose dramatically. By 1895, the black moth phenotype accounted for 98% of observed moths (Grant 1999).

Thanks to new environmental regulations in the 1960s, the air pollution in England began to taper off. As the soot levels decreased, returning the trees to their former, lighter colour, this provided the perfect opportunity to study how the peppered moth population would respond. Repeated follow-up studies documented the gradual rise in the frequency of the lighter-coloured phenotype. By 2003, the maximum frequency of the dark phenotype was 50% and in most parts of England had decreased to less than 10% (Cook, 2003).
Directional, Balancing/Stabilizing, and Disruptive/Diversifying Selection
Natural selection can be classified as directional, balancing/stabilizing, or disruptive/diversifying, depending on how the pressure is applied to the population (Figure 5.17).

Both of the above examples of natural selection involve directional selection: the environmental pressures favour one phenotype over the other and cause the frequencies of the associated advantageous alleles (ruffled membranes, dark pigment) to gradually increase. In the case of the peppered moths, the direction shifted three times: first, it was selecting for lighter pigment; then, with the increase in pollution, the pressure switched to selection for darker pigment; finally, with reduction of the pollution, the selection pressure shifted back again to favouring light-coloured moths.
Balancing selection (a.k.a. stabilizing selection) occurs when selection works against the extremes of a trait and favours the intermediate phenotype. For example, humans maintain an average birth weight that balances the need for babies to be small enough not to cause complications during pregnancy and childbirth but big enough to maintain a safe body temperature after they are born. Another example of balancing selection is found in the genetic disorder called sickle cell anemia (see “Special Topic: Sickle Cell Anemia”).
Disruptive selection (a.k.a. diversifying selection), the opposite of balancing selection, occurs when both extremes of a trait are advantageous. Since individuals with traits in the mid-range are selected against, disruptive selection can eventually lead to the population evolving into two separate species. Darwin believed that the many species of finches (small birds) found in the remote Galapagos Islands provided a clear example of disruptive selection leading to speciation. He observed that seed-eating finches either had large beaks, capable of eating very large seeds, or small beaks, capable of retrieving tiny seeds. The islands did not have many plants that produced medium-size seeds. Thus, birds with medium-size beaks would have trouble eating the very large seeds and would also have been inefficient at picking up the tiny seeds. Over time, Darwin surmised, this pressure against mid-size beaks may have led the population to divide into two separate species.
Sexual Selection
Sexual selection is an aspect of natural selection in which the selective pressure specifically affects reproductive success (the ability to successfully breed and raise offspring) rather than survival. Sexual selection favours traits that will attract a mate. Sometimes these sexually appealing traits even carry greater risks in terms of survival.

A classic example of sexual selection involves the brightly coloured feathers of the peacock. The peacock is the male sex of the peafowl genera Pavo and Afropavo. During mating season, peacocks will fan their colourful tails wide and strut in front of the peahens in a grand display. The peahens will carefully observe these displays and will elect to mate with the male that they find the most appealing. Many studies have found that peahens prefer the males with the fullest, most colourful tails. While these large, showy tails provide a reproductive advantage, they can be a real burden in terms of escaping predators. The bright colours and patterns as well as the large size of the peacock tail make it difficult to hide. Once predators spot them, peacocks also struggle to fly away, with the heavy tail trailing behind and weighing them down (Figure 5.18). Some researchers have argued that the increased risk is part of the appeal for the peahens: only an especially strong, alert, and healthy peacock would be able to avoid predators while sporting such a spectacular tail.
<!--
-->
It’s important to keep in mind that sexual selection relies on the trait being present throughout mating years. Reflecting on the NF1 genetic disorder (see “Special Topic: Neurofibromatosis Type 1 [NF1]”), given how disfiguring the symptoms can become, some might find it surprising that half of the babies born with NF1 inherited it from a parent. Given that the disorder is autosomal dominant and fully penetrant (meaning it has no unaffected carriers), it may seem surprising that sexual selection doesn’t exert more pressure against the mutated alleles. One important factor is that, while the neurofibromas typically begin to appear during puberty, they usually emerge only a few at a time and may grow very slowly. Many NF1 patients don’t experience the more severe or disfiguring symptoms until later in life, long after they have started families of their own.
Some researchers prefer to classify sexual selection separately, as a fifth force of evolution. The traits that underpin mate selection are entirely natural, of course. Research has shown that subtle traits, such as the type of pheromones (hormonal odors related to immune system alleles) someone emits and how those are perceived by the immune system genotype of the “sniffer,” may play crucial and subconscious roles in whether we find someone attractive or not (Chaix, Cao, & Donnelly 2008).
Special Topic: Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1)
Neurofibromatosis Type 1, also known as NF1, is a genetic disorder that illustrates how a mutation in a single gene can affect multiple systems in the body. Surprisingly common, more people have NF1 than cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy combined. Even more surprising, given how common it is, is how few people have heard of it. One in every 3,000 babies is born with NF1, and this holds true for all populations worldwide (Riccardi 1992). This means that, for every 3,000 people in your community, there is likely at least one person living with this disorder. NF1 is an autosomal dominant condition, which means that everyone born with a mutation in the gene, whether inherited or spontaneous, has a 50/50 chance of passing it on to each of their own children.
The NF1 disorder results from mutation of the NF1 gene on Chromosome 17. Almost any mutation that affects the sequence of the gene’s protein product, neurofibromin, will cause the disorder. Studies of individuals with NF1 have identified over 3,000 different mutations of all kinds (including point mutations, small and large indels, and translocations). The NF1 gene is one of the largest known genes, containing at least 60 exons (protein-encoding sequences) in a span of about 300,000 nucleotides.
We know that neurofibromin plays an important role in preventing tumor growth because one of the most common symptoms of the NF1 disorder is the growth of benign (noncancerous) tumors, called neurofibromas. Neurofibromas sprout from nerve sheaths—the tissues that encase our nerves—throughout the body, usually beginning around puberty. There is no way to predict where the tumors will occur, or when or how quickly they will grow, although only about 15% turn malignant (cancerous). The two types of neurofibromas that are typically most visible are cutaneous neurofibromas, which are spherical bumps on, or just under, the surface of the skin (Figure 5.19), and plexiform neurofibromas, growths involving whole branches of nerves, often giving the appearance that the surface of the skin is “melting” (Figure 5.20).


Unfortunately, there is currently no cure for NF1. Surgical removal of neurofibromas risks paralysis, due to the high potential for nerve damage, and often results in the tumors growing back even more vigorously. This means that patients are often forced to live with disfiguring and often painful neurofibromas. People who are not familiar with NF1 often mistake neurofibromas for something contagious. This makes it especially hard for people living with NF1 to get jobs working with the public or even to enjoy spending time away from home. Raising public awareness about NF1 and its symptoms can be a great help in improving the quality of life for people living with this condition.

One of the first symptoms of NF1 in a small child is usually the appearance of café-au-lait spots, or CALS, which are flat, brown birthmark-like spots on the skin (Figure 5.21). CALS are often light brown, similar to the colour of coffee with cream, which is the reason for the name, although the shade of the pigment depends on a person’s overall complexion. Some babies are born with CALS, but for others the spots appear within the first few years of life. Having six or more CALS larger than five millimetres (mm) across is a strong indicator that a child may have NF1.
Other common symptoms include the following: gliomas (tumors) of the optic nerve, which can cause vision loss; thinning of bones and failure to heal if they break (often requiring amputation); low muscle tone (poor muscle development, often delaying milestones such as sitting up, crawling, and walking); hearing loss, due to neurofibromas on auditory nerves; and learning disabilities, especially those involving spatial reasoning. Approximately 50% of people with NF1 have some type of speech and/or learning disability and often benefit greatly from early intervention services. Generalized developmental disability, however, is not common with NF1, so most people with NF1 live independently as adults. Many people with NF1 live full and successful lives, as long as their symptoms can be managed.
Based on the wide variety of symptoms, it’s clear that the neurofibromin protein plays important roles in many biochemical pathways. While everyone who has NF1 will exhibit some symptoms during their lifetime, there is a great deal of variation in the types and severity of symptoms, even between individuals from the same family who share the exact same NF1 mutation. It seems crazy that a gene with so many important functions would be so susceptible to mutation. Part of this undoubtedly has to do with its massive size—a gene with 300,000 nucleotides has ten times more nucleotides available for mutation than does a gene of 30,000 bases. This also suggests that the mutability of this gene might provide some benefits, which is a possibility that we will revisit later in this chapter.
Special Topic: Sickle Cell Anemia
Sickle cell anemia is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder that affects millions of people worldwide. It is most common in Africa, countries around the Mediterranean Sea, and eastward as far as India. Populations in the Americas that have high percentages of ancestors from these regions also have high rates of sickle cell anemia. In the United States, it’s estimated that 72,000 people live with the disease, with one in approximately 1,200 Hispanic-American babies and one in every 500 African-American babies inheriting the condition (World Health Organization 1996).

Sickle cell anemia affects the hemoglobin protein in red blood cells. Normal red blood cells are somewhat doughnut-shaped—round with a depression on both sides of the middle. They carry oxygen around the bloodstream to cells throughout the body. Red blood cells produced by the mutated form of the gene take on a stiff, sickle-like crescent shape when stressed by low oxygen or dehydration (Figure 5.22). Because of their elongated shape and the fact that they are stiff rather than flexible, they tend to form clumps in the blood vessels, inhibiting blood flow to adjacent areas of the body. This causes episodes of extreme pain and can cause serious problems in the oxygen-deprived tissues. The sickle cells also break down much more quickly than normal cells, often lasting only 20 days rather than the 120 days of normal cells. This causes an overall shortage of blood cells in the sickle cell patient, resulting in low iron (anemia) and problems associated with it such as extreme fatigue, shortness of breath, and hindrances to children’s growth and development.
The devastating effects of sickle cell anemia made its high frequency a pressing mystery. Why would an allele that is so deleterious in its homozygous form be maintained in a population at levels as high as the one in twelve African Americans estimated to carry at least one copy of the allele? The answer turned out to be one of the most interesting cases of balancing selection in the history of genetic study.
While looking for an explanation, scientists noticed that the countries with high rates of sickle cell disease also shared a high risk for another disease called malaria, which is caused by infection of the blood by a Plasmodium parasite. These parasites are carried by mosquitoes and enter the human bloodstream via a mosquito bite. Once infected, the person will experience flu-like symptoms that, if untreated, can often lead to death. Researchers discovered that many people living in these regions seemed to have a natural resistance to malaria. Further study revealed that people who carry the sickle cell allele are far less likely to experience a severe case of malaria. This would not be enough of a benefit to make the allele advantageous for the sickle cell homozygotes, who face shortened life spans due to sickle cell anemia. The real benefit of the sickle cell allele goes to the heterozygotes.
People who are heterozygous for sickle cell carry one normal allele, which produces the normal, round, red blood cells, and one sickle cell allele, which produces the sickle-shaped red blood cells. Thus, they have both the sickle and round blood cell types in their bloodstream. They produce enough of the round red blood cells to avoid the symptoms of sickle cell anemia, but they have enough sickle cells to provide protection from malaria.
When the Plasmodium parasites infect an individual, they begin to multiply in the liver, but then must infect the red blood cells to complete their reproductive cycle. When the parasites enter sickle-type cells, the cells respond by taking on the sickle shape. This prevents the parasite from circulating through the bloodstream and completing its life cycle, greatly inhibiting the severity of the infection in the sickle cell heterozygotes compared to non–-sickle cell homozygotes. See Chapter 14 for more discussion of sickle cell anemia.
Special Topic: The Real Primordial Cells—Dictyostelium Discoideum
The amoeba-like primordial cells that were used as recurring examples throughout this chapter are inspired by actual research that is truly fascinating. In 2015, Gareth Bloomfield and colleagues reported on their genomic study of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum (a.k.a. “slime molds,” although technically they are amoebae, not molds). Strains of these amoebae have been grown in research laboratories for many decades and are useful in studying the mechanisms that amoeboid single-celled organisms use to ingest food and liquid. For simplification of our examples in this chapter, our amoeba-like cells remained ocean dwellers. Wild Dictyostelium discoideum, however, live in soil and feed on soil bacteria by growing ruffles in their membranes that reach out to encapsulate the bacterial cell. Laboratory strains, however, are typically raised on liquid media (agar) in Petri dishes, which is not suitable for the wild-type amoebae. It was widely known that the laboratory strains must have developed mutations in one or more genes to allow them to ingest the larger nutrient particles in the agar and larger volumes of liquid, but the genes involved were not known.
Bloomfield and colleagues performed genomic testing on both the wild and the laboratory strains of Dictyostelium discoideum. Their discovery was astounding: every one of the laboratory strains carried a mutation in the NF1 gene, the very same gene associated with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) in humans. The antiquity of this massive, easily mutated gene is incredible. It originated in an ancestor common to both humans and these amoebae, and it has been retained in both lineages ever since. As seen in Dictyostelium discoideum, breaking the gene can be advantageous. Without a functioning copy of the neurofibromin protein, the cell membrane is able to form much-larger feeding structures, allowing the NF1 mutants to ingest larger particles and larger volumes of liquid. For these amoebae, this may provide dietary flexibility that functions somewhat like an insurance policy for times when the food supply is limited.
Dictyostelium discoideum are also interesting in that they typically reproduce asexually, but under certain conditions, one cell will convert into a “giant” cell, which encapsulates surrounding cells, transforming into one of three sexes. This cell will undergo meiosis, producing gametes that must combine with one of the other two sexes to produce viable offspring. This ability for sexual reproduction may be what allows Dictyostelium discoideum to benefit from the advantages of NF1 mutation, while also being able to restore the wild type NF1 gene in future generations.
What does this mean for humans living with NF1? Well, understanding the role of the neurofibromin protein in the membranes of simple organisms like Dictyostelium discoideum may help us to better understand how it functions and malfunctions in the sheaths of human neurons. It’s also possible that the mutability of the NF1 gene confers certain advantages to humans as well. Alleles of the NF1 gene have been found to reduce one’s risk for alcoholism (Repunte-Canonigo Vez Et al. 2015), opiate addiction (Sanna Et al. 2002), Type 2 diabetes (Martins Et al. 2016), and hypomusicality (a lower-than-average musical aptitude; Cota Et al. 2018). This research is ongoing and will be exciting to follow in the coming years.
Studying Evolution in Action
The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
This chapter has introduced you to the forces of evolution, the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. How do we detect and study evolution, though, in real time, as it happens? One tool we use is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium: a mathematical formula that allows estimation of the number and distribution of dominant and recessive alleles in a population. This aids in determining whether allele frequencies are changing and, if so, how quickly over time, and in favour of which allele? It’s important to note that the Hardy-Weinberg formula only gives us an estimate based on the data for a snapshot in time. We will have to calculate it again later, after various intervals, to determine if our population is evolving and in what way the allele frequencies are changing.
Calculating the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
In the Hardy-Weinberg formula, p represents the frequency of the dominant allele, and q represents the frequency of the recessive allele. Remember, an allele’s frequency is the proportion, or percentage, of that allele in the population. For the purposes of Hardy-Weinberg, we give the allele percentages as decimal numbers (e.g., 42% = 0.42), with the entire population (100% of alleles) equaling 1. If we can figure out the frequency of one of the alleles in the population, then it is simple to calculate the other. Simply subtract the known frequency from 1 (the entire population): 1 – p = q and 1 – q = p.
The Hardy-Weinberg formula is p2 + 2pq + q2, where:
p2 represents the frequency of the homozygous dominant genotype;
2pq represents the frequency of the heterozygous genotype; and
q2 represents the frequency of the homozygous recessive genotype.
It is often easiest to determine q2 first, simply by counting the number of individuals with the unique, homozygous recessive phenotype (then dividing by the total individuals in the population to arrive at the “frequency”). Once we have this number, we simply need to calculate the square root of the homozygous recessive phenotype frequency. That gives us q. Remember, 1 – q equals p, so now we have the frequencies for both alleles in the population. If we needed to figure out the frequencies of heterozygotes and homozygous dominant genotypes, we’d just need to plug the p and q frequencies back into the p2 and 2pq formulas.

Let’s imagine we have a population of ladybeetles that carries two alleles: a dominant allele that produces red ladybeetles and a recessive allele that produces orange ladybeetles. Since red is dominant, we’ll use R to represent the red allele, and r to represent the orange allele. Our population has ten beetles, and seven are red and three are orange (Figure 5.23). Let’s calculate the number of genotypes and alleles in this population.
Of ten total beetles, we have three orange beetles3/10 = .30 (30%) frequency—and we know they are homozygous recessive (rr). So:
rr = .3; therefore, r = √.3 = .5477
R = 1 – .5477 = .4523
Using the Hardy-Weinberg formula:
1=.45232 + 2 x .4523 x .5477 +.54772 = .20 + .50 + .30 = 1
Thus, the genotype breakdown is 20% RR, 50% Rr, and 30% rr
(2 red homozygotes, 5 red heterozygotes, and 3 orange homozygotes).
Since we have 10 individuals, we know we have 20 total alleles: 4 red from the RR group, 5 red and 5 orange from the Rr group, and 6 orange from the rr group, for a grand total of 9 red and 11 orange (45% red and 55% orange, just like we estimated in the 1 – q step).
Reminder: The Hardy-Weinberg formula only gives us an estimate for a snapshot in time. We will have to calculate it again later, after various intervals, to determine if our population is evolving and in what way the allele frequencies are changing.
Interpreting Evolutionary Change: Nonrandom Mating
Once we have detected change occurring in a population, we need to consider which evolutionary processes might be the cause of the change. It is important to watch for nonrandom mating patterns, to see if they can be included or excluded as possible sources of variation in allele frequencies.
Nonrandom mating (also known as assortative mating) occurs when mate choice within a population follows a nonrandom pattern.
Positive assortative mating patterns result from a tendency for individuals to mate with others who share similar phenotypes. This often happens based on body size. Taking as an example dog breeds, it is easier for two Chihuahuas to mate and have healthy offspring than it is for a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard to do so. This is especially true if the Chihuahua is the female and would have to give birth to giant St. Bernard pups.
Negative assortative mating patterns occur when individuals tend to select mates with qualities different from their own. This is what is at work when humans choose partners whose pheromones indicate that they have different and complementary immune alleles, providing potential offspring with a better chance at a stronger immune system.
Among domestic animals, such as pets and livestock, assortative mating is often directed by humans who decide which pairs will mate to increase the chances of offspring having certain desirable traits. This is known as artificial selection.
Among humans, in addition to phenotypic traits, cultural traits such as religion and ethnicity may also influence assortative mating patterns.
Defining a Species
Species are organisms whose individuals are capable of breeding because they are biologically and behaviourally compatible to produce viable, fertile offspring. Viable offspring are those offspring that are healthy enough to survive to adulthood. Fertile offspring are able to reproduce successfully, resulting in offspring of their own. Both conditions must be met for individuals to be considered part of the same species. As you can imagine, these criteria complicate the identification of distinct species in fossilized remains of extinct populations. In those cases, we must examine how much phenotypic variation is typically found within a comparable modern-day species; we can then determine whether the fossilized remains fall within the expected range of variation for a single species.
Some species have subpopulations that are regionally distinct. These are classified as separate subspecies because they have their own unique phenotypes and are geographically isolated from one another. However, if they do happen to encounter one another, they are still capable of successful interbreeding.
There are many examples of sterile hybrids that are offspring of parents from two different species. For example, horses and donkeys can breed and have offspring together. Depending on which species is the mother and which is the father, the offspring are either called mules, or hennies. Mules and hennies can live full life spans but are not able to have offspring of their own. Likewise, tigers and lions have been known to mate and have viable offspring. Again, depending on which species is the mother and which is the father, these offspring are called either ligers or tigons. Like mules and hennies, ligers and tigons are unable to reproduce. In each of these cases, the mismatched set of chromosomes that the offspring inherit produce an adequate set of functioning genes for the hybrid offspring; however, once mixed and divided in meiosis, the gametes don’t contain the full complement of genes needed for survival in the third generation.
Micro- to Macroevolution
Microevolution refers to changes in allele frequencies within breeding populations—that is, within single species. Macroevolution describes how the similarities and differences between species, as well as the phylogenetic relationships with other taxa, lead to changes that result in the emergence of new species. Consider our example of the peppered moth that illustrated microevolution over time, via directional selection favouring the peppered allele when the trees were clean and the dark pigment allele when the trees were sooty. Imagine that environmental regulations had cleaned up the air pollution in one part of the nation, while the coal-fired factories continued to spew soot in another area. If this went on long enough, it’s possible that two distinct moth populations would eventually emerge—one containing only the peppered allele and the other only harbouring the dark pigment allele.
When a single population divides into two or more separate species, it is called speciation. The changes that prevent successful breeding between individuals who descended from the same ancestral population may involve chromosomal rearrangements, changes in the ability of the sperm from one species to permeate the egg membrane of the other species, or dramatic changes in hormonal schedules or mating behaviours that prevent members from the new species from being able to effectively pair up.
There are two types of speciation: allopatric and sympatric. Allopatric speciation is caused by long-term isolation (physical separation) of subgroups of the population (Figure 5.24). Something occurs in the environment—perhaps a river changes its course and splits the group, preventing them from breeding with members on the opposite riverbank. Over many generations, new mutations and adaptations to the different environments on each side of the river may drive the two subpopulations to change so much that they can no longer produce fertile, viable offspring, even if the barrier is someday removed.

Sympatric speciation occurs when the population splits into two or more separate species while remaining located together without a physical barrier. This typically results from a new mutation that pops up among some members of the population that prevents them from successfully reproducing with anyone who does not carry the same mutation. This is seen particularly often in plants, as they have a higher frequency of chromosomal duplications.
One of the quickest rates of speciation is observed in the case of adaptive radiation. Adaptive radiation refers to the situation in which subgroups of a single species rapidly diversify and adapt to fill a variety of ecological niches. An ecological niche is a set of constraints and resources that is available in an environmental setting. Evidence for adaptive radiations is often seen after population bottlenecks. A mass disaster kills off many species, and the survivors have access to a new set of territories and resources that were either unavailable or much coveted and fought over before the disaster. The offspring of the surviving population will often split into multiple species, each of which stems from members in that first group of survivors who happened to carry alleles that were advantageous for a particular niche.
The classic example of adaptive radiation brings us back to Charles Darwin and his observations of the many species of finches on the Galapagos Islands. We are still not sure how the ancestral population of finches first arrived on that remote Pacific Island chain, but they found themselves in an environment filled with various insects, large and tiny seeds, fruit, and delicious varieties of cactus. Some members of that initial population carried alleles that gave them advantages for each of these dietary niches. In subsequent generations, others developed new mutations, some of which were beneficial. These traits were selected for, making the advantageous alleles more common among their offspring. As the finches spread from one island to the next, they would be far more likely to find mates among the birds on their new island. Birds feeding in the same area were then more likely to mate together than birds who have different diets, contributing to additional assortative mating. Together, these evolutionary mechanisms caused rapid speciation that allowed the new species to make the most of the various dietary niches (Figure 5.25).

In today’s modern world, understanding these evolutionary processes is crucial for developing immunizations and antibiotics that can keep up with the rapid mutation rate of viruses and bacteria. This is also relevant to our food supply, which relies, in large part, on the development of herbicides and pesticides that keep up with the mutation rates of pests and weeds. Viruses, bacteria, agricultural pests, and weeds have all shown great flexibility in developing alleles that make them resistant to the latest medical treatment, pesticide, or herbicide. Billion-dollar industries have specialized in trying to keep our species one step ahead of the next mutation in the pests and infectious diseases that put our survival at risk.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
Sex within Culture and Biology
Research on bonobos (Pan paniscus) reveals a primate species whose social system relies heavily on affiliative and erotic behaviours rather than aggression. Bonobos live in fission–fusion communities in Central African forests, where males remain in their natal groups and females migrate at adolescence. While sexual engagement is a large part of their social ecosystem, we see reproductive rates remain low, with females giving birth roughly every four to five years.
Social cohesion among bonobos is strongly shaped by sexuality. Individuals engage frequently in diverse erotic behaviours; genital rubbing, oral contact, face-to-face copulation, and various forms of genital-to-genital stimulation are performed, but are not directly tied to reproduction. Through these modes of erotic sociality, tension is reduced, conflict is resolved, and food sharing is facilitated; all of which appear to function as peacemaking mechanisms integral to group stability. In this context, sexual pleasure is decoupled from reproduction, a parallel also found in human societies. Humans, like most primates, do not biologically mate for life; monogamy is a social contract, not a biological reality (Fuentes, 2012). Long-term exclusive mating is rare among primate species, and even in socially monogamous human groups, extra-pair copulations contribute substantially to reproductive outcomes.
Human sexual development operates across genetic, hormonal, anatomical, and cultural levels. Biological traits such as chromosomal patterns or endocrine shifts interact with the social categories of gender, including transgender and transsexual identities (Fausto-Sterling, 1993, 2000a,b). Cultural expectations shape how sexual bodies are interpreted, often projecting ideological assumptions onto biological processes. This dynamic is exemplified in Emily Martin’s (1991) critique of gendered metaphors in reproductive medical science, where egg and sperm are frequently described using stereotypically feminine or masculine language. Sexuality in humans is also neurologically mediated; as theorized by Freud, who suggested that humans possess undirected libidinal drives which society channels and constrains. With sex maintaining such sociocultural importance to humans, the anthropology of sex helps emphasize sexual practices, identities, and desires which emerge from the interplay of individual experience, interpersonal relationships, and broader cultural, political, and economic structures.
Archaeologies of Sexuality and the Future of Sex
Early archaeology commonly dismissed or obscured non-normative sexual imagery, classifying it under ‘pornography’ or ‘Whore-Writing’, a term introduced by the archaeologist Müller in 1850 to describe and demonize sexually explicit artifacts from Pompeii. Such categorizations reflected Victorian moral regimes rather than empirical assessment. Recent work highlights greater sexual and gender diversity in ancient material culture. Thousands of Ecuadorian clay figurines from 4400 BCE–1500 CE display non-binary and mixed-gender features, all of which were long-ignored or rationalized by earlier researchers (Ugalde, 2019). Later figurines exhibit more explicitly gendered poses, suggesting the gradual rise of patriarchal social structures. Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949) further explores this, arguing that women have historically been constructed as “the Other,” a philosophical and social position that has shaped interpretations of sex, gender, and embodiment across cultures.
Contemporary technological shifts prompt reconsideration of intimacy, embodiment, and sexual relationships. Robotics, avatars, and artificial companions raise questions about authenticity, relationality, and human–machine attachment. Sherry Turkle (2011) argues that as people become increasingly anxious about interpersonal vulnerability, they may turn to machines for controlled forms of companionship and emotional safety. These developments illuminate broader transformations in how societies conceptualize relationships, desire, and human connection. They also challenge us to reconsider what counts as intimacy, what makes a relationship meaningful, and what ethical considerations arise when technologies substitute or reshape human sexual and emotional experience.
Discussion questions
- With the rise of artificial companions, how might concepts such as intimacy, love, relationships, and sexuality be reconfigured? What might these changes reveal about how we understand human connection?
- How does studying sex and sexuality in other primates, such as bonobos, help us understand human sexuality and social behaviour? What are the limitations of using primates to understand humans?
- How might gendered metaphors and stereotypes influence the way scientific knowledge is produced and interpreted? Can you think of other examples where cultural assumptions have shaped scientific explanations?
Review Questions
- Summarize the Modern Synthesis and provide several examples of how it is relevant to questions and problems in our world today.
- You inherit a house from a long-lost relative that contains a fancy aquarium, filled with a variety of snails. The phenotypes include large snails and small snails; red, black, and yellow snails; and solid, striped, and spotted snails. Devise a series of experiments that would help you determine how many snail species are present in your aquarium.
- Match the correct force of evolution with the correct real-world example:
a. Mutationi. 5-alpha reductase deficiency
b. Genetic Driftii. Peppered Moths
c. Gene Flowiii. Neurofibromatosis Type 1
d. Natural Selectioniv. Scutellata Honey Bees - Imagine a population of common house mice (Mus musculus). Draw a comic strip illustrating how mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection might transform this population over several (or more) generations.
-
The many breeds of the single species of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) provide an extreme example of microevolution. Discuss why this is the case. What future scenarios can you imagine that could potentially transform the domestic dog into an example of macroevolution?
-
The ability to roll one’s tongue (lift the outer edges of the tongue to touch each other, forming a tube) is a dominant trait. In a small town of 1,500 people, 500 can roll their tongues. Use the Hardy-Weinberg formula to determine how many individuals in the town are homozygous dominant, heterozygous, and homozygous recessive.
Key Terms
5-alpha reductase deficiency: An autosomal recessive syndrome that manifests when a child having both X and Y sex chromosomes inherits two nonfunctional (mutated) copies of the SRD5A2 gene, producing a deficiency in a hormone necessary for development in infancy of typical male genitalia. These children often appear at birth to have female genitalia, but they develop a penis and other sexual characteristics when other hormones kick in during puberty.
Adaptive radiation: The situation in which subgroups of a single species rapidly diversify and adapt to fill a variety of ecological niches.
Admixture: A term often used to describe gene flow between human populations. Sometimes also used to describe gene flow between nonhuman populations.
Allele frequency: The ratio, or percentage, of one allele compared to the other alleles for that gene within the study population.
Alleles: Variant forms of genes.
Allopatric speciation: Speciation caused by long-term isolation (physical separation) of subgroups of the population.
Antibiotics: Medicines prescribed to treat bacterial infections.
Artificial selection: Human-directed assortative mating among domestic animals, such as pets and livestock, designed to increase the chances of offspring having certain desirable traits.
Asexual reproduction: Reproduction via mitosis, whereby offspring are clones of the parents.
Autosomal dominant: A phenotype produced by a gene on an autosomal chromosome that is expressed, to the exclusion of the recessive phenotype, in heterozygotes.
Autosomal recessive: A phenotype produced by a gene on an autosomal chromosome that is expressed only in individuals homozygous for the recessive allele.
Balanced translocations: Chromosomal translocations in which the genes are swapped but no genetic information is lost.
Balancing selection: A pattern of natural selection that occurs when the extremes of a trait are selected against, favouring the intermediate phenotype (a.k.a. stabilizing selection).
Beneficial mutations: Mutations that produce some sort of an advantage to the individual.
Benign: Noncancerous. Benign tumors may cause problems due to the area in which they are located (e.g., they might put pressure on a nerve or brain area), but they will not release cells that aggressively spread to other areas of the body.
Café-au-lait spots (CALS): Flat, brown birthmark-like spots on the skin, commonly associated with Neurofibromatosis Type 1.
Chromosomal translocations: The transfer of DNA between nonhomologous chromosomes.
Chromosomes: Molecules that carry collections of genes.
Codons: Three-nucleotide units of DNA that function as three-letter “words,” encoding instructions for the addition of one amino acid to a protein or indicating that the protein is complete.
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction: A mass disaster caused by an asteroid that struck the earth approximately 66 million years ago and killed 75% of life on Earth, including all terrestrial dinosaurs. (a.k.a. K-Pg Extinction, Cretatious-Tertiary Extinction, and K-T Extinction).
Crossover events: Chromosomal alterations that occur when DNA is swapped between homologous chromosomes while they are paired up during meiosis I.
Cutaneous neurofibromas: Neurofibromas that manifest as spherical bumps on or just under the surface of the skin.
Deleterious mutation: A mutation producing negative effects to the individual such as the beginnings of cancers or heritable disorders.
Deletions: Mutations that involve the removal of one or more nucleotides from a DNA sequence.
Derivative chromosomes: New chromosomal structures resulting from translocations.
Dictyostelium discoideum: A species of social amoebae that has been widely used for laboratory research. Laboratory strains of Dictyostelium discoideum all carry mutations in the NF1 gene, which is what allows them to survive on liquid media (agar) in Petri dishes.
Directional selection: A pattern of natural selection in which one phenotype is favoured over the other, causing the frequencies of the associated advantageous alleles to gradually increase.
Disruptive selection: A pattern of natural selection that occurs when both extremes of a trait are advantageous and intermediate phenotypes are selected against (a.k.a. diversifying selection).
DNA repair mechanisms: Enzymes that patrol and repair DNA in living cells.
DNA transposons: Transposons that are clipped out of the DNA sequence itself and inserted elsewhere in the genome.
Ecological niche: A set of constraints and resources that are available in an environmental setting.
Ellis-van Creveld syndrome: An autosomal recessive disorder characterized by short stature (dwarfism), polydactyly (the development of more than five digits [fingers or toes] on the hands or feet), abnormal tooth development, and heart defects. Estimated to affect approximately one in 60,000 individuals worldwide, among the Old Order Amish of Lancaster County, the rate is estimated to be as high as one in every 200 births.
Evolution: A change in the allele frequencies in a population over time.
Exons: The DNA sequences within a gene that directly encode protein sequences. After being transcribed into messenger RNA, the introns (DNA sequences within a gene that do not directly encode protein sequences) are clipped out, and the exons are pasted together prior to translation.
Fertile offspring: Offspring that can successfully reproduce, resulting in offspring of their own.
Founder effect: A type of genetic drift that occurs when members of a population leave the main or “parent” group and form a new population that no longer interbreeds with the other members of the original group.
Frameshift mutations: Types of indels that involve the insertion or deletion of any number of nucleotides that is not a multiple of three. These “shift the reading frame” and cause all codons beyond the mutation to be misread.
Gametes: The reproductive cells, produced through meiosis (a.k.a. germ cells or sperm or egg cells).
Gene: A sequence of DNA that provides coding information for the construction of proteins.
Gene flow: The movement of alleles from one population to another. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Gene pool: The entire collection of genetic material in a breeding community that can be passed on from one generation to the next.
Genetic drift: Random changes in allele frequencies within a population from one generation to the next. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Genotype: The set of alleles that an individual has for a given gene.
Genotype frequencies: The ratios or percentages of the different homozygous and heterozygous genotypes in the population.
Guevedoces: The term coined locally in the Dominican Republic for the condition scientifically known as 5-alpha reductase deficiency. The literal translation is “penis at twelve.”
Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium: A mathematical formula (1=p2 + 2pq + q2 ) that allows estimation of the number and distribution of dominant and recessive alleles in a population.
Harlequin ladybeetle: A species of ladybeetle, native to East Asia, that was introduced to Europe and the Americas as a form of pest control. After many decades of use, one of the North American strains developed the ability to reproduce in diverse environments, causing it to spread rapidly throughout the Americas, Europe, and Africa. It has hybridized with European strains and is now a major pest in its own right.
Heterozygous genotype: A genotype comprising two different alleles.
Homozygous genotype: A genotype comprising an identical set of alleles.
Hybridization: A term often used to describe gene flow between nonhuman populations.
Inbreeding: The selection of mates exclusively from within a small, closed population.
Indels: A class of mutations that includes both insertions and deletions.
Inherited mutation: A mutation that has been passed from parent to offspring.
Insertions: Mutations that involve the addition of one or more nucleotides into a DNA sequence.
Isolation: Prevention of a population subgroup from breeding with other members of the same species due to a physical barrier or, in humans, a cultural rule.
Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA): The ancient organism from which all living things on Earth are descended.
Macroevolution: Changes that result in the emergence of new species, how the similarities and differences between species, as well as the phylogenetic relationships with other taxa, lead to changes that result in the emergence of new species.
Malaria: A frequently deadly mosquito-borne disease caused by infection of the blood by a Plasmodium parasite.
Malignant: Cancerous. Malignant tumors grow aggressively and their cells may metastasize (travel through the blood or lymph systems) to form new, aggressive tumors in other areas of the body.
Microevolution: Changes in allele frequencies within breeding populations—that is, within a single species.
Modern Synthesis: The integration of Darwin’s, Mendel’s, and subsequent research into a unified theory of evolution.
Monosomies: Conditions resulting from a nondisjunction event, in which a cell ends up with only one copy of a chromosome. In humans, a single X chromosome is the only survivable monosomy.
Mutation: A change in the nucleotide sequence of the genetic code. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Natural selection: An evolutionary process that occurs when certain phenotypes confer an advantage or disadvantage in survival and/or reproductive success. This is one of the forces of evolution, and it was first identified by Charles Darwin.
Negative assortative mating: A pattern that occurs when individuals tend to select mates with qualities different from their own.
Neurofibromas: Nerve sheath tumors that are common symptoms of Neurofibromatosis Type 1.
Neurofibromatosis Type 1: An autosomal dominant genetic disorder affecting one in every 3,000 people. It is caused by mutation of the NF1 gene on Chromosome 17, resulting in a defective neurofibromin protein. The disorder is characterized by neurofibromas, café-au-lait spots, and a host of other potential symptoms.
NF1: An abbreviation for Neurofibromatosis Type 1. When italicized, NF1 refers to the gene on Chromosome 17 that encodes the neurofibromin protein.
Nondisjunction events: Chromosomal abnormalities that occur when the homologous chromosomes (in meiosis I) or sister chromatids (in meiosis II and mitosis) fail to separate after pairing. The result is that both chromosomes or chromatids end up in the same daughter cell, leaving the other daughter cell without any copy of that chromosome.
Nonrandom mating: A scenario in which mate choice within a population follows a nonrandom pattern (a.k.a. assortative mating).
Nonsynonymous mutation: A point mutation that causes a change in the resulting protein.
Old Order Amish: A culturally isolated population in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, that has approximately 50,000 current members, all of whom can trace their ancestry back to a group of approximately eighty individuals. This group has high rates of certain genetics disorders, including Ellis-van Creveld syndrome.
Origins of life: How the first living organism came into being.
Peacock: The male sex of the peafowl, famous for its large, colourful tail, which it dramatically displays to attract mates. (The female of the species is known as a peahen.)
Peppered moth: A species of moth (Biston betularia) found in England that has light and dark phenotypes. During the Industrial Revolution, when soot blackened the trees, the frequency of the previously rare dark phenotype dramatically increased, as lighter-coloured moths were easier for birds to spot against the sooty trees. After environmental regulations eliminated the soot, the lighter-coloured phenotype gradually became most common again.
Phenotype: The observable traits that are produced by a genotype.
Phylogenetic tree of life: A family tree of all living organisms, based on genetic relationships.
Phylogenies: Genetically determined family lineages.
Plasmodium: A genus of mosquito-borne parasite. Several Plasmodium species cause malaria when introduced to the human bloodstream via a mosquito bite.
Plexiform neurofibromas: Neurofibromas that involve whole branches of nerves, often giving the appearance that the surface of the skin is “melting.”
Point mutation: A single-letter (single-nucleotide) change in the genetic code, resulting in the substitution of one nucleic acid base for a different one.
Polymorphisms: Multiple forms of a trait; alternative phenotypes within a given species.
Population: A group of individuals who are genetically similar enough and geographically near enough to one another that they can breed and produce new generations of individuals.
Population bottleneck: A type of genetic drift that occurs when the number of individuals in a population drops dramatically due to some random event.
Positive assortative mating: A pattern that results from a tendency for individuals to mate with others who share similar phenotypes.
Retrotransposons: Transposons that are transcribed from DNA into RNA, and then are “reverse transcribed,” to insert the copied sequence into a new location in the DNA.
Scutellata honey bees: A strain of honey bees that resulted from the hybridization of African and European honey bee subspecies. These bees were accidentally released into the wild in 1957 in Brazil and have since spread throughout South and Central America and into the United States. Also known as “killer bees,” they tend to be very aggressive in defence of their hives and have caused many fatal injuries to humans and livestock.
Sexual reproduction: Reproduction via meiosis and combination of gametes. Offspring inherit genetic material from both parents.
Sexual selection: An aspect of natural selection in which the selective pressure specifically affects reproductive success (the ability to successfully breed and raise offspring).
Sickle cell anemia: An autosomal recessive genetic disorder that affects millions of people worldwide. It is most common in Africa, countries around the Mediterranean Sea, and eastward as far as India. Homozygotes for the recessive allele develop the disorder, which produce misshapen red blood cells that cause iron deficiency, painful episodes of oxygen-deprivation in localized tissues, and a host of other symptoms. In heterozygotes, though, the sickle cell allele confers a greater resistance to malaria.
Somatic cells: The cells of our organs and other body tissues (all cells except gametes) that replicate by mitosis.
Speciation: The process by which a single population divides into two or more separate species.
Species: Organisms whose individuals are capable of breeding because they are biologically and behaviourally compatible to produce viable, fertile offspring.
Spontaneous mutation: A mutation that occurs due to random chance or unintentional exposure to mutagens. In families, a spontaneous mutation is the first case, as opposed to mutations that are inherited from parents.
Subspecies: A distinct subtype of a species. Most often, this is a geographically isolated population with unique phenotypes; however, it remains biologically and behaviourally capable of interbreeding with other populations of the same species.
Sympatric speciation: When a population splits into two or more separate species while remaining located together without a physical (or cultural) barrier.
Synonymous mutation: A point mutation that does not change the resulting protein.
Transposable elements: Fragments of DNA that can “jump” around in the genome.
Transposon: Another term for “transposable element.”
Trisomies: Conditions in which three copies of the same chromosome end up in a cell, resulting from a nondisjunction event. Down syndrome, Edwards syndrome, and Patau syndrome are trisomies.
Unbalanced translocations: Chromosomal translocations in which there is an unequal exchange of genetic material, resulting in duplication or loss of genes.
UV crosslinking: A type of mutation in which adjacent thymine bases bind to one another in the presence of UV light.
Viable offspring: Offspring that are healthy enough to survive to adulthood.
Xeroderma pigmentosum: An autosomal recessive disease in which DNA repair mechanisms do not function correctly, resulting in a host of problems especially related to sun exposure, including severe sunburns, dry skin, heavy freckling, and other pigment changes.
For Further Exploration
Explore Evolution on HHMI’s Biointeractive website.
Teaching Evolution through Human Examples, Smithsonian Museum of Natural History websites.
References
Bloomfield, Gareth, David Traynor, Sophia P. Sander, Douwe M. Veltman, Justin A. Pachebat, and Robert R. Kay. 2015. “Neurofibromin Controls Macropinocytosis and Phagocytosis in Dictyostelium.” eLife 4:e04940.
Chaix, Raphaëlle, Chen Cao, and Peter Donnelly. 2008. “Is Mate Choice in Humans MHC-Dependent?” PLoS Genetics 4 (9): e1000184.
Cook, Laurence M. 2003. "The Rise and Fall of the Carbonaria Form of the Peppered Moth." The Quarterly Review of Biology 78 (4): 399–417.
Cota, Bruno Cézar Lage, João Gabriel Marques Fonseca, Luiz Oswaldo Carneiro Rodrigues, Nilton Alves de Rezende, Pollyanna Barros Batista, Vincent Michael Riccardi, and Luciana Macedo de Resende. 2018. “Amusia and Its Electrophysiological Correlates in Neurofibromatosis Type 1.” Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 76 (5): 287–295.
D’Asdia, Maria Cecilia, Isabella Torrente, Federica Consoli, Rosangela Ferese, Monia Magliozzi, Laura Bernardini, Valentina Guida, et al. 2013. “Novel and Recurrent EVC and EVC2 Mutations in Ellis-van Creveld Syndrome and Weyers Acrofacial Dyostosis.” European Journal of Medical Genetics 56 (2): 80–87.
de Beauvoir, S. (2009). The Second Sex (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1949)
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Biological Series. New York: Columbia University Press.
Facon, Benoît, Laurent Crespin, Anne Loiseau, Eric Lombaert, Alexandra Magro, and Arnaud Estoup. 2011. “Can Things Get Worse When an Invasive Species Hybridizes? The Harlequin Ladybird Harmonia axyridis in France as a Case Study.” Evolutionary Applications 4 (1): 71–88.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. The Sciences; 33(2):20–25.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000a). The Five Sexes Revisited. The Sciences; 40(4):18-23
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000b). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.
Fisher, Ronald A. 1919. "The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance." Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52 (2): 399–433.
Ford, E. B. 1942. Genetics for Medical Students. London: Methuen.
Ford, E. B. 1949. Mendelism and Evolution. London: Methuen.
Fuentes, A. (2012). Race, monogamy, and other lies they told you: Busting myths about human nature. University of California Press.
Grant, Bruce S. 1999. “Fine-tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm.” Evolution 53 (3): 980–984.
Haldane, J. B. S. 1924. “A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection (Part 1).” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 23 (2):19–41.
Hoelzel, A. R., Gkafas, G. A., Kang, H., Sarigol, F., Le Boeuf, B., Costa, D. P., Beltran, R. S., Reiter, J., Robinson, P. W., McInerney, N., Seim, I., Sun, S., Fan, G., & Li, S. (2024). Genomics of post-bottleneck recovery in the northern elephant seal. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8, 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02337-4
Hurst, L. D. (1996). Why are there only two sexes? Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B, 263; 415-422.
Imperato-McGinley, J., and Y.-S. Zhu. 2002. “Androgens and Male Physiology: The Syndrome of 5 Alpha-Reductase-2 Deficiency.” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 198 (1-2): 51–59.
Jablonski, David, and W. G. Chaloner. 1994. "Extinctions in the Fossil Record.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 344 (1307): 11–17.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. W.B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. W.B. Saunders.
Livi-Bacci, Massimo. 2006. “The Depopulation of Hispanic America after the Conquest.” Population Development and Review 32 (2): 199–232.
Lombaert, Eric, Thomas Guillemaud, Jean-Marie Cornuet, Thibaut Malausa, Benoît Facon, and Arnaud Estoup. 2010. "Bridgehead Effect in the Worldwide Invasion of the Biocontrol Harlequin Ladybird.” PLoS ONE 5 (3): e9743.
Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male–female roles. Signs, 16(3), 485–501.
Martins, Aline Stangherlin, Ann Kristine Jansen, Luiz Oswaldo Carneiro Rodrigues, Camila Maria Matos, Marcio Leandro Ribeiro Souza, Juliana Ferreira de Souza, Maria de Fátima Haueisen Sander Diniz, et al. 2016. “Lower Fasting Blood Glucose in Neurofibromatosis Type 1.” Endocrine Connections 5 (1): 28–33.
Pickering, Gary, James Lin, Roland Riesen, Andrew Reynolds, Ian Brindle, and George Soleas. 2004. "Influence of Harmonia axyridis on the Sensory Properties of White and Red Wine." American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 55 (2): 153–159.
Repunte-Canonigo Vez, Melissa A. Herman, Tomoya Kawamura, Henry R. Kranzler, Richard Sherva, Joel Gelernter, Lindsay A. Farrer, Marisa Roberto, and Pietro Paolo Sanna. 2015. “NF1 Regulates Alcohol Dependence-Associated Excessive Drinking and Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid Release in the Central Amygdala in Mice and Is Associated with Alcohol Dependence in Humans.” Biological Psychiatry 77 (10): 870–879.
Riccardi, Vincent M. 1992. Neurofibromatosis: Phenotype, Natural History, and Pathogenesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sanford, Malcolm T. 2006. "The Africanized Honey Bee in the Americas: A Biological Revolution with Human Cultural Implications, Part V—Conclusion." American Bee Journal 146 (7): 597–599.
Sanna, Pietro Paolo, Cindy Simpson, Robert Lutjens, and George Koob. 2002. “ERK Regulation in Chronic Ethanol Exposure and Withdrawal.” Brain Research 948 (1–2): 186–191.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
Ugalde, María Fernanda. 2019. “The Rebel Potters: A Review of Gender Relations, Female Oppression, and Patriarchy from the Perspective of Ecuadorian Archaeology.” Translated by Tiziana Laudato. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 36: 1-23. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda36.2019.03
Weber, DianaS., Stewart, B. S., Garza, J. Carlos., & Lehman, N. (2000). An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck. Current Biology, 10(20), 1287–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00759-4
World Health Organization. 1996. “Control of Hereditary Disorders: Report of WHO Scientific meeting (1996).” WHO Technical Reports 865. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. 2017. “Global Priority List of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria to Guide Research, Discovery, and Development of New Antibiotics.” Global Priority Pathogens List, February 27. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/WHO-PPL-Short_Summary_25Feb-ET_NM_WHO.pdf.
Wright, Sewall. 1932. "The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding, and Selection in Evolution." Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Genetics 1 (6): 356–366.
Acknowledgement
Many thanks to Dr. Vincent M. Riccardi for sharing his vast knowledge of neurofibromatosis and for encouraging me to explore it from an anthropological perspective.
Student contributors for this chapter from Salinda Hess' ANTH 203: Corin Laberge, Hazel Moorcroft, Isabella Michel, Julian J. Pantoja Quiroz
Learn more about authors and editors, Hess' student contributions, and versioning history.
Learning Objectives
- Outline a 21st-century perspective of the Modern Synthesis.
- Define populations and population genetics as well as the methods used to study them.
- Identify the forces of evolution and become familiar with examples of each.
- Discuss the evolutionary significance of mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection.
- Explain how allele frequencies can be used to study evolution as it happens.
- Contrast micro- and macroevolution.
It’s hard for us, with our typical human life spans of less than 100 years, to imagine all the way back, 3.8 billion years ago, to the origins of life. Scientists still study and debate how life came into being and whether it originated on Earth or in some other region of the universe (including some scientists who believe that studying evolution can reveal the complex processes that were set in motion by God or a higher power). What we do know is that a living single-celled organism was present on Earth during the early stages of our planet’s existence. This organism had the potential to reproduce by making copies of itself, just like bacteria, many amoebae, and our own living cells today. In fact, with modern technologies, we can now trace genetic lineages, or phylogenies, and determine the relationships between all of today’s living organisms—eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi, etc.), archaea, and bacteria—on the branches of the phylogenetic tree of life (Figure 5.1).

Looking at the common sequences in modern genomes, we can even make educated guesses about the likely genetic sequence of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all living things. Through a wondrous series of mechanisms and events over nearly four billion years, that ancient single-celled organism gave rise to the rich diversity of species that fill the lands, seas, and skies of our planet. This chapter explores the mechanisms by which that amazing transformation occurred and considers some of the crucial scientific experiments that shaped our current understanding of the evolutionary process.
Population Genetics
Defining Populations and the Variations within Them
One of the major breakthroughs in understanding the mechanisms of evolutionary change came with the realization that evolution takes place at the level of populations, not within individuals. In the biological sciences, a population is defined as a group of individuals of the same species who are geographically near enough to one another that they can breed and produce new generations of individuals.
For the purpose of studying evolution, we recognize populations by their even smaller units: genes. Remember, a gene is the basic unit of information that encodes the proteins needed to grow and function as a living organism. Each gene can have multiple alleles, or variants—each of which may produce a slightly different protein. Each individual, for genetic inheritance purposes, carries a collection of genes that can be passed down to future generations. For this reason, in population genetics, we think of populations as gene pools, which refers to the entire collection of genetic material in a breeding community that can be passed on from one generation to the next.
For genes carried on our human chromosomes (our nuclear DNA), we inherit two copies of each, one from each parent. This means we may carry two of the same alleles (a homozygous genotype) or two different alleles (a heterozygous genotype) for each nuclear gene.
Defining Evolution
In order to understand evolution, it’s crucial to remember that evolution is always studied at the population level. Also, if a population were to stay exactly the same from one generation to the next, it would not be evolving. So evolution requires both a population of breeding individuals and some kind of a genetic change occurring within it. Thus, the simple definition of evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over time. What do we mean by allele frequencies? Allele frequencies refer to the ratio, or percentage, of one allele (one variant of a gene) compared to the other alleles for that gene within the study population (Figure 5.2). By contrast, genotype frequencies are the ratios or percentages of the different homozygous and heterozygous genotypes in the population. Because we carry two alleles per genotype, the total count of alleles in a population will usually be exactly double the total count of genotypes in the same population (with the exception being rare cases in which an individual carries a different number of chromosomes than the typical two; e.g., Down syndrome results when a child carries three copies of Chromosome 21).

The Forces of Evolution
Today, we recognize that evolution takes place through a combination of mechanisms: mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. These mechanisms are called the “forces of evolution”; together they account for all the genotypic variation observed in the world today. Keep in mind that each of these forces was first defined and then tested—and retested—through the experimental work of the many scientists who contributed to the Modern Synthesis.
Mutation
The first force of evolution we will discuss is mutation, and for good reason: mutation is the original source of all the genetic variation found in every living thing. Imagine all the way back in time to the very first single-celled organism, floating in Earth’s primordial sea. Based on what we observe in simple, single-celled organisms today, that organism probably spent its lifetime absorbing nutrients and dividing to produce cloned copies of itself. While the numbers of individuals in that population would have grown (as long as the environment was favourable), nothing would have changed in that perfectly cloned population. There would not have been variety among the individuals. It was only through a copying error—the introduction of a mutation, or change, into the genetic code—that new alleles were introduced into the population.
After many generations have passed in our primordial population, mutations have created distinct chromosomes. The cells are now amoeba-like, larger than many of their tiny bacterial neighbours, who have long since become their favourite source of nutrients. Without mutation to create this diversity, all living things would still be identical to LUCA, our universal ancestor (Figure 5.3).

When we think of genetic mutation, we often first think of deleterious mutations—the ones associated with negative effects such as the beginnings of cancers or heritable disorders. The fact is, though, that every genetic adaptation that has helped our ancestors survive since the dawn of life is directly due to beneficial mutations—changes in the DNA that provided some sort of advantage to a given population at a particular moment in time. For example, a beneficial mutation allowed chihuahuas and other tropical-adapted dog breeds to have much thinner fur coats than their cold-adapted cousins the northern wolves, malamutes, and huskies.

Every one of us has genetic mutations. Yes, even you. The DNA in some of your cells today differs from the original DNA that you inherited when you were a tiny, fertilized egg. Mutations occur all the time in the cells of our skin and other organs, due to chemical changes in the nucleotides. Exposure to the UV radiation in sunlight is one common cause of skin mutations. Interaction with UV light causes UV crosslinking, in which adjacent thymine bases bind with one another (Figure 5.4). Many of these mutations are detected and corrected by DNA repair mechanisms, enzymes that patrol and repair DNA in living cells, while other mutations may cause a new freckle or mole or, perhaps, an unusual hair to grow. For people with the autosomal recessive disease xeroderma pigmentosum, these repair mechanisms do not function correctly, resulting in a host of problems especially related to sun exposure, including severe sunburns, dry skin, heavy freckling, and other pigment changes.
Most of our mutations exist in somatic cells, which are the cells of our organs and other body tissues. Those will not be passed onto future generations and so will not affect the population over time. Only mutations that occur in the gametes, the reproductive cells (i.e., the sperm or egg cells), will be passed onto future generations. When a new mutation pops up at random in a family lineage, it is known as a spontaneous mutation. If the individual born with this spontaneous mutation passes it on to his offspring, those offspring receive an inherited mutation. Geneticists have identified many classes of mutations and the causes and effects of many of these.
Point Mutations
A point mutation is a single-letter (single-nucleotide) change in the genetic code resulting in the substitution of one nucleic acid base for a different one. As you learned in Chapter 4, the DNA code in each gene is translated through three-letter “words” known as codons. So depending on how the point mutation changes the “word,” the effect it will have on the protein may be major or minor or may make no difference at all.
If a mutation does not change the resulting protein, then it is called a synonymous mutation. Synonymous mutations do involve a letter (nucleic acid) change, but that change results in a codon that codes for the same “instruction” (the same amino acid or stop code) as the original codon. Mutations that do cause a change in the protein are known as nonsynonymous mutations. Nonsynonymous mutations may change the resulting protein’s amino acid sequence by altering the DNA sequence that encodes the mRNA or by changing how the mRNA is spliced prior to translation (refer to Chapter 4 for more details).
Insertions and Deletions
In addition to point mutations, another class of mutations are insertions and deletions, or indels, for short. As the name suggests, these involve the addition (insertion) or removal (deletion) of one or more coding sequence letters (nucleic acids). These typically first occur as an error in DNA replication, wherein one or more nucleotides are either duplicated or skipped in error. Entire codons or sets of codons may also be removed or added if the indel is a multiple of three nucleotides.
Frameshift mutations are types of indels that involve the insertion or deletion of any number of nucleotides that is not a multiple of three (e.g., adding one or two extra letters to the code). Because these indels are not consistent with the codon numbering, they “shift the reading frame,” causing all the codons beyond the mutation to be misread. Like point mutations, small indels can also disrupt splice sites.
Transposable elements, or transposons, are fragments of DNA that can “jump” around in the genome. There are two types of transposons: retrotransposons are transcribed from DNA into RNA and then “reverse transcribed,” to insert the copied sequence into a new location in the DNA, and DNA transposons, which do not involve RNA. DNA transposons are clipped out of the DNA sequence itself and inserted elsewhere in the genome. Because transposable elements insert themselves into existing DNA sequences, they are frequent gene disruptors. At certain times, and in certain species, it appears that transposons became very active, likely accelerating the mutation rate (and thus, the genetic variation) in those populations during the active periods.
Chromosomal Alterations
The final major category of genetic mutations are changes at the chromosome level: crossover events, nondisjunction events, and translocations. Crossover events occur when DNA is swapped between homologous chromosomes while they are paired up during meiosis I. Crossovers are thought to be so common that some DNA swapping may happen every time chromosomes go through meiosis I. Crossovers don’t necessarily introduce new alleles into a population, but they do make it possible for new combinations of alleles to exist on a single chromosome that can be passed to future generations. This also enables new combinations of alleles to be found within siblings who share the same parents. Also, if the fragments that cross over don’t break at exactly the same point, they can cause genes to be deleted from one of the homologous chromosomes and duplicated on the other.
Nondisjunction events occur when the homologous chromosomes (in meiosis I) or sister chromatids (in meiosis II and mitosis) fail to separate after pairing. The result is that both chromosomes or chromatids end up in the same daughter cell, leaving the other daughter cell without any copy of that chromosome (Figure 5.5). Most nondisjunctions at the gamete level are fatal to the embryo. The most widely known exception is Trisomy 21, or Down syndrome, which results when an embryo inherits three copies of Chromosome 21: two from one parent (due to a nondisjunction event) and one from the other (Figure 5.6). Trisomies (triple chromosome conditions) of Chromosomes 18 (Edwards syndrome) and 13 (Patau syndrome) are also known to result in live births, but the children usually have severe complications and rarely survive beyond the first year of life.


Sex chromosome trisomies (XXX, XXY, XYY) and X chromosome monosomies (inheritance of an X chromosome from one parent and no sex chromosome from the other) are also survivable and fairly common. The symptoms vary but often include atypical sexual characteristics, either at birth or at puberty, and often result in sterility. The X chromosome carries unique genes that are required for survival; therefore, Y chromosome monosomies are incompatible with life.
Chromosomal translocations involve transfers of DNA between nonhomologous chromosomes. This may involve swapping large portions of two or more chromosomes. The exchanges of DNA may be balanced or unbalanced. In balanced translocations, the genes are swapped, but no genetic information is lost. In unbalanced translocations, there is an unequal exchange of genetic material, resulting in duplication or loss of genes. Translocations result in new chromosomal structures called derivative chromosomes, because they are derived or created from two different chromosomes. Translocations are often found to be linked to cancers and can also cause infertility. Even if the translocations are balanced in the parent, the embryo often won’t survive unless the baby inherits both of that parent’s derivative chromosomes (to maintain the balance).
Genetic Drift
The second force of evolution is commonly known as genetic drift. This is an unfortunate misnomer, as this force actually involves the drifting of alleles, not genes. Genetic drift refers to random changes (“drift”) in allele frequencies from one generation to the next. The genes are remaining constant within the population; it is only the alleles of the genes that are changing in frequency. The random nature of genetic drift is a crucial point to understand: it specifically occurs when none of the variant alleles confer an advantage.

Let’s imagine far back in time, again, to that ancient population of amoeba-like cells, subsisting and occasionally dividing, in the primordial sea. A mutation occurs in one of the cells that changes the texture of the cell membrane from a relatively smooth surface to a highly ruffled one (Figure 5.7). This has absolutely no effect on the cell’s quality of life or ability to reproduce. In fact, eyes haven’t evolved yet, so no one in the world at the time would even notice the difference. The cells in the population continue to divide, and the offspring of the ruffled cell inherit the ruffled membrane. The frequency (percentage) of the ruffled allele in the population, from one generation to the next, will depend entirely on how many offspring that first ruffled cell ends up having, and the random events that might make the ruffled alleles more common or more rare (such as population bottlenecks and founder effects, which are discussed below).
Sexual Reproduction and Random Inheritance
Tracking alleles gets a bit more complicated in our primordial cells when, after a number of generations, a series of mutations have created populations that reproduce sexually. These cells now must go through an extra round of cell division (meiosis) to create haploid gametes. The combination of two gametes is now required to produce each new diploid offspring.

In the earlier population, which reproduced via asexual reproduction, a cell either carried the smooth allele or the ruffled allele. With sexual reproduction, a cell inherits one allele from each parent, so there are homozygous cells that contain two smooth alleles, homozygous cells that contain two ruffled alleles, and heterozygous cells that contain one of each allele (Figure 5.8). If the new, ruffled allele happens to be dominant (and we’ll imagine that it is), the heterozygotes will have ruffled cell phenotypes but also will have a 50/50 chance of passing on a smooth allele to each offspring. As long as neither phenotype (ruffled nor smooth) provides any advantage over the other, the variation in the population from one generation to the next will remain completely random.
In sexually reproducing populations (including humans and many other animals and plants in the world today), that 50/50 chance of inheriting one or the other allele from each parent plays a major role in the random nature of genetic drift.
Population Bottlenecks
A population bottleneck occurs when the number of individuals in a population drops dramatically due to some random event. The most obvious, familiar examples are natural disasters. Tsunamis and hurricanes devastating island and coastal populations and forest fires and river floods wiping out populations in other areas are all too familiar. When a large portion of a population is randomly wiped out, the allele frequencies (i.e., the percentages of each allele) in the small population of survivors are often much different from the frequencies in the predisaster, or “parent,” population.
If such an event happened to our primordial ocean cell population—perhaps a volcanic fissure erupted in the ocean floor and only the cells that happened to be farthest from the spewing lava and boiling water survived—we might end up, by random chance, with a surviving population that had mostly ruffled alleles, in contrast to the parent population, which had only a small percentage of ruffles (Figure 5.9).

One of the most famous examples of a population bottleneck is the prehistoric disaster that led to the extinction of dinosaurs, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (often abbreviated K–Pg; previously K-T). This occurred approximately 66 million years ago. Dinosaurs and all their neighbours were going about their ordinary routines when a massive asteroid zoomed in from space and crashed into what is now the Gulf of Mexico, creating an impact so enormous that populations within hundreds of miles of the crash site were likely immediately wiped out. The skies filled with dust and debris, causing temperatures to plummet worldwide. It’s estimated that 75% of the world’s species went extinct as a result of the impact and the deep freeze that followed (Jablonski and Chaloner 1994).

The populations that emerged from the K-Pg extinction were markedly different from their pre-disaster communities. Surviving mammal populations expanded and diversified, and other new creatures appeared. The ecosystems of Earth were filled with new organisms and have never been the same (Figure 5.10).
Much more recently in geological time, during the colonial period, many human populations experienced bottlenecks as a result of the fact that imperial powers were inclined to slaughter communities who were reluctant to give up their lands and resources. This effect was especially profound in the Americas, where Indigenous populations faced the compounded effects of brutal warfare, exposure to new bacteria and viruses (against which they had no immunity), and ultimately segregation on resource-starved reservations. The populations in Europe, Asia, and Africa had experienced regular gene flow during the 10,000-year period in which most kinds of livestock were being domesticated, giving them many generations of experience building up immunity against zoonotic diseases (those that can pass from animals to humans). In contrast, the residents of the Americas had been almost completely isolated during those millennia, so all these diseases swept through the Americas in rapid succession, creating a major loss of genetic diversity in the Indigenous American population. It is estimated that between 50% and 95% of the Indigenous American populations died during the first decades after European contact, around 500 years ago (Livi-Bacci 2006).
An urgent health challenge facing humans today involves human-induced population bottlenecks that produce antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics are medicines prescribed to treat bacterial infections. The typical prescription includes enough medicine for ten days. People often feel better much sooner than ten days and sometimes decide to quit taking the medicine ahead of schedule. This is often a big mistake. The antibiotics have quickly killed off a large percentage of the bacteria—enough to reduce the symptoms and make you feel much better. However, this has created a bacterial population bottleneck. There are usually a small number of bacteria that survive those early days. If you take the medicine as prescribed for the full ten days, it’s quite likely that there will be no bacterial survivors. If you quit early, though, the survivors—who were the members of the original population who were most resistant to the antibiotic—will begin to reproduce again. Soon the infection will be back, possibly worse than before, and now all of the bacteria are resistant to the antibiotic that you had been prescribed.
Other activities that have contributed to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria include the use of antibacterial cleaning products and the inappropriate use of antibiotics as a preventative measure in livestock or to treat infections that are viral instead of bacterial (viruses do not respond to antibiotics). In 2017, the World Health Organization published a list of twelve antibiotic-resistant pathogens that are considered top priority targets for the development of new antibiotics (World Health Organization 2017).
Dig Deeper: The North American Elephant Seal: Thriving Bottleneck Populations That Still Face Genetic Defects
In 1892, the Northern Elephant Seal underwent a severe population bottleneck caused by commercial hunting, reducing the species to an estimated 20 individuals at the time. This drastic decline led to a substantial loss of genetic diversity–a common consequence of extreme population bottlenecks (Hoelzel Et al., 2024 & Weber Et al., 2000). While the population has since recovered to over 200,000 individuals, its genetic variability remains significantly low. Analyses of genetic markers, including allozymes, mitochondrial DNA, and microsatellites, consistently reflect this reduced diversity (Hoelzel Et al., 2024). Comparative studies further underscore this loss by highlighting the higher genetic variation observed in the Southern Elephant Seal, which did not experience similar population constraints (2024).

In a 2024 study for Nature, Ecology, and Evolution, Hoelzel and colleagues sequenced 260 modern and 8 historical genomes of the northern elephant seal. This comparison revealed a decrease in average heterozygosity from 0.00142 before the bottleneck to 0.000176 in the contemporary population, confirming the decline in genetic variation (2024). Hoelzel’s mitogenome tree further illustrates this loss, revealing only two significant lineages remaining post-bottleneck, with limited diversity within each. Among the issues of diversity, the population has shown an increased number of loss-of-function (LOF) alleles, suggesting that increased inbreeding has amplified the frequency of these detrimental alleles; this reduced genetic diversity negatively affects both male and female reproductive fitness. Females who practiced repetitive inbreeding had higher LOF alleles and subsequently weaned fewer pups per year over their lifetime, while male reproductive success was linked to specific LOF loci associated with sperm production (2024). Hoelzel uses the example of “Alpha-Male M12”–known for low paternity success despite frequent copulations–which was homozygous for non-functional versions of four out of five LOF loci related to sperm function (2024, p. 688). The species' mating system, characterized by extreme polygyny, further exacerbates the loss of genetic variation even with countless copulatory partners
Prior research published in Current Biology presents an empirical genetic assessment of this population bottleneck, highlighting its long-term genetic consequences, particularly the loss of mitochondrial diversity (Weber et al., 2000). In this research, Weber and colleagues note that random lineage sampling during the bottleneck led to the persistence of specific genetic variants by chance rather than through natural selection (2000). This research emphasizes that the loss of diversity poses potential future genetic vulnerabilities for the seals, and that further studies are crucial for understanding the full scope of these impacts on the seals' overall fitness (2000). In 2024, the work led by Hoelzen and company provided the missing data that the previous study had left unanswered. Their previously explored findings indicate that, although the seals have recovered in numbers, their genetic resilience remains compromised, leaving the population more vulnerable to future environmental pressures, such as climate change or resource shortages (Hoelzel Et al., 2024). Ultimately, while the population's size remains stable, the genetic consequences of the bottleneck indicate that past stochastic events continue to influence the seals' long-term fitness and adaptability.
This research indicates that the historical bottleneck continues to affect the seals' health and fitness, despite the population's recovery. Limited genetic diversity and the persistence of harmful alleles due to inbreeding have continued to handicap the species' ability to thrive in environmental challenges such as climate change and resource fluctuations (2024). This emphasizes the importance of incorporating genetic factors into conservation strategies, as populations that have rebounded may still harbour long-term genetic weaknesses. Moreover, the elephant seal’s history serves as a powerful example of how human actions —such as overhunting — can have long-lasting impacts on biodiversity, reinforcing the importance of understanding human-environment interactions in ecological and conservation contexts.
Founder Effects
Founder effects occur when members of a population leave the main or “parent” group and form a new population that no longer interbreeds with the other members of the original group. Similar to survivors of a population bottleneck, the newly founded population often has allele frequencies that are different from the original group. Alleles that may have been relatively rare in the parent population can end up being very common due to the founder effect. Likewise, recessive traits that were seldom seen in the parent population may be seen frequently in the descendants of the offshoot population.
One striking example of the founder effect was first noted in the Dominican Republic in the 1970s. During a several-year period, eighteen children who had been born with female genitalia and raised as girls suddenly grew penises at puberty. This culture tended to value sons over daughters, so these transitions were generally celebrated. They labeled the condition guevedoces, which translates to “penis at twelve,” due to the average age at which this occurred. Scientists were fascinated by the phenomenon.
Genetic and hormonal studies revealed that the condition, scientifically termed 5-alpha reductase deficiency, is an autosomal recessive syndrome that manifests when a child having both X and Y sex chromosomes inherits two nonfunctional (mutated) copies of the SRD5A2 gene (Imperato-McGinley & Zhu 2002). These children develop testes internally, but the 5-alpha reductase 2 steroid, which is necessary for development of male genitals in babies, is not produced. In absence of this male hormone, the baby develops female-looking genitalia (in humans, “female” is the default infant body form, if the full set of the necessary male hormones are not produced). At puberty, however, a different set of male hormones are produced by other fully functional genes. These hormones complete the male genital development that did not happen in infancy. This condition became quite common in the Dominican Republic during the 1970s due to founder effect—that is, the mutated SRD5A2 gene happened to be much more common among the Dominican Republic’s founding population than in the parent populations. (The Dominican population derives from a mixture of Indigenous Americans [Taino] peoples, West Africans, and Western Europeans.) Five-alpha reductase syndrome has since been observed in other small, isolated populations around the world.
Founder effect is closely linked to the concept of inbreeding, which in population genetics does not necessarily mean breeding with immediate family relatives. Instead, inbreeding refers to the selection of mates exclusively from within a small, closed population—that is, from a group with limited allelic variability. This can be observed in small, physically isolated populations but also can happen when cultural practices limit mates to a small group. As with the founder effect, inbreeding increases the risk of inheriting two copies of any nonfunctional (mutant) alleles.
The Amish in the United States are a population that, due to their unique history and cultural practices, emerged from a small founding population and have tended to select mates from within their groups. The Old Order Amish population of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has approximately 50,000 current members, all of whom can trace their ancestry back to a group of approximately 80 individuals. This small founding population immigrated to the United States from Switzerland in the mid-1700s to escape religious persecution. Since the Amish keep to themselves and almost exclusively select mates from within their own communities, they have more recessive traits compared to their parent population.

One of the genetic conditions that has been observed much more frequently in the Lancaster County Amish population is Ellis-van Creveld syndrome, which is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by short stature (dwarfism), polydactyly (the development of more than five digits [fingers or toes] on the hands or feet], abnormal tooth development, and heart defects (Figure 5.12). Among the general world population, Ellis-van Creveld syndrome is estimated to affect approximately 1 in 60,000 individuals; among the Old Order Amish of Lancaster County, the rate is estimated to be as high as 1 in every 200 births (D’Asdia Et al. 2013).
One important insight that has come from the study of founder effects is that a limited gene pool carries a much higher risk for genetic diseases. Genetic diversity in a population greatly reduces these risks.
Gene Flow
The third force of evolution is traditionally called gene flow. As with genetic drift, this is a misnomer, because it refers to flowing alleles, not genes. (All members of the same species share the same genes; it is the alleles of those genes that may vary.) Gene flow refers to the movement of alleles from one population to another. In most cases, gene flow can be considered synonymous with migration.
Returning again to the example of our primordial cell population, let’s imagine that, after the volcanic fissure opened up in the ocean floor, wiping out the majority of the parent population, two surviving populations developed in the waters on opposite sides of the fissure. Ultimately, the lava from the fissure cooled into a large island that continued to provide a physical barrier between the populations (Figure 5.13).

In the initial generations after the eruption, due to founder effect, isolation, and random inheritance (genetic drift), the population to the west of the islands contained a vast majority of the ruffled membrane alleles while the eastern population carried only the smooth alleles. Ocean currents in the area typically flowed from east to west, sometimes carrying cells (facilitating gene flow) from the eastern (smooth) population to the western (ruffled) population. Due to the ocean currents, it was almost impossible for any cells from the western population to be carried eastward. Thus, for inheritance purposes, the eastern (smooth) population remained isolated. In this case, the gene flow is unidirectional (going only in one direction) and unbalanced (only one population is receiving the new alleles).
Among humans, gene flow is often described as admixture. In forensic cases, anthropologists and geneticists are often asked to estimate the ancestry of unidentified human remains to help determine whether they match any missing persons’ reports. This is one of the most complicated tasks in these professions because, while “race” or “ancestry” involves simple checkboxes on a missing person’s form, among humans today there are no truly distinct genetic populations. All modern humans are members of the same fully breeding compatible species, and all human communities have experienced multiple episodes of gene flow (admixture), leading all humans today to be so genetically similar that we are all members of the same (and only surviving) human subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens.
Gene flow between otherwise isolated nonhuman populations is often termed hybridization.. One example of this involves the hybridization and spread of Scutellata honey bees (a.k.a. “killer bees”) in the Americas. All honey bees worldwide are classified as Apis mellifera. Due to distinct adaptations to various environments around the world, there are 28 different subspecies of Apis mellifera.
During the 1950s, a Brazilian biologist named Warwick E. Kerr experimented with hybridizing African and European subspecies of honey bees to try to develop a strain that was better suited to tropical environments than the European honey bees that had long been kept by North American beekeepers. Dr. Kerr was careful to contain the reproductive queens and drones from the African subspecies, but in 1957, a visiting beekeeper accidentally released 26 queen bees of the Scutellata subspecies (Apis mellifera scutellata) from southern Africa into the Brazilian countryside. The Scutellata bees quickly interbred with local European honey bee populations. The hybridized bees exhibited a much more aggressively defensive behaviour, fatally or near-fatally attacking many humans and livestock that ventured too close to their hives. The hybridized bees spread throughout South America and reached Mexico and California by 1985. By 1990, permanent colonies had been established in Texas, and by 1997, 90% of trapped bee swarms around Tucson, Arizona, were found to be Scutellata hybrids (Sanford 2006).
Another example involves the introduction of the Harlequin ladybeetle, Harmonia axyridis, native to East Asia, to other parts of the world as a “natural” form of pest control. Harlequin ladybeetles are natural predators of some of the aphids and other crop-pest insects. First introduced to North America in 1916, the “biocontrol” strains of Harlequin ladybeetles were considered to be quite successful in reducing crop pests and saving farmers substantial amounts of money. After many decades of successful use in North America, biocontrol strains of Harlequin ladybeetles were also developed in Europe and South America in the 1980s.
Over the seven decades of biocontrol use, the Harlequin ladybeetle had never shown any potential for development of wild colonies outside of its native habitat in China and Japan. New generations of beetles always had to be reared in the lab. That all changed in 1988, when a wild colony took root near New Orleans, Louisiana. Either through admixture with a native ladybeetle strain, or due to a spontaneous mutation, a new allele was clearly introduced into this population that suddenly enabled them to survive and reproduce in a wide range of environments. This population spread rapidly across the Americas and had reached Africa by 2004.
In Europe, the invasive, North American strain of Harlequin ladybeetle admixed with the European strain (Figure 5.14), causing a population explosion (Lombaert Et al. 2010). Even strains specifically developed to be flightless (to curtail the spreading) produced flighted offspring after admixture with members of the North American population (Facon Et al. 2011). The fast-spreading, invasive strain has quickly become a disaster, out-competing native ladybeetle populations (some to the point of extinction), causing home infestations, decimating fruit crops, and contaminating many batches of wine with their bitter flavour after being inadvertently harvested with the grapes (Pickering Et al. 2004).

Natural Selection
The final force of evolution is natural selection. This is the evolutionary process that Charles Darwin first brought to light, and it is what the general public typically evokes when considering the process of evolution. Natural selection occurs when certain phenotypes confer an advantage or disadvantage in survival and/or reproductive success. The alleles associated with those phenotypes will change in frequency over time due to this selective pressure. It’s also important to note that the advantageous allele may change over time (with environmental changes) and that an allele that had previously been benign may become advantageous or detrimental. Of course, dominant, recessive, and codominant traits will be selected upon a bit differently from one another. Because natural selection acts on phenotypes rather than the alleles themselves, deleterious (disadvantageous) alleles can be retained by heterozygotes without any negative effects.
In the case of our primordial ocean cells, up until now, the texture of their cell membranes has been benign. The frequencies of smooth to ruffled alleles, and smooth to ruffled phenotypes, has changed over time, due to genetic drift and gene flow. Let’s now imagine that the Earth’s climate has cooled to a point that the waters frequently become too cold for survival of the tiny bacteria that are the dietary staples of our smooth and ruffled cell populations. The way amoeba-like cells “eat” is to stretch out the cell membrane, almost like an arm, to encapsulate, then ingest, the tiny bacteria. When the temperatures plummet, the tiny bacteria populations plummet with them. Larger bacteria, however, are better able to withstand the temperature change.
The smooth cells were well-adapted to ingesting tiny bacteria but poorly suited to encapsulating the larger bacteria. The cells with the ruffled membranes, however, are easily able to extend their ruffles to encapsulate the larger bacteria. They also find themselves able to stretch their entire membrane to a much larger size than their smooth-surfaced neighbours, allowing them to ingest more bacteria at a given time and to go for longer periods between feedings (Figure 5.15).

The smooth and ruffled traits, which had previously offered no advantage or disadvantage while food was plentiful, now are subject to natural selection. During the cold snaps, at least, the ruffled cells have a definite advantage. We can imagine that the western population that has mostly ruffled alleles will continue to do well, while the eastern population is at risk of dying out if the smaller bacteria remain scarce and no ruffled alleles are introduced.
A classic example of natural selection involves the study of an insect called the peppered moth (Biston betularia) in England during the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the peppered moth population was predominantly light in colour, with dark (pepper-like) speckles on the wings. The “peppered” colouration was very similar to the appearance of the bark and lichens that grew on the local trees (Figure 5.16). This helped to camouflage the moths as they rested on a tree, making it harder for moth-eating birds to find and snack on them. There was another phenotype that popped up occasionally in the population. These individuals were heterozygotes that carried an overactive, dominant pigment allele, producing a solid black colouration. As you can imagine, the black moths were much easier for birds to spot, making this phenotype a real disadvantage.
The situation changed, however, as the Industrial Revolution took off. Large factories began spewing vast amounts of coal smoke into the air, blanketing the countryside, including the lichens and trees, in black soot. Suddenly, it was the light-coloured moths that were easy for birds to spot and the black moths that held the advantage. The frequency of the dark pigment allele rose dramatically. By 1895, the black moth phenotype accounted for 98% of observed moths (Grant 1999).

Thanks to new environmental regulations in the 1960s, the air pollution in England began to taper off. As the soot levels decreased, returning the trees to their former, lighter colour, this provided the perfect opportunity to study how the peppered moth population would respond. Repeated follow-up studies documented the gradual rise in the frequency of the lighter-coloured phenotype. By 2003, the maximum frequency of the dark phenotype was 50% and in most parts of England had decreased to less than 10% (Cook, 2003).
Directional, Balancing/Stabilizing, and Disruptive/Diversifying Selection
Natural selection can be classified as directional, balancing/stabilizing, or disruptive/diversifying, depending on how the pressure is applied to the population (Figure 5.17).

Both of the above examples of natural selection involve directional selection: the environmental pressures favour one phenotype over the other and cause the frequencies of the associated advantageous alleles (ruffled membranes, dark pigment) to gradually increase. In the case of the peppered moths, the direction shifted three times: first, it was selecting for lighter pigment; then, with the increase in pollution, the pressure switched to selection for darker pigment; finally, with reduction of the pollution, the selection pressure shifted back again to favouring light-coloured moths.
Balancing selection (a.k.a. stabilizing selection) occurs when selection works against the extremes of a trait and favours the intermediate phenotype. For example, humans maintain an average birth weight that balances the need for babies to be small enough not to cause complications during pregnancy and childbirth but big enough to maintain a safe body temperature after they are born. Another example of balancing selection is found in the genetic disorder called sickle cell anemia (see “Special Topic: Sickle Cell Anemia”).
Disruptive selection (a.k.a. diversifying selection), the opposite of balancing selection, occurs when both extremes of a trait are advantageous. Since individuals with traits in the mid-range are selected against, disruptive selection can eventually lead to the population evolving into two separate species. Darwin believed that the many species of finches (small birds) found in the remote Galapagos Islands provided a clear example of disruptive selection leading to speciation. He observed that seed-eating finches either had large beaks, capable of eating very large seeds, or small beaks, capable of retrieving tiny seeds. The islands did not have many plants that produced medium-size seeds. Thus, birds with medium-size beaks would have trouble eating the very large seeds and would also have been inefficient at picking up the tiny seeds. Over time, Darwin surmised, this pressure against mid-size beaks may have led the population to divide into two separate species.
Sexual Selection
Sexual selection is an aspect of natural selection in which the selective pressure specifically affects reproductive success (the ability to successfully breed and raise offspring) rather than survival. Sexual selection favours traits that will attract a mate. Sometimes these sexually appealing traits even carry greater risks in terms of survival.

A classic example of sexual selection involves the brightly coloured feathers of the peacock. The peacock is the male sex of the peafowl genera Pavo and Afropavo. During mating season, peacocks will fan their colourful tails wide and strut in front of the peahens in a grand display. The peahens will carefully observe these displays and will elect to mate with the male that they find the most appealing. Many studies have found that peahens prefer the males with the fullest, most colourful tails. While these large, showy tails provide a reproductive advantage, they can be a real burden in terms of escaping predators. The bright colours and patterns as well as the large size of the peacock tail make it difficult to hide. Once predators spot them, peacocks also struggle to fly away, with the heavy tail trailing behind and weighing them down (Figure 5.18). Some researchers have argued that the increased risk is part of the appeal for the peahens: only an especially strong, alert, and healthy peacock would be able to avoid predators while sporting such a spectacular tail.
It’s important to keep in mind that sexual selection relies on the trait being present throughout mating years. Reflecting on the NF1 genetic disorder (see “Special Topic: Neurofibromatosis Type 1 [NF1]”), given how disfiguring the symptoms can become, some might find it surprising that half of the babies born with NF1 inherited it from a parent. Given that the disorder is autosomal dominant and fully penetrant (meaning it has no unaffected carriers), it may seem surprising that sexual selection doesn’t exert more pressure against the mutated alleles. One important factor is that, while the neurofibromas typically begin to appear during puberty, they usually emerge only a few at a time and may grow very slowly. Many NF1 patients don’t experience the more severe or disfiguring symptoms until later in life, long after they have started families of their own.
Some researchers prefer to classify sexual selection separately, as a fifth force of evolution. The traits that underpin mate selection are entirely natural, of course. Research has shown that subtle traits, such as the type of pheromones (hormonal odors related to immune system alleles) someone emits and how those are perceived by the immune system genotype of the “sniffer,” may play crucial and subconscious roles in whether we find someone attractive or not (Chaix, Cao, & Donnelly 2008).
Special Topic: Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1)
Neurofibromatosis Type 1, also known as NF1, is a genetic disorder that illustrates how a mutation in a single gene can affect multiple systems in the body. Surprisingly common, more people have NF1 than cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy combined. Even more surprising, given how common it is, is how few people have heard of it. One in every 3,000 babies is born with NF1, and this holds true for all populations worldwide (Riccardi 1992). This means that, for every 3,000 people in your community, there is likely at least one person living with this disorder. NF1 is an autosomal dominant condition, which means that everyone born with a mutation in the gene, whether inherited or spontaneous, has a 50/50 chance of passing it on to each of their own children.
The NF1 disorder results from mutation of the NF1 gene on Chromosome 17. Almost any mutation that affects the sequence of the gene’s protein product, neurofibromin, will cause the disorder. Studies of individuals with NF1 have identified over 3,000 different mutations of all kinds (including point mutations, small and large indels, and translocations). The NF1 gene is one of the largest known genes, containing at least 60 exons (protein-encoding sequences) in a span of about 300,000 nucleotides.
We know that neurofibromin plays an important role in preventing tumor growth because one of the most common symptoms of the NF1 disorder is the growth of benign (noncancerous) tumors, called neurofibromas. Neurofibromas sprout from nerve sheaths—the tissues that encase our nerves—throughout the body, usually beginning around puberty. There is no way to predict where the tumors will occur, or when or how quickly they will grow, although only about 15% turn malignant (cancerous). The two types of neurofibromas that are typically most visible are cutaneous neurofibromas, which are spherical bumps on, or just under, the surface of the skin (Figure 5.19), and plexiform neurofibromas, growths involving whole branches of nerves, often giving the appearance that the surface of the skin is “melting” (Figure 5.20).


Unfortunately, there is currently no cure for NF1. Surgical removal of neurofibromas risks paralysis, due to the high potential for nerve damage, and often results in the tumors growing back even more vigorously. This means that patients are often forced to live with disfiguring and often painful neurofibromas. People who are not familiar with NF1 often mistake neurofibromas for something contagious. This makes it especially hard for people living with NF1 to get jobs working with the public or even to enjoy spending time away from home. Raising public awareness about NF1 and its symptoms can be a great help in improving the quality of life for people living with this condition.

One of the first symptoms of NF1 in a small child is usually the appearance of café-au-lait spots, or CALS, which are flat, brown birthmark-like spots on the skin (Figure 5.21). CALS are often light brown, similar to the colour of coffee with cream, which is the reason for the name, although the shade of the pigment depends on a person’s overall complexion. Some babies are born with CALS, but for others the spots appear within the first few years of life. Having six or more CALS larger than five millimetres (mm) across is a strong indicator that a child may have NF1.
Other common symptoms include the following: gliomas (tumors) of the optic nerve, which can cause vision loss; thinning of bones and failure to heal if they break (often requiring amputation); low muscle tone (poor muscle development, often delaying milestones such as sitting up, crawling, and walking); hearing loss, due to neurofibromas on auditory nerves; and learning disabilities, especially those involving spatial reasoning. Approximately 50% of people with NF1 have some type of speech and/or learning disability and often benefit greatly from early intervention services. Generalized developmental disability, however, is not common with NF1, so most people with NF1 live independently as adults. Many people with NF1 live full and successful lives, as long as their symptoms can be managed.
Based on the wide variety of symptoms, it’s clear that the neurofibromin protein plays important roles in many biochemical pathways. While everyone who has NF1 will exhibit some symptoms during their lifetime, there is a great deal of variation in the types and severity of symptoms, even between individuals from the same family who share the exact same NF1 mutation. It seems crazy that a gene with so many important functions would be so susceptible to mutation. Part of this undoubtedly has to do with its massive size—a gene with 300,000 nucleotides has ten times more nucleotides available for mutation than does a gene of 30,000 bases. This also suggests that the mutability of this gene might provide some benefits, which is a possibility that we will revisit later in this chapter.
Special Topic: Sickle Cell Anemia
Sickle cell anemia is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder that affects millions of people worldwide. It is most common in Africa, countries around the Mediterranean Sea, and eastward as far as India. Populations in the Americas that have high percentages of ancestors from these regions also have high rates of sickle cell anemia. In the United States, it’s estimated that 72,000 people live with the disease, with one in approximately 1,200 Hispanic-American babies and one in every 500 African-American babies inheriting the condition (World Health Organization 1996).

Sickle cell anemia affects the hemoglobin protein in red blood cells. Normal red blood cells are somewhat doughnut-shaped—round with a depression on both sides of the middle. They carry oxygen around the bloodstream to cells throughout the body. Red blood cells produced by the mutated form of the gene take on a stiff, sickle-like crescent shape when stressed by low oxygen or dehydration (Figure 5.22). Because of their elongated shape and the fact that they are stiff rather than flexible, they tend to form clumps in the blood vessels, inhibiting blood flow to adjacent areas of the body. This causes episodes of extreme pain and can cause serious problems in the oxygen-deprived tissues. The sickle cells also break down much more quickly than normal cells, often lasting only 20 days rather than the 120 days of normal cells. This causes an overall shortage of blood cells in the sickle cell patient, resulting in low iron (anemia) and problems associated with it such as extreme fatigue, shortness of breath, and hindrances to children’s growth and development.
The devastating effects of sickle cell anemia made its high frequency a pressing mystery. Why would an allele that is so deleterious in its homozygous form be maintained in a population at levels as high as the one in twelve African Americans estimated to carry at least one copy of the allele? The answer turned out to be one of the most interesting cases of balancing selection in the history of genetic study.
While looking for an explanation, scientists noticed that the countries with high rates of sickle cell disease also shared a high risk for another disease called malaria, which is caused by infection of the blood by a Plasmodium parasite. These parasites are carried by mosquitoes and enter the human bloodstream via a mosquito bite. Once infected, the person will experience flu-like symptoms that, if untreated, can often lead to death. Researchers discovered that many people living in these regions seemed to have a natural resistance to malaria. Further study revealed that people who carry the sickle cell allele are far less likely to experience a severe case of malaria. This would not be enough of a benefit to make the allele advantageous for the sickle cell homozygotes, who face shortened life spans due to sickle cell anemia. The real benefit of the sickle cell allele goes to the heterozygotes.
People who are heterozygous for sickle cell carry one normal allele, which produces the normal, round, red blood cells, and one sickle cell allele, which produces the sickle-shaped red blood cells. Thus, they have both the sickle and round blood cell types in their bloodstream. They produce enough of the round red blood cells to avoid the symptoms of sickle cell anemia, but they have enough sickle cells to provide protection from malaria.
When the Plasmodium parasites infect an individual, they begin to multiply in the liver, but then must infect the red blood cells to complete their reproductive cycle. When the parasites enter sickle-type cells, the cells respond by taking on the sickle shape. This prevents the parasite from circulating through the bloodstream and completing its life cycle, greatly inhibiting the severity of the infection in the sickle cell heterozygotes compared to non–-sickle cell homozygotes. See Chapter 14 for more discussion of sickle cell anemia.
Special Topic: The Real Primordial Cells—Dictyostelium Discoideum
The amoeba-like primordial cells that were used as recurring examples throughout this chapter are inspired by actual research that is truly fascinating. In 2015, Gareth Bloomfield and colleagues reported on their genomic study of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum (a.k.a. “slime molds,” although technically they are amoebae, not molds). Strains of these amoebae have been grown in research laboratories for many decades and are useful in studying the mechanisms that amoeboid single-celled organisms use to ingest food and liquid. For simplification of our examples in this chapter, our amoeba-like cells remained ocean dwellers. Wild Dictyostelium discoideum, however, live in soil and feed on soil bacteria by growing ruffles in their membranes that reach out to encapsulate the bacterial cell. Laboratory strains, however, are typically raised on liquid media (agar) in Petri dishes, which is not suitable for the wild-type amoebae. It was widely known that the laboratory strains must have developed mutations in one or more genes to allow them to ingest the larger nutrient particles in the agar and larger volumes of liquid, but the genes involved were not known.
Bloomfield and colleagues performed genomic testing on both the wild and the laboratory strains of Dictyostelium discoideum. Their discovery was astounding: every one of the laboratory strains carried a mutation in the NF1 gene, the very same gene associated with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) in humans. The antiquity of this massive, easily mutated gene is incredible. It originated in an ancestor common to both humans and these amoebae, and it has been retained in both lineages ever since. As seen in Dictyostelium discoideum, breaking the gene can be advantageous. Without a functioning copy of the neurofibromin protein, the cell membrane is able to form much-larger feeding structures, allowing the NF1 mutants to ingest larger particles and larger volumes of liquid. For these amoebae, this may provide dietary flexibility that functions somewhat like an insurance policy for times when the food supply is limited.
Dictyostelium discoideum are also interesting in that they typically reproduce asexually, but under certain conditions, one cell will convert into a “giant” cell, which encapsulates surrounding cells, transforming into one of three sexes. This cell will undergo meiosis, producing gametes that must combine with one of the other two sexes to produce viable offspring. This ability for sexual reproduction may be what allows Dictyostelium discoideum to benefit from the advantages of NF1 mutation, while also being able to restore the wild type NF1 gene in future generations.
What does this mean for humans living with NF1? Well, understanding the role of the neurofibromin protein in the membranes of simple organisms like Dictyostelium discoideum may help us to better understand how it functions and malfunctions in the sheaths of human neurons. It’s also possible that the mutability of the NF1 gene confers certain advantages to humans as well. Alleles of the NF1 gene have been found to reduce one’s risk for alcoholism (Repunte-Canonigo Vez Et al. 2015), opiate addiction (Sanna Et al. 2002), Type 2 diabetes (Martins Et al. 2016), and hypomusicality (a lower-than-average musical aptitude; Cota Et al. 2018). This research is ongoing and will be exciting to follow in the coming years.
Studying Evolution in Action
The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
This chapter has introduced you to the forces of evolution, the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. How do we detect and study evolution, though, in real time, as it happens? One tool we use is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium: a mathematical formula that allows estimation of the number and distribution of dominant and recessive alleles in a population. This aids in determining whether allele frequencies are changing and, if so, how quickly over time, and in favour of which allele? It’s important to note that the Hardy-Weinberg formula only gives us an estimate based on the data for a snapshot in time. We will have to calculate it again later, after various intervals, to determine if our population is evolving and in what way the allele frequencies are changing.
Calculating the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
In the Hardy-Weinberg formula, p represents the frequency of the dominant allele, and q represents the frequency of the recessive allele. Remember, an allele’s frequency is the proportion, or percentage, of that allele in the population. For the purposes of Hardy-Weinberg, we give the allele percentages as decimal numbers (e.g., 42% = 0.42), with the entire population (100% of alleles) equaling 1. If we can figure out the frequency of one of the alleles in the population, then it is simple to calculate the other. Simply subtract the known frequency from 1 (the entire population): 1 – p = q and 1 – q = p.
The Hardy-Weinberg formula is p2 + 2pq + q2, where:
p2 represents the frequency of the homozygous dominant genotype;
2pq represents the frequency of the heterozygous genotype; and
q2 represents the frequency of the homozygous recessive genotype.
It is often easiest to determine q2 first, simply by counting the number of individuals with the unique, homozygous recessive phenotype (then dividing by the total individuals in the population to arrive at the “frequency”). Once we have this number, we simply need to calculate the square root of the homozygous recessive phenotype frequency. That gives us q. Remember, 1 – q equals p, so now we have the frequencies for both alleles in the population. If we needed to figure out the frequencies of heterozygotes and homozygous dominant genotypes, we’d just need to plug the p and q frequencies back into the p2 and 2pq formulas.

Let’s imagine we have a population of ladybeetles that carries two alleles: a dominant allele that produces red ladybeetles and a recessive allele that produces orange ladybeetles. Since red is dominant, we’ll use R to represent the red allele, and r to represent the orange allele. Our population has ten beetles, and seven are red and three are orange (Figure 5.23). Let’s calculate the number of genotypes and alleles in this population.
Of ten total beetles, we have three orange beetles3/10 = .30 (30%) frequency—and we know they are homozygous recessive (rr). So:
rr = .3; therefore, r = √.3 = .5477
R = 1 – .5477 = .4523
Using the Hardy-Weinberg formula:
1=.45232 + 2 x .4523 x .5477 +.54772 = .20 + .50 + .30 = 1
Thus, the genotype breakdown is 20% RR, 50% Rr, and 30% rr
(2 red homozygotes, 5 red heterozygotes, and 3 orange homozygotes).
Since we have 10 individuals, we know we have 20 total alleles: 4 red from the RR group, 5 red and 5 orange from the Rr group, and 6 orange from the rr group, for a grand total of 9 red and 11 orange (45% red and 55% orange, just like we estimated in the 1 – q step).
Reminder: The Hardy-Weinberg formula only gives us an estimate for a snapshot in time. We will have to calculate it again later, after various intervals, to determine if our population is evolving and in what way the allele frequencies are changing.
Interpreting Evolutionary Change: Nonrandom Mating
Once we have detected change occurring in a population, we need to consider which evolutionary processes might be the cause of the change. It is important to watch for nonrandom mating patterns, to see if they can be included or excluded as possible sources of variation in allele frequencies.
Nonrandom mating (also known as assortative mating) occurs when mate choice within a population follows a nonrandom pattern.
Positive assortative mating patterns result from a tendency for individuals to mate with others who share similar phenotypes. This often happens based on body size. Taking as an example dog breeds, it is easier for two Chihuahuas to mate and have healthy offspring than it is for a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard to do so. This is especially true if the Chihuahua is the female and would have to give birth to giant St. Bernard pups.
Negative assortative mating patterns occur when individuals tend to select mates with qualities different from their own. This is what is at work when humans choose partners whose pheromones indicate that they have different and complementary immune alleles, providing potential offspring with a better chance at a stronger immune system.
Among domestic animals, such as pets and livestock, assortative mating is often directed by humans who decide which pairs will mate to increase the chances of offspring having certain desirable traits. This is known as artificial selection.
Among humans, in addition to phenotypic traits, cultural traits such as religion and ethnicity may also influence assortative mating patterns.
Defining a Species
Species are organisms whose individuals are capable of breeding because they are biologically and behaviourally compatible to produce viable, fertile offspring. Viable offspring are those offspring that are healthy enough to survive to adulthood. Fertile offspring are able to reproduce successfully, resulting in offspring of their own. Both conditions must be met for individuals to be considered part of the same species. As you can imagine, these criteria complicate the identification of distinct species in fossilized remains of extinct populations. In those cases, we must examine how much phenotypic variation is typically found within a comparable modern-day species; we can then determine whether the fossilized remains fall within the expected range of variation for a single species.
Some species have subpopulations that are regionally distinct. These are classified as separate subspecies because they have their own unique phenotypes and are geographically isolated from one another. However, if they do happen to encounter one another, they are still capable of successful interbreeding.
There are many examples of sterile hybrids that are offspring of parents from two different species. For example, horses and donkeys can breed and have offspring together. Depending on which species is the mother and which is the father, the offspring are either called mules, or hennies. Mules and hennies can live full life spans but are not able to have offspring of their own. Likewise, tigers and lions have been known to mate and have viable offspring. Again, depending on which species is the mother and which is the father, these offspring are called either ligers or tigons. Like mules and hennies, ligers and tigons are unable to reproduce. In each of these cases, the mismatched set of chromosomes that the offspring inherit produce an adequate set of functioning genes for the hybrid offspring; however, once mixed and divided in meiosis, the gametes don’t contain the full complement of genes needed for survival in the third generation.
Micro- to Macroevolution
Microevolution refers to changes in allele frequencies within breeding populations—that is, within single species. Macroevolution describes how the similarities and differences between species, as well as the phylogenetic relationships with other taxa, lead to changes that result in the emergence of new species. Consider our example of the peppered moth that illustrated microevolution over time, via directional selection favouring the peppered allele when the trees were clean and the dark pigment allele when the trees were sooty. Imagine that environmental regulations had cleaned up the air pollution in one part of the nation, while the coal-fired factories continued to spew soot in another area. If this went on long enough, it’s possible that two distinct moth populations would eventually emerge—one containing only the peppered allele and the other only harbouring the dark pigment allele.
When a single population divides into two or more separate species, it is called speciation. The changes that prevent successful breeding between individuals who descended from the same ancestral population may involve chromosomal rearrangements, changes in the ability of the sperm from one species to permeate the egg membrane of the other species, or dramatic changes in hormonal schedules or mating behaviours that prevent members from the new species from being able to effectively pair up.
There are two types of speciation: allopatric and sympatric. Allopatric speciation is caused by long-term isolation (physical separation) of subgroups of the population (Figure 5.24). Something occurs in the environment—perhaps a river changes its course and splits the group, preventing them from breeding with members on the opposite riverbank. Over many generations, new mutations and adaptations to the different environments on each side of the river may drive the two subpopulations to change so much that they can no longer produce fertile, viable offspring, even if the barrier is someday removed.

Sympatric speciation occurs when the population splits into two or more separate species while remaining located together without a physical barrier. This typically results from a new mutation that pops up among some members of the population that prevents them from successfully reproducing with anyone who does not carry the same mutation. This is seen particularly often in plants, as they have a higher frequency of chromosomal duplications.
One of the quickest rates of speciation is observed in the case of adaptive radiation. Adaptive radiation refers to the situation in which subgroups of a single species rapidly diversify and adapt to fill a variety of ecological niches. An ecological niche is a set of constraints and resources that is available in an environmental setting. Evidence for adaptive radiations is often seen after population bottlenecks. A mass disaster kills off many species, and the survivors have access to a new set of territories and resources that were either unavailable or much coveted and fought over before the disaster. The offspring of the surviving population will often split into multiple species, each of which stems from members in that first group of survivors who happened to carry alleles that were advantageous for a particular niche.
The classic example of adaptive radiation brings us back to Charles Darwin and his observations of the many species of finches on the Galapagos Islands. We are still not sure how the ancestral population of finches first arrived on that remote Pacific Island chain, but they found themselves in an environment filled with various insects, large and tiny seeds, fruit, and delicious varieties of cactus. Some members of that initial population carried alleles that gave them advantages for each of these dietary niches. In subsequent generations, others developed new mutations, some of which were beneficial. These traits were selected for, making the advantageous alleles more common among their offspring. As the finches spread from one island to the next, they would be far more likely to find mates among the birds on their new island. Birds feeding in the same area were then more likely to mate together than birds who have different diets, contributing to additional assortative mating. Together, these evolutionary mechanisms caused rapid speciation that allowed the new species to make the most of the various dietary niches (Figure 5.25).

In today’s modern world, understanding these evolutionary processes is crucial for developing immunizations and antibiotics that can keep up with the rapid mutation rate of viruses and bacteria. This is also relevant to our food supply, which relies, in large part, on the development of herbicides and pesticides that keep up with the mutation rates of pests and weeds. Viruses, bacteria, agricultural pests, and weeds have all shown great flexibility in developing alleles that make them resistant to the latest medical treatment, pesticide, or herbicide. Billion-dollar industries have specialized in trying to keep our species one step ahead of the next mutation in the pests and infectious diseases that put our survival at risk.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
Sex within Culture and Biology
Research on bonobos (Pan paniscus) reveals a primate species whose social system relies heavily on affiliative and erotic behaviours rather than aggression. Bonobos live in fission–fusion communities in Central African forests, where males remain in their natal groups and females migrate at adolescence. While sexual engagement is a large part of their social ecosystem, we see reproductive rates remain low, with females giving birth roughly every four to five years.
Social cohesion among bonobos is strongly shaped by sexuality. Individuals engage frequently in diverse erotic behaviours; genital rubbing, oral contact, face-to-face copulation, and various forms of genital-to-genital stimulation are performed, but are not directly tied to reproduction. Through these modes of erotic sociality, tension is reduced, conflict is resolved, and food sharing is facilitated; all of which appear to function as peacemaking mechanisms integral to group stability. In this context, sexual pleasure is decoupled from reproduction, a parallel also found in human societies. Humans, like most primates, do not biologically mate for life; monogamy is a social contract, not a biological reality (Fuentes, 2012). Long-term exclusive mating is rare among primate species, and even in socially monogamous human groups, extra-pair copulations contribute substantially to reproductive outcomes.
Human sexual development operates across genetic, hormonal, anatomical, and cultural levels. Biological traits such as chromosomal patterns or endocrine shifts interact with the social categories of gender, including transgender and transsexual identities (Fausto-Sterling, 1993, 2000a,b). Cultural expectations shape how sexual bodies are interpreted, often projecting ideological assumptions onto biological processes. This dynamic is exemplified in Emily Martin’s (1991) critique of gendered metaphors in reproductive medical science, where egg and sperm are frequently described using stereotypically feminine or masculine language. Sexuality in humans is also neurologically mediated; as theorized by Freud, who suggested that humans possess undirected libidinal drives which society channels and constrains. With sex maintaining such sociocultural importance to humans, the anthropology of sex helps emphasize sexual practices, identities, and desires which emerge from the interplay of individual experience, interpersonal relationships, and broader cultural, political, and economic structures.
Archaeologies of Sexuality and the Future of Sex
Early archaeology commonly dismissed or obscured non-normative sexual imagery, classifying it under ‘pornography’ or ‘Whore-Writing’, a term introduced by the archaeologist Müller in 1850 to describe and demonize sexually explicit artifacts from Pompeii. Such categorizations reflected Victorian moral regimes rather than empirical assessment. Recent work highlights greater sexual and gender diversity in ancient material culture. Thousands of Ecuadorian clay figurines from 4400 BCE–1500 CE display non-binary and mixed-gender features, all of which were long-ignored or rationalized by earlier researchers (Ugalde, 2019). Later figurines exhibit more explicitly gendered poses, suggesting the gradual rise of patriarchal social structures. Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949) further explores this, arguing that women have historically been constructed as “the Other,” a philosophical and social position that has shaped interpretations of sex, gender, and embodiment across cultures.
Contemporary technological shifts prompt reconsideration of intimacy, embodiment, and sexual relationships. Robotics, avatars, and artificial companions raise questions about authenticity, relationality, and human–machine attachment. Sherry Turkle (2011) argues that as people become increasingly anxious about interpersonal vulnerability, they may turn to machines for controlled forms of companionship and emotional safety. These developments illuminate broader transformations in how societies conceptualize relationships, desire, and human connection. They also challenge us to reconsider what counts as intimacy, what makes a relationship meaningful, and what ethical considerations arise when technologies substitute or reshape human sexual and emotional experience.
Discussion questions
- With the rise of artificial companions, how might concepts such as intimacy, love, relationships, and sexuality be reconfigured? What might these changes reveal about how we understand human connection?
- How does studying sex and sexuality in other primates, such as bonobos, help us understand human sexuality and social behaviour? What are the limitations of using primates to understand humans?
- How might gendered metaphors and stereotypes influence the way scientific knowledge is produced and interpreted? Can you think of other examples where cultural assumptions have shaped scientific explanations?
Review Questions
- Summarize the Modern Synthesis and provide several examples of how it is relevant to questions and problems in our world today.
- You inherit a house from a long-lost relative that contains a fancy aquarium, filled with a variety of snails. The phenotypes include large snails and small snails; red, black, and yellow snails; and solid, striped, and spotted snails. Devise a series of experiments that would help you determine how many snail species are present in your aquarium.
- Match the correct force of evolution with the correct real-world example:
a. Mutationi. 5-alpha reductase deficiency
b. Genetic Driftii. Peppered Moths
c. Gene Flowiii. Neurofibromatosis Type 1
d. Natural Selectioniv. Scutellata Honey Bees - Imagine a population of common house mice (Mus musculus). Draw a comic strip illustrating how mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection might transform this population over several (or more) generations.
-
The many breeds of the single species of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) provide an extreme example of microevolution. Discuss why this is the case. What future scenarios can you imagine that could potentially transform the domestic dog into an example of macroevolution?
-
The ability to roll one’s tongue (lift the outer edges of the tongue to touch each other, forming a tube) is a dominant trait. In a small town of 1,500 people, 500 can roll their tongues. Use the Hardy-Weinberg formula to determine how many individuals in the town are homozygous dominant, heterozygous, and homozygous recessive.
Key Terms
5-alpha reductase deficiency: An autosomal recessive syndrome that manifests when a child having both X and Y sex chromosomes inherits two nonfunctional (mutated) copies of the SRD5A2 gene, producing a deficiency in a hormone necessary for development in infancy of typical male genitalia. These children often appear at birth to have female genitalia, but they develop a penis and other sexual characteristics when other hormones kick in during puberty.
Adaptive radiation: The situation in which subgroups of a single species rapidly diversify and adapt to fill a variety of ecological niches.
Admixture: A term often used to describe gene flow between human populations. Sometimes also used to describe gene flow between nonhuman populations.
Allele frequency: The ratio, or percentage, of one allele compared to the other alleles for that gene within the study population.
Alleles: Variant forms of genes.
Allopatric speciation: Speciation caused by long-term isolation (physical separation) of subgroups of the population.
Antibiotics: Medicines prescribed to treat bacterial infections.
Artificial selection: Human-directed assortative mating among domestic animals, such as pets and livestock, designed to increase the chances of offspring having certain desirable traits.
Asexual reproduction: Reproduction via mitosis, whereby offspring are clones of the parents.
Autosomal dominant: A phenotype produced by a gene on an autosomal chromosome that is expressed, to the exclusion of the recessive phenotype, in heterozygotes.
Autosomal recessive: A phenotype produced by a gene on an autosomal chromosome that is expressed only in individuals homozygous for the recessive allele.
Balanced translocations: Chromosomal translocations in which the genes are swapped but no genetic information is lost.
Balancing selection: A pattern of natural selection that occurs when the extremes of a trait are selected against, favouring the intermediate phenotype (a.k.a. stabilizing selection).
Beneficial mutations: Mutations that produce some sort of an advantage to the individual.
Benign: Noncancerous. Benign tumors may cause problems due to the area in which they are located (e.g., they might put pressure on a nerve or brain area), but they will not release cells that aggressively spread to other areas of the body.
Café-au-lait spots (CALS): Flat, brown birthmark-like spots on the skin, commonly associated with Neurofibromatosis Type 1.
Chromosomal translocations: The transfer of DNA between nonhomologous chromosomes.
Chromosomes: Molecules that carry collections of genes.
Codons: Three-nucleotide units of DNA that function as three-letter “words,” encoding instructions for the addition of one amino acid to a protein or indicating that the protein is complete.
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction: A mass disaster caused by an asteroid that struck the earth approximately 66 million years ago and killed 75% of life on Earth, including all terrestrial dinosaurs. (a.k.a. K-Pg Extinction, Cretatious-Tertiary Extinction, and K-T Extinction).
Crossover events: Chromosomal alterations that occur when DNA is swapped between homologous chromosomes while they are paired up during meiosis I.
Cutaneous neurofibromas: Neurofibromas that manifest as spherical bumps on or just under the surface of the skin.
Deleterious mutation: A mutation producing negative effects to the individual such as the beginnings of cancers or heritable disorders.
Deletions: Mutations that involve the removal of one or more nucleotides from a DNA sequence.
Derivative chromosomes: New chromosomal structures resulting from translocations.
Dictyostelium discoideum: A species of social amoebae that has been widely used for laboratory research. Laboratory strains of Dictyostelium discoideum all carry mutations in the NF1 gene, which is what allows them to survive on liquid media (agar) in Petri dishes.
Directional selection: A pattern of natural selection in which one phenotype is favoured over the other, causing the frequencies of the associated advantageous alleles to gradually increase.
Disruptive selection: A pattern of natural selection that occurs when both extremes of a trait are advantageous and intermediate phenotypes are selected against (a.k.a. diversifying selection).
DNA repair mechanisms: Enzymes that patrol and repair DNA in living cells.
DNA transposons: Transposons that are clipped out of the DNA sequence itself and inserted elsewhere in the genome.
Ecological niche: A set of constraints and resources that are available in an environmental setting.
Ellis-van Creveld syndrome: An autosomal recessive disorder characterized by short stature (dwarfism), polydactyly (the development of more than five digits [fingers or toes] on the hands or feet), abnormal tooth development, and heart defects. Estimated to affect approximately one in 60,000 individuals worldwide, among the Old Order Amish of Lancaster County, the rate is estimated to be as high as one in every 200 births.
Evolution: A change in the allele frequencies in a population over time.
Exons: The DNA sequences within a gene that directly encode protein sequences. After being transcribed into messenger RNA, the introns (DNA sequences within a gene that do not directly encode protein sequences) are clipped out, and the exons are pasted together prior to translation.
Fertile offspring: Offspring that can successfully reproduce, resulting in offspring of their own.
Founder effect: A type of genetic drift that occurs when members of a population leave the main or “parent” group and form a new population that no longer interbreeds with the other members of the original group.
Frameshift mutations: Types of indels that involve the insertion or deletion of any number of nucleotides that is not a multiple of three. These “shift the reading frame” and cause all codons beyond the mutation to be misread.
Gametes: The reproductive cells, produced through meiosis (a.k.a. germ cells or sperm or egg cells).
Gene: A sequence of DNA that provides coding information for the construction of proteins.
Gene flow: The movement of alleles from one population to another. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Gene pool: The entire collection of genetic material in a breeding community that can be passed on from one generation to the next.
Genetic drift: Random changes in allele frequencies within a population from one generation to the next. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Genotype: The set of alleles that an individual has for a given gene.
Genotype frequencies: The ratios or percentages of the different homozygous and heterozygous genotypes in the population.
Guevedoces: The term coined locally in the Dominican Republic for the condition scientifically known as 5-alpha reductase deficiency. The literal translation is “penis at twelve.”
Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium: A mathematical formula (1=p2 + 2pq + q2 ) that allows estimation of the number and distribution of dominant and recessive alleles in a population.
Harlequin ladybeetle: A species of ladybeetle, native to East Asia, that was introduced to Europe and the Americas as a form of pest control. After many decades of use, one of the North American strains developed the ability to reproduce in diverse environments, causing it to spread rapidly throughout the Americas, Europe, and Africa. It has hybridized with European strains and is now a major pest in its own right.
Heterozygous genotype: A genotype comprising two different alleles.
Homozygous genotype: A genotype comprising an identical set of alleles.
Hybridization: A term often used to describe gene flow between nonhuman populations.
Inbreeding: The selection of mates exclusively from within a small, closed population.
Indels: A class of mutations that includes both insertions and deletions.
Inherited mutation: A mutation that has been passed from parent to offspring.
Insertions: Mutations that involve the addition of one or more nucleotides into a DNA sequence.
Isolation: Prevention of a population subgroup from breeding with other members of the same species due to a physical barrier or, in humans, a cultural rule.
Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA): The ancient organism from which all living things on Earth are descended.
Macroevolution: Changes that result in the emergence of new species, how the similarities and differences between species, as well as the phylogenetic relationships with other taxa, lead to changes that result in the emergence of new species.
Malaria: A frequently deadly mosquito-borne disease caused by infection of the blood by a Plasmodium parasite.
Malignant: Cancerous. Malignant tumors grow aggressively and their cells may metastasize (travel through the blood or lymph systems) to form new, aggressive tumors in other areas of the body.
Microevolution: Changes in allele frequencies within breeding populations—that is, within a single species.
Modern Synthesis: The integration of Darwin’s, Mendel’s, and subsequent research into a unified theory of evolution.
Monosomies: Conditions resulting from a nondisjunction event, in which a cell ends up with only one copy of a chromosome. In humans, a single X chromosome is the only survivable monosomy.
Mutation: A change in the nucleotide sequence of the genetic code. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Natural selection: An evolutionary process that occurs when certain phenotypes confer an advantage or disadvantage in survival and/or reproductive success. This is one of the forces of evolution, and it was first identified by Charles Darwin.
Negative assortative mating: A pattern that occurs when individuals tend to select mates with qualities different from their own.
Neurofibromas: Nerve sheath tumors that are common symptoms of Neurofibromatosis Type 1.
Neurofibromatosis Type 1: An autosomal dominant genetic disorder affecting one in every 3,000 people. It is caused by mutation of the NF1 gene on Chromosome 17, resulting in a defective neurofibromin protein. The disorder is characterized by neurofibromas, café-au-lait spots, and a host of other potential symptoms.
NF1: An abbreviation for Neurofibromatosis Type 1. When italicized, NF1 refers to the gene on Chromosome 17 that encodes the neurofibromin protein.
Nondisjunction events: Chromosomal abnormalities that occur when the homologous chromosomes (in meiosis I) or sister chromatids (in meiosis II and mitosis) fail to separate after pairing. The result is that both chromosomes or chromatids end up in the same daughter cell, leaving the other daughter cell without any copy of that chromosome.
Nonrandom mating: A scenario in which mate choice within a population follows a nonrandom pattern (a.k.a. assortative mating).
Nonsynonymous mutation: A point mutation that causes a change in the resulting protein.
Old Order Amish: A culturally isolated population in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, that has approximately 50,000 current members, all of whom can trace their ancestry back to a group of approximately eighty individuals. This group has high rates of certain genetics disorders, including Ellis-van Creveld syndrome.
Origins of life: How the first living organism came into being.
Peacock: The male sex of the peafowl, famous for its large, colourful tail, which it dramatically displays to attract mates. (The female of the species is known as a peahen.)
Peppered moth: A species of moth (Biston betularia) found in England that has light and dark phenotypes. During the Industrial Revolution, when soot blackened the trees, the frequency of the previously rare dark phenotype dramatically increased, as lighter-coloured moths were easier for birds to spot against the sooty trees. After environmental regulations eliminated the soot, the lighter-coloured phenotype gradually became most common again.
Phenotype: The observable traits that are produced by a genotype.
Phylogenetic tree of life: A family tree of all living organisms, based on genetic relationships.
Phylogenies: Genetically determined family lineages.
Plasmodium: A genus of mosquito-borne parasite. Several Plasmodium species cause malaria when introduced to the human bloodstream via a mosquito bite.
Plexiform neurofibromas: Neurofibromas that involve whole branches of nerves, often giving the appearance that the surface of the skin is “melting.”
Point mutation: A single-letter (single-nucleotide) change in the genetic code, resulting in the substitution of one nucleic acid base for a different one.
Polymorphisms: Multiple forms of a trait; alternative phenotypes within a given species.
Population: A group of individuals who are genetically similar enough and geographically near enough to one another that they can breed and produce new generations of individuals.
Population bottleneck: A type of genetic drift that occurs when the number of individuals in a population drops dramatically due to some random event.
Positive assortative mating: A pattern that results from a tendency for individuals to mate with others who share similar phenotypes.
Retrotransposons: Transposons that are transcribed from DNA into RNA, and then are “reverse transcribed,” to insert the copied sequence into a new location in the DNA.
Scutellata honey bees: A strain of honey bees that resulted from the hybridization of African and European honey bee subspecies. These bees were accidentally released into the wild in 1957 in Brazil and have since spread throughout South and Central America and into the United States. Also known as “killer bees,” they tend to be very aggressive in defence of their hives and have caused many fatal injuries to humans and livestock.
Sexual reproduction: Reproduction via meiosis and combination of gametes. Offspring inherit genetic material from both parents.
Sexual selection: An aspect of natural selection in which the selective pressure specifically affects reproductive success (the ability to successfully breed and raise offspring).
Sickle cell anemia: An autosomal recessive genetic disorder that affects millions of people worldwide. It is most common in Africa, countries around the Mediterranean Sea, and eastward as far as India. Homozygotes for the recessive allele develop the disorder, which produce misshapen red blood cells that cause iron deficiency, painful episodes of oxygen-deprivation in localized tissues, and a host of other symptoms. In heterozygotes, though, the sickle cell allele confers a greater resistance to malaria.
Somatic cells: The cells of our organs and other body tissues (all cells except gametes) that replicate by mitosis.
Speciation: The process by which a single population divides into two or more separate species.
Species: Organisms whose individuals are capable of breeding because they are biologically and behaviourally compatible to produce viable, fertile offspring.
Spontaneous mutation: A mutation that occurs due to random chance or unintentional exposure to mutagens. In families, a spontaneous mutation is the first case, as opposed to mutations that are inherited from parents.
Subspecies: A distinct subtype of a species. Most often, this is a geographically isolated population with unique phenotypes; however, it remains biologically and behaviourally capable of interbreeding with other populations of the same species.
Sympatric speciation: When a population splits into two or more separate species while remaining located together without a physical (or cultural) barrier.
Synonymous mutation: A point mutation that does not change the resulting protein.
Transposable elements: Fragments of DNA that can “jump” around in the genome.
Transposon: Another term for “transposable element.”
Trisomies: Conditions in which three copies of the same chromosome end up in a cell, resulting from a nondisjunction event. Down syndrome, Edwards syndrome, and Patau syndrome are trisomies.
Unbalanced translocations: Chromosomal translocations in which there is an unequal exchange of genetic material, resulting in duplication or loss of genes.
UV crosslinking: A type of mutation in which adjacent thymine bases bind to one another in the presence of UV light.
Viable offspring: Offspring that are healthy enough to survive to adulthood.
Xeroderma pigmentosum: An autosomal recessive disease in which DNA repair mechanisms do not function correctly, resulting in a host of problems especially related to sun exposure, including severe sunburns, dry skin, heavy freckling, and other pigment changes.
For Further Exploration
Explore Evolution on HHMI’s Biointeractive website.
Teaching Evolution through Human Examples, Smithsonian Museum of Natural History websites.
References
Bloomfield, Gareth, David Traynor, Sophia P. Sander, Douwe M. Veltman, Justin A. Pachebat, and Robert R. Kay. 2015. “Neurofibromin Controls Macropinocytosis and Phagocytosis in Dictyostelium.” eLife 4:e04940.
Chaix, Raphaëlle, Chen Cao, and Peter Donnelly. 2008. “Is Mate Choice in Humans MHC-Dependent?” PLoS Genetics 4 (9): e1000184.
Cook, Laurence M. 2003. "The Rise and Fall of the Carbonaria Form of the Peppered Moth." The Quarterly Review of Biology 78 (4): 399–417.
Cota, Bruno Cézar Lage, João Gabriel Marques Fonseca, Luiz Oswaldo Carneiro Rodrigues, Nilton Alves de Rezende, Pollyanna Barros Batista, Vincent Michael Riccardi, and Luciana Macedo de Resende. 2018. “Amusia and Its Electrophysiological Correlates in Neurofibromatosis Type 1.” Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 76 (5): 287–295.
D’Asdia, Maria Cecilia, Isabella Torrente, Federica Consoli, Rosangela Ferese, Monia Magliozzi, Laura Bernardini, Valentina Guida, et al. 2013. “Novel and Recurrent EVC and EVC2 Mutations in Ellis-van Creveld Syndrome and Weyers Acrofacial Dyostosis.” European Journal of Medical Genetics 56 (2): 80–87.
de Beauvoir, S. (2009). The Second Sex (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1949)
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Biological Series. New York: Columbia University Press.
Facon, Benoît, Laurent Crespin, Anne Loiseau, Eric Lombaert, Alexandra Magro, and Arnaud Estoup. 2011. “Can Things Get Worse When an Invasive Species Hybridizes? The Harlequin Ladybird Harmonia axyridis in France as a Case Study.” Evolutionary Applications 4 (1): 71–88.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. The Sciences; 33(2):20–25.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000a). The Five Sexes Revisited. The Sciences; 40(4):18-23
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000b). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.
Fisher, Ronald A. 1919. "The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance." Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52 (2): 399–433.
Ford, E. B. 1942. Genetics for Medical Students. London: Methuen.
Ford, E. B. 1949. Mendelism and Evolution. London: Methuen.
Fuentes, A. (2012). Race, monogamy, and other lies they told you: Busting myths about human nature. University of California Press.
Grant, Bruce S. 1999. “Fine-tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm.” Evolution 53 (3): 980–984.
Haldane, J. B. S. 1924. “A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection (Part 1).” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 23 (2):19–41.
Hoelzel, A. R., Gkafas, G. A., Kang, H., Sarigol, F., Le Boeuf, B., Costa, D. P., Beltran, R. S., Reiter, J., Robinson, P. W., McInerney, N., Seim, I., Sun, S., Fan, G., & Li, S. (2024). Genomics of post-bottleneck recovery in the northern elephant seal. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8, 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02337-4
Hurst, L. D. (1996). Why are there only two sexes? Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B, 263; 415-422.
Imperato-McGinley, J., and Y.-S. Zhu. 2002. “Androgens and Male Physiology: The Syndrome of 5 Alpha-Reductase-2 Deficiency.” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 198 (1-2): 51–59.
Jablonski, David, and W. G. Chaloner. 1994. "Extinctions in the Fossil Record.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 344 (1307): 11–17.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. W.B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. W.B. Saunders.
Livi-Bacci, Massimo. 2006. “The Depopulation of Hispanic America after the Conquest.” Population Development and Review 32 (2): 199–232.
Lombaert, Eric, Thomas Guillemaud, Jean-Marie Cornuet, Thibaut Malausa, Benoît Facon, and Arnaud Estoup. 2010. "Bridgehead Effect in the Worldwide Invasion of the Biocontrol Harlequin Ladybird.” PLoS ONE 5 (3): e9743.
Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male–female roles. Signs, 16(3), 485–501.
Martins, Aline Stangherlin, Ann Kristine Jansen, Luiz Oswaldo Carneiro Rodrigues, Camila Maria Matos, Marcio Leandro Ribeiro Souza, Juliana Ferreira de Souza, Maria de Fátima Haueisen Sander Diniz, et al. 2016. “Lower Fasting Blood Glucose in Neurofibromatosis Type 1.” Endocrine Connections 5 (1): 28–33.
Pickering, Gary, James Lin, Roland Riesen, Andrew Reynolds, Ian Brindle, and George Soleas. 2004. "Influence of Harmonia axyridis on the Sensory Properties of White and Red Wine." American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 55 (2): 153–159.
Repunte-Canonigo Vez, Melissa A. Herman, Tomoya Kawamura, Henry R. Kranzler, Richard Sherva, Joel Gelernter, Lindsay A. Farrer, Marisa Roberto, and Pietro Paolo Sanna. 2015. “NF1 Regulates Alcohol Dependence-Associated Excessive Drinking and Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid Release in the Central Amygdala in Mice and Is Associated with Alcohol Dependence in Humans.” Biological Psychiatry 77 (10): 870–879.
Riccardi, Vincent M. 1992. Neurofibromatosis: Phenotype, Natural History, and Pathogenesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sanford, Malcolm T. 2006. "The Africanized Honey Bee in the Americas: A Biological Revolution with Human Cultural Implications, Part V—Conclusion." American Bee Journal 146 (7): 597–599.
Sanna, Pietro Paolo, Cindy Simpson, Robert Lutjens, and George Koob. 2002. “ERK Regulation in Chronic Ethanol Exposure and Withdrawal.” Brain Research 948 (1–2): 186–191.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
Ugalde, María Fernanda. 2019. “The Rebel Potters: A Review of Gender Relations, Female Oppression, and Patriarchy from the Perspective of Ecuadorian Archaeology.” Translated by Tiziana Laudato. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 36: 1-23. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda36.2019.03
Weber, DianaS., Stewart, B. S., Garza, J. Carlos., & Lehman, N. (2000). An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck. Current Biology, 10(20), 1287–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00759-4
World Health Organization. 1996. “Control of Hereditary Disorders: Report of WHO Scientific meeting (1996).” WHO Technical Reports 865. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. 2017. “Global Priority List of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria to Guide Research, Discovery, and Development of New Antibiotics.” Global Priority Pathogens List, February 27. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/WHO-PPL-Short_Summary_25Feb-ET_NM_WHO.pdf.
Wright, Sewall. 1932. "The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding, and Selection in Evolution." Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Genetics 1 (6): 356–366.
Acknowledgement
Many thanks to Dr. Vincent M. Riccardi for sharing his vast knowledge of neurofibromatosis and for encouraging me to explore it from an anthropological perspective.
Student contributors for this chapter from Salinda Hess' ANTH 203: Corin Laberge, Hazel Moorcroft, Isabella Michel, Julian J. Pantoja Quiroz
Learn more about authors and editors, Hess' student contributions, and versioning history.
Learning Objectives
- Outline a 21st-century perspective of the Modern Synthesis.
- Define populations and population genetics as well as the methods used to study them.
- Identify the forces of evolution and become familiar with examples of each.
- Discuss the evolutionary significance of mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection.
- Explain how allele frequencies can be used to study evolution as it happens.
- Contrast micro- and macroevolution.
It’s hard for us, with our typical human life spans of less than 100 years, to imagine all the way back, 3.8 billion years ago, to the origins of life. Scientists still study and debate how life came into being and whether it originated on Earth or in some other region of the universe (including some scientists who believe that studying evolution can reveal the complex processes that were set in motion by God or a higher power). What we do know is that a living single-celled organism was present on Earth during the early stages of our planet’s existence. This organism had the potential to reproduce by making copies of itself, just like bacteria, many amoebae, and our own living cells today. In fact, with modern technologies, we can now trace genetic lineages, or phylogenies, and determine the relationships between all of today’s living organisms—eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi, etc.), archaea, and bacteria—on the branches of the phylogenetic tree of life (Figure 5.1).

Looking at the common sequences in modern genomes, we can even make educated guesses about the likely genetic sequence of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all living things. Through a wondrous series of mechanisms and events over nearly four billion years, that ancient single-celled organism gave rise to the rich diversity of species that fill the lands, seas, and skies of our planet. This chapter explores the mechanisms by which that amazing transformation occurred and considers some of the crucial scientific experiments that shaped our current understanding of the evolutionary process.
Population Genetics
Defining Populations and the Variations within Them
One of the major breakthroughs in understanding the mechanisms of evolutionary change came with the realization that evolution takes place at the level of populations, not within individuals. In the biological sciences, a population is defined as a group of individuals of the same species who are geographically near enough to one another that they can breed and produce new generations of individuals.
For the purpose of studying evolution, we recognize populations by their even smaller units: genes. Remember, a gene is the basic unit of information that encodes the proteins needed to grow and function as a living organism. Each gene can have multiple alleles, or variants—each of which may produce a slightly different protein. Each individual, for genetic inheritance purposes, carries a collection of genes that can be passed down to future generations. For this reason, in population genetics, we think of populations as gene pools, which refers to the entire collection of genetic material in a breeding community that can be passed on from one generation to the next.
For genes carried on our human chromosomes (our nuclear DNA), we inherit two copies of each, one from each parent. This means we may carry two of the same alleles (a homozygous genotype) or two different alleles (a heterozygous genotype) for each nuclear gene.
Defining Evolution
In order to understand evolution, it’s crucial to remember that evolution is always studied at the population level. Also, if a population were to stay exactly the same from one generation to the next, it would not be evolving. So evolution requires both a population of breeding individuals and some kind of a genetic change occurring within it. Thus, the simple definition of evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over time. What do we mean by allele frequencies? Allele frequencies refer to the ratio, or percentage, of one allele (one variant of a gene) compared to the other alleles for that gene within the study population (Figure 5.2). By contrast, genotype frequencies are the ratios or percentages of the different homozygous and heterozygous genotypes in the population. Because we carry two alleles per genotype, the total count of alleles in a population will usually be exactly double the total count of genotypes in the same population (with the exception being rare cases in which an individual carries a different number of chromosomes than the typical two; e.g., Down syndrome results when a child carries three copies of Chromosome 21).

The Forces of Evolution
Today, we recognize that evolution takes place through a combination of mechanisms: mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. These mechanisms are called the “forces of evolution”; together they account for all the genotypic variation observed in the world today. Keep in mind that each of these forces was first defined and then tested—and retested—through the experimental work of the many scientists who contributed to the Modern Synthesis.
Mutation
The first force of evolution we will discuss is mutation, and for good reason: mutation is the original source of all the genetic variation found in every living thing. Imagine all the way back in time to the very first single-celled organism, floating in Earth’s primordial sea. Based on what we observe in simple, single-celled organisms today, that organism probably spent its lifetime absorbing nutrients and dividing to produce cloned copies of itself. While the numbers of individuals in that population would have grown (as long as the environment was favourable), nothing would have changed in that perfectly cloned population. There would not have been variety among the individuals. It was only through a copying error—the introduction of a mutation, or change, into the genetic code—that new alleles were introduced into the population.
After many generations have passed in our primordial population, mutations have created distinct chromosomes. The cells are now amoeba-like, larger than many of their tiny bacterial neighbours, who have long since become their favourite source of nutrients. Without mutation to create this diversity, all living things would still be identical to LUCA, our universal ancestor (Figure 5.3).

When we think of genetic mutation, we often first think of deleterious mutations—the ones associated with negative effects such as the beginnings of cancers or heritable disorders. The fact is, though, that every genetic adaptation that has helped our ancestors survive since the dawn of life is directly due to beneficial mutations—changes in the DNA that provided some sort of advantage to a given population at a particular moment in time. For example, a beneficial mutation allowed chihuahuas and other tropical-adapted dog breeds to have much thinner fur coats than their cold-adapted cousins the northern wolves, malamutes, and huskies.

Every one of us has genetic mutations. Yes, even you. The DNA in some of your cells today differs from the original DNA that you inherited when you were a tiny, fertilized egg. Mutations occur all the time in the cells of our skin and other organs, due to chemical changes in the nucleotides. Exposure to the UV radiation in sunlight is one common cause of skin mutations. Interaction with UV light causes UV crosslinking, in which adjacent thymine bases bind with one another (Figure 5.4). Many of these mutations are detected and corrected by DNA repair mechanisms, enzymes that patrol and repair DNA in living cells, while other mutations may cause a new freckle or mole or, perhaps, an unusual hair to grow. For people with the autosomal recessive disease xeroderma pigmentosum, these repair mechanisms do not function correctly, resulting in a host of problems especially related to sun exposure, including severe sunburns, dry skin, heavy freckling, and other pigment changes.
Most of our mutations exist in somatic cells, which are the cells of our organs and other body tissues. Those will not be passed onto future generations and so will not affect the population over time. Only mutations that occur in the gametes, the reproductive cells (i.e., the sperm or egg cells), will be passed onto future generations. When a new mutation pops up at random in a family lineage, it is known as a spontaneous mutation. If the individual born with this spontaneous mutation passes it on to his offspring, those offspring receive an inherited mutation. Geneticists have identified many classes of mutations and the causes and effects of many of these.
Point Mutations
A point mutation is a single-letter (single-nucleotide) change in the genetic code resulting in the substitution of one nucleic acid base for a different one. As you learned in Chapter 4, the DNA code in each gene is translated through three-letter “words” known as codons. So depending on how the point mutation changes the “word,” the effect it will have on the protein may be major or minor or may make no difference at all.
If a mutation does not change the resulting protein, then it is called a synonymous mutation. Synonymous mutations do involve a letter (nucleic acid) change, but that change results in a codon that codes for the same “instruction” (the same amino acid or stop code) as the original codon. Mutations that do cause a change in the protein are known as nonsynonymous mutations. Nonsynonymous mutations may change the resulting protein’s amino acid sequence by altering the DNA sequence that encodes the mRNA or by changing how the mRNA is spliced prior to translation (refer to Chapter 4 for more details).
Insertions and Deletions
In addition to point mutations, another class of mutations are insertions and deletions, or indels, for short. As the name suggests, these involve the addition (insertion) or removal (deletion) of one or more coding sequence letters (nucleic acids). These typically first occur as an error in DNA replication, wherein one or more nucleotides are either duplicated or skipped in error. Entire codons or sets of codons may also be removed or added if the indel is a multiple of three nucleotides.
Frameshift mutations are types of indels that involve the insertion or deletion of any number of nucleotides that is not a multiple of three (e.g., adding one or two extra letters to the code). Because these indels are not consistent with the codon numbering, they “shift the reading frame,” causing all the codons beyond the mutation to be misread. Like point mutations, small indels can also disrupt splice sites.
Transposable elements, or transposons, are fragments of DNA that can “jump” around in the genome. There are two types of transposons: retrotransposons are transcribed from DNA into RNA and then “reverse transcribed,” to insert the copied sequence into a new location in the DNA, and DNA transposons, which do not involve RNA. DNA transposons are clipped out of the DNA sequence itself and inserted elsewhere in the genome. Because transposable elements insert themselves into existing DNA sequences, they are frequent gene disruptors. At certain times, and in certain species, it appears that transposons became very active, likely accelerating the mutation rate (and thus, the genetic variation) in those populations during the active periods.
Chromosomal Alterations
The final major category of genetic mutations are changes at the chromosome level: crossover events, nondisjunction events, and translocations. Crossover events occur when DNA is swapped between homologous chromosomes while they are paired up during meiosis I. Crossovers are thought to be so common that some DNA swapping may happen every time chromosomes go through meiosis I. Crossovers don’t necessarily introduce new alleles into a population, but they do make it possible for new combinations of alleles to exist on a single chromosome that can be passed to future generations. This also enables new combinations of alleles to be found within siblings who share the same parents. Also, if the fragments that cross over don’t break at exactly the same point, they can cause genes to be deleted from one of the homologous chromosomes and duplicated on the other.
Nondisjunction events occur when the homologous chromosomes (in meiosis I) or sister chromatids (in meiosis II and mitosis) fail to separate after pairing. The result is that both chromosomes or chromatids end up in the same daughter cell, leaving the other daughter cell without any copy of that chromosome (Figure 5.5). Most nondisjunctions at the gamete level are fatal to the embryo. The most widely known exception is Trisomy 21, or Down syndrome, which results when an embryo inherits three copies of Chromosome 21: two from one parent (due to a nondisjunction event) and one from the other (Figure 5.6). Trisomies (triple chromosome conditions) of Chromosomes 18 (Edwards syndrome) and 13 (Patau syndrome) are also known to result in live births, but the children usually have severe complications and rarely survive beyond the first year of life.


Sex chromosome trisomies (XXX, XXY, XYY) and X chromosome monosomies (inheritance of an X chromosome from one parent and no sex chromosome from the other) are also survivable and fairly common. The symptoms vary but often include atypical sexual characteristics, either at birth or at puberty, and often result in sterility. The X chromosome carries unique genes that are required for survival; therefore, Y chromosome monosomies are incompatible with life.
Chromosomal translocations involve transfers of DNA between nonhomologous chromosomes. This may involve swapping large portions of two or more chromosomes. The exchanges of DNA may be balanced or unbalanced. In balanced translocations, the genes are swapped, but no genetic information is lost. In unbalanced translocations, there is an unequal exchange of genetic material, resulting in duplication or loss of genes. Translocations result in new chromosomal structures called derivative chromosomes, because they are derived or created from two different chromosomes. Translocations are often found to be linked to cancers and can also cause infertility. Even if the translocations are balanced in the parent, the embryo often won’t survive unless the baby inherits both of that parent’s derivative chromosomes (to maintain the balance).
Genetic Drift
The second force of evolution is commonly known as genetic drift. This is an unfortunate misnomer, as this force actually involves the drifting of alleles, not genes. Genetic drift refers to random changes (“drift”) in allele frequencies from one generation to the next. The genes are remaining constant within the population; it is only the alleles of the genes that are changing in frequency. The random nature of genetic drift is a crucial point to understand: it specifically occurs when none of the variant alleles confer an advantage.

Let’s imagine far back in time, again, to that ancient population of amoeba-like cells, subsisting and occasionally dividing, in the primordial sea. A mutation occurs in one of the cells that changes the texture of the cell membrane from a relatively smooth surface to a highly ruffled one (Figure 5.7). This has absolutely no effect on the cell’s quality of life or ability to reproduce. In fact, eyes haven’t evolved yet, so no one in the world at the time would even notice the difference. The cells in the population continue to divide, and the offspring of the ruffled cell inherit the ruffled membrane. The frequency (percentage) of the ruffled allele in the population, from one generation to the next, will depend entirely on how many offspring that first ruffled cell ends up having, and the random events that might make the ruffled alleles more common or more rare (such as population bottlenecks and founder effects, which are discussed below).
Sexual Reproduction and Random Inheritance
Tracking alleles gets a bit more complicated in our primordial cells when, after a number of generations, a series of mutations have created populations that reproduce sexually. These cells now must go through an extra round of cell division (meiosis) to create haploid gametes. The combination of two gametes is now required to produce each new diploid offspring.

In the earlier population, which reproduced via asexual reproduction, a cell either carried the smooth allele or the ruffled allele. With sexual reproduction, a cell inherits one allele from each parent, so there are homozygous cells that contain two smooth alleles, homozygous cells that contain two ruffled alleles, and heterozygous cells that contain one of each allele (Figure 5.8). If the new, ruffled allele happens to be dominant (and we’ll imagine that it is), the heterozygotes will have ruffled cell phenotypes but also will have a 50/50 chance of passing on a smooth allele to each offspring. As long as neither phenotype (ruffled nor smooth) provides any advantage over the other, the variation in the population from one generation to the next will remain completely random.
In sexually reproducing populations (including humans and many other animals and plants in the world today), that 50/50 chance of inheriting one or the other allele from each parent plays a major role in the random nature of genetic drift.
Population Bottlenecks
A population bottleneck occurs when the number of individuals in a population drops dramatically due to some random event. The most obvious, familiar examples are natural disasters. Tsunamis and hurricanes devastating island and coastal populations and forest fires and river floods wiping out populations in other areas are all too familiar. When a large portion of a population is randomly wiped out, the allele frequencies (i.e., the percentages of each allele) in the small population of survivors are often much different from the frequencies in the predisaster, or “parent,” population.
If such an event happened to our primordial ocean cell population—perhaps a volcanic fissure erupted in the ocean floor and only the cells that happened to be farthest from the spewing lava and boiling water survived—we might end up, by random chance, with a surviving population that had mostly ruffled alleles, in contrast to the parent population, which had only a small percentage of ruffles (Figure 5.9).

One of the most famous examples of a population bottleneck is the prehistoric disaster that led to the extinction of dinosaurs, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (often abbreviated K–Pg; previously K-T). This occurred approximately 66 million years ago. Dinosaurs and all their neighbours were going about their ordinary routines when a massive asteroid zoomed in from space and crashed into what is now the Gulf of Mexico, creating an impact so enormous that populations within hundreds of miles of the crash site were likely immediately wiped out. The skies filled with dust and debris, causing temperatures to plummet worldwide. It’s estimated that 75% of the world’s species went extinct as a result of the impact and the deep freeze that followed (Jablonski and Chaloner 1994).

The populations that emerged from the K-Pg extinction were markedly different from their pre-disaster communities. Surviving mammal populations expanded and diversified, and other new creatures appeared. The ecosystems of Earth were filled with new organisms and have never been the same (Figure 5.10).
Much more recently in geological time, during the colonial period, many human populations experienced bottlenecks as a result of the fact that imperial powers were inclined to slaughter communities who were reluctant to give up their lands and resources. This effect was especially profound in the Americas, where Indigenous populations faced the compounded effects of brutal warfare, exposure to new bacteria and viruses (against which they had no immunity), and ultimately segregation on resource-starved reservations. The populations in Europe, Asia, and Africa had experienced regular gene flow during the 10,000-year period in which most kinds of livestock were being domesticated, giving them many generations of experience building up immunity against zoonotic diseases (those that can pass from animals to humans). In contrast, the residents of the Americas had been almost completely isolated during those millennia, so all these diseases swept through the Americas in rapid succession, creating a major loss of genetic diversity in the Indigenous American population. It is estimated that between 50% and 95% of the Indigenous American populations died during the first decades after European contact, around 500 years ago (Livi-Bacci 2006).
An urgent health challenge facing humans today involves human-induced population bottlenecks that produce antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics are medicines prescribed to treat bacterial infections. The typical prescription includes enough medicine for ten days. People often feel better much sooner than ten days and sometimes decide to quit taking the medicine ahead of schedule. This is often a big mistake. The antibiotics have quickly killed off a large percentage of the bacteria—enough to reduce the symptoms and make you feel much better. However, this has created a bacterial population bottleneck. There are usually a small number of bacteria that survive those early days. If you take the medicine as prescribed for the full ten days, it’s quite likely that there will be no bacterial survivors. If you quit early, though, the survivors—who were the members of the original population who were most resistant to the antibiotic—will begin to reproduce again. Soon the infection will be back, possibly worse than before, and now all of the bacteria are resistant to the antibiotic that you had been prescribed.
Other activities that have contributed to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria include the use of antibacterial cleaning products and the inappropriate use of antibiotics as a preventative measure in livestock or to treat infections that are viral instead of bacterial (viruses do not respond to antibiotics). In 2017, the World Health Organization published a list of twelve antibiotic-resistant pathogens that are considered top priority targets for the development of new antibiotics (World Health Organization 2017).
Dig Deeper: The North American Elephant Seal: Thriving Bottleneck Populations That Still Face Genetic Defects
In 1892, the Northern Elephant Seal underwent a severe population bottleneck caused by commercial hunting, reducing the species to an estimated 20 individuals at the time. This drastic decline led to a substantial loss of genetic diversity–a common consequence of extreme population bottlenecks (Hoelzel Et al., 2024 & Weber Et al., 2000). While the population has since recovered to over 200,000 individuals, its genetic variability remains significantly low. Analyses of genetic markers, including allozymes, mitochondrial DNA, and microsatellites, consistently reflect this reduced diversity (Hoelzel Et al., 2024). Comparative studies further underscore this loss by highlighting the higher genetic variation observed in the Southern Elephant Seal, which did not experience similar population constraints (2024).

In a 2024 study for Nature, Ecology, and Evolution, Hoelzel and colleagues sequenced 260 modern and 8 historical genomes of the northern elephant seal. This comparison revealed a decrease in average heterozygosity from 0.00142 before the bottleneck to 0.000176 in the contemporary population, confirming the decline in genetic variation (2024). Hoelzel’s mitogenome tree further illustrates this loss, revealing only two significant lineages remaining post-bottleneck, with limited diversity within each. Among the issues of diversity, the population has shown an increased number of loss-of-function (LOF) alleles, suggesting that increased inbreeding has amplified the frequency of these detrimental alleles; this reduced genetic diversity negatively affects both male and female reproductive fitness. Females who practiced repetitive inbreeding had higher LOF alleles and subsequently weaned fewer pups per year over their lifetime, while male reproductive success was linked to specific LOF loci associated with sperm production (2024). Hoelzel uses the example of “Alpha-Male M12”–known for low paternity success despite frequent copulations–which was homozygous for non-functional versions of four out of five LOF loci related to sperm function (2024, p. 688). The species' mating system, characterized by extreme polygyny, further exacerbates the loss of genetic variation even with countless copulatory partners
Prior research published in Current Biology presents an empirical genetic assessment of this population bottleneck, highlighting its long-term genetic consequences, particularly the loss of mitochondrial diversity (Weber et al., 2000). In this research, Weber and colleagues note that random lineage sampling during the bottleneck led to the persistence of specific genetic variants by chance rather than through natural selection (2000). This research emphasizes that the loss of diversity poses potential future genetic vulnerabilities for the seals, and that further studies are crucial for understanding the full scope of these impacts on the seals' overall fitness (2000). In 2024, the work led by Hoelzen and company provided the missing data that the previous study had left unanswered. Their previously explored findings indicate that, although the seals have recovered in numbers, their genetic resilience remains compromised, leaving the population more vulnerable to future environmental pressures, such as climate change or resource shortages (Hoelzel Et al., 2024). Ultimately, while the population's size remains stable, the genetic consequences of the bottleneck indicate that past stochastic events continue to influence the seals' long-term fitness and adaptability.
This research indicates that the historical bottleneck continues to affect the seals' health and fitness, despite the population's recovery. Limited genetic diversity and the persistence of harmful alleles due to inbreeding have continued to handicap the species' ability to thrive in environmental challenges such as climate change and resource fluctuations (2024). This emphasizes the importance of incorporating genetic factors into conservation strategies, as populations that have rebounded may still harbour long-term genetic weaknesses. Moreover, the elephant seal’s history serves as a powerful example of how human actions —such as overhunting — can have long-lasting impacts on biodiversity, reinforcing the importance of understanding human-environment interactions in ecological and conservation contexts.
Founder Effects
Founder effects occur when members of a population leave the main or “parent” group and form a new population that no longer interbreeds with the other members of the original group. Similar to survivors of a population bottleneck, the newly founded population often has allele frequencies that are different from the original group. Alleles that may have been relatively rare in the parent population can end up being very common due to the founder effect. Likewise, recessive traits that were seldom seen in the parent population may be seen frequently in the descendants of the offshoot population.
One striking example of the founder effect was first noted in the Dominican Republic in the 1970s. During a several-year period, eighteen children who had been born with female genitalia and raised as girls suddenly grew penises at puberty. This culture tended to value sons over daughters, so these transitions were generally celebrated. They labeled the condition guevedoces, which translates to “penis at twelve,” due to the average age at which this occurred. Scientists were fascinated by the phenomenon.
Genetic and hormonal studies revealed that the condition, scientifically termed 5-alpha reductase deficiency, is an autosomal recessive syndrome that manifests when a child having both X and Y sex chromosomes inherits two nonfunctional (mutated) copies of the SRD5A2 gene (Imperato-McGinley & Zhu 2002). These children develop testes internally, but the 5-alpha reductase 2 steroid, which is necessary for development of male genitals in babies, is not produced. In absence of this male hormone, the baby develops female-looking genitalia (in humans, “female” is the default infant body form, if the full set of the necessary male hormones are not produced). At puberty, however, a different set of male hormones are produced by other fully functional genes. These hormones complete the male genital development that did not happen in infancy. This condition became quite common in the Dominican Republic during the 1970s due to founder effect—that is, the mutated SRD5A2 gene happened to be much more common among the Dominican Republic’s founding population than in the parent populations. (The Dominican population derives from a mixture of Indigenous Americans [Taino] peoples, West Africans, and Western Europeans.) Five-alpha reductase syndrome has since been observed in other small, isolated populations around the world.
Founder effect is closely linked to the concept of inbreeding, which in population genetics does not necessarily mean breeding with immediate family relatives. Instead, inbreeding refers to the selection of mates exclusively from within a small, closed population—that is, from a group with limited allelic variability. This can be observed in small, physically isolated populations but also can happen when cultural practices limit mates to a small group. As with the founder effect, inbreeding increases the risk of inheriting two copies of any nonfunctional (mutant) alleles.
The Amish in the United States are a population that, due to their unique history and cultural practices, emerged from a small founding population and have tended to select mates from within their groups. The Old Order Amish population of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has approximately 50,000 current members, all of whom can trace their ancestry back to a group of approximately 80 individuals. This small founding population immigrated to the United States from Switzerland in the mid-1700s to escape religious persecution. Since the Amish keep to themselves and almost exclusively select mates from within their own communities, they have more recessive traits compared to their parent population.

One of the genetic conditions that has been observed much more frequently in the Lancaster County Amish population is Ellis-van Creveld syndrome, which is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by short stature (dwarfism), polydactyly (the development of more than five digits [fingers or toes] on the hands or feet], abnormal tooth development, and heart defects (Figure 5.12). Among the general world population, Ellis-van Creveld syndrome is estimated to affect approximately 1 in 60,000 individuals; among the Old Order Amish of Lancaster County, the rate is estimated to be as high as 1 in every 200 births (D’Asdia Et al. 2013).
One important insight that has come from the study of founder effects is that a limited gene pool carries a much higher risk for genetic diseases. Genetic diversity in a population greatly reduces these risks.
Gene Flow
The third force of evolution is traditionally called gene flow. As with genetic drift, this is a misnomer, because it refers to flowing alleles, not genes. (All members of the same species share the same genes; it is the alleles of those genes that may vary.) Gene flow refers to the movement of alleles from one population to another. In most cases, gene flow can be considered synonymous with migration.
Returning again to the example of our primordial cell population, let’s imagine that, after the volcanic fissure opened up in the ocean floor, wiping out the majority of the parent population, two surviving populations developed in the waters on opposite sides of the fissure. Ultimately, the lava from the fissure cooled into a large island that continued to provide a physical barrier between the populations (Figure 5.13).

In the initial generations after the eruption, due to founder effect, isolation, and random inheritance (genetic drift), the population to the west of the islands contained a vast majority of the ruffled membrane alleles while the eastern population carried only the smooth alleles. Ocean currents in the area typically flowed from east to west, sometimes carrying cells (facilitating gene flow) from the eastern (smooth) population to the western (ruffled) population. Due to the ocean currents, it was almost impossible for any cells from the western population to be carried eastward. Thus, for inheritance purposes, the eastern (smooth) population remained isolated. In this case, the gene flow is unidirectional (going only in one direction) and unbalanced (only one population is receiving the new alleles).
Among humans, gene flow is often described as admixture. In forensic cases, anthropologists and geneticists are often asked to estimate the ancestry of unidentified human remains to help determine whether they match any missing persons’ reports. This is one of the most complicated tasks in these professions because, while “race” or “ancestry” involves simple checkboxes on a missing person’s form, among humans today there are no truly distinct genetic populations. All modern humans are members of the same fully breeding compatible species, and all human communities have experienced multiple episodes of gene flow (admixture), leading all humans today to be so genetically similar that we are all members of the same (and only surviving) human subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens.
Gene flow between otherwise isolated nonhuman populations is often termed hybridization.. One example of this involves the hybridization and spread of Scutellata honey bees (a.k.a. “killer bees”) in the Americas. All honey bees worldwide are classified as Apis mellifera. Due to distinct adaptations to various environments around the world, there are 28 different subspecies of Apis mellifera.
During the 1950s, a Brazilian biologist named Warwick E. Kerr experimented with hybridizing African and European subspecies of honey bees to try to develop a strain that was better suited to tropical environments than the European honey bees that had long been kept by North American beekeepers. Dr. Kerr was careful to contain the reproductive queens and drones from the African subspecies, but in 1957, a visiting beekeeper accidentally released 26 queen bees of the Scutellata subspecies (Apis mellifera scutellata) from southern Africa into the Brazilian countryside. The Scutellata bees quickly interbred with local European honey bee populations. The hybridized bees exhibited a much more aggressively defensive behaviour, fatally or near-fatally attacking many humans and livestock that ventured too close to their hives. The hybridized bees spread throughout South America and reached Mexico and California by 1985. By 1990, permanent colonies had been established in Texas, and by 1997, 90% of trapped bee swarms around Tucson, Arizona, were found to be Scutellata hybrids (Sanford 2006).
Another example involves the introduction of the Harlequin ladybeetle, Harmonia axyridis, native to East Asia, to other parts of the world as a “natural” form of pest control. Harlequin ladybeetles are natural predators of some of the aphids and other crop-pest insects. First introduced to North America in 1916, the “biocontrol” strains of Harlequin ladybeetles were considered to be quite successful in reducing crop pests and saving farmers substantial amounts of money. After many decades of successful use in North America, biocontrol strains of Harlequin ladybeetles were also developed in Europe and South America in the 1980s.
Over the seven decades of biocontrol use, the Harlequin ladybeetle had never shown any potential for development of wild colonies outside of its native habitat in China and Japan. New generations of beetles always had to be reared in the lab. That all changed in 1988, when a wild colony took root near New Orleans, Louisiana. Either through admixture with a native ladybeetle strain, or due to a spontaneous mutation, a new allele was clearly introduced into this population that suddenly enabled them to survive and reproduce in a wide range of environments. This population spread rapidly across the Americas and had reached Africa by 2004.
In Europe, the invasive, North American strain of Harlequin ladybeetle admixed with the European strain (Figure 5.14), causing a population explosion (Lombaert Et al. 2010). Even strains specifically developed to be flightless (to curtail the spreading) produced flighted offspring after admixture with members of the North American population (Facon Et al. 2011). The fast-spreading, invasive strain has quickly become a disaster, out-competing native ladybeetle populations (some to the point of extinction), causing home infestations, decimating fruit crops, and contaminating many batches of wine with their bitter flavour after being inadvertently harvested with the grapes (Pickering Et al. 2004).

Natural Selection
The final force of evolution is natural selection. This is the evolutionary process that Charles Darwin first brought to light, and it is what the general public typically evokes when considering the process of evolution. Natural selection occurs when certain phenotypes confer an advantage or disadvantage in survival and/or reproductive success. The alleles associated with those phenotypes will change in frequency over time due to this selective pressure. It’s also important to note that the advantageous allele may change over time (with environmental changes) and that an allele that had previously been benign may become advantageous or detrimental. Of course, dominant, recessive, and codominant traits will be selected upon a bit differently from one another. Because natural selection acts on phenotypes rather than the alleles themselves, deleterious (disadvantageous) alleles can be retained by heterozygotes without any negative effects.
In the case of our primordial ocean cells, up until now, the texture of their cell membranes has been benign. The frequencies of smooth to ruffled alleles, and smooth to ruffled phenotypes, has changed over time, due to genetic drift and gene flow. Let’s now imagine that the Earth’s climate has cooled to a point that the waters frequently become too cold for survival of the tiny bacteria that are the dietary staples of our smooth and ruffled cell populations. The way amoeba-like cells “eat” is to stretch out the cell membrane, almost like an arm, to encapsulate, then ingest, the tiny bacteria. When the temperatures plummet, the tiny bacteria populations plummet with them. Larger bacteria, however, are better able to withstand the temperature change.
The smooth cells were well-adapted to ingesting tiny bacteria but poorly suited to encapsulating the larger bacteria. The cells with the ruffled membranes, however, are easily able to extend their ruffles to encapsulate the larger bacteria. They also find themselves able to stretch their entire membrane to a much larger size than their smooth-surfaced neighbours, allowing them to ingest more bacteria at a given time and to go for longer periods between feedings (Figure 5.15).

The smooth and ruffled traits, which had previously offered no advantage or disadvantage while food was plentiful, now are subject to natural selection. During the cold snaps, at least, the ruffled cells have a definite advantage. We can imagine that the western population that has mostly ruffled alleles will continue to do well, while the eastern population is at risk of dying out if the smaller bacteria remain scarce and no ruffled alleles are introduced.
A classic example of natural selection involves the study of an insect called the peppered moth (Biston betularia) in England during the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the peppered moth population was predominantly light in colour, with dark (pepper-like) speckles on the wings. The “peppered” colouration was very similar to the appearance of the bark and lichens that grew on the local trees (Figure 5.16). This helped to camouflage the moths as they rested on a tree, making it harder for moth-eating birds to find and snack on them. There was another phenotype that popped up occasionally in the population. These individuals were heterozygotes that carried an overactive, dominant pigment allele, producing a solid black colouration. As you can imagine, the black moths were much easier for birds to spot, making this phenotype a real disadvantage.
The situation changed, however, as the Industrial Revolution took off. Large factories began spewing vast amounts of coal smoke into the air, blanketing the countryside, including the lichens and trees, in black soot. Suddenly, it was the light-coloured moths that were easy for birds to spot and the black moths that held the advantage. The frequency of the dark pigment allele rose dramatically. By 1895, the black moth phenotype accounted for 98% of observed moths (Grant 1999).

Thanks to new environmental regulations in the 1960s, the air pollution in England began to taper off. As the soot levels decreased, returning the trees to their former, lighter colour, this provided the perfect opportunity to study how the peppered moth population would respond. Repeated follow-up studies documented the gradual rise in the frequency of the lighter-coloured phenotype. By 2003, the maximum frequency of the dark phenotype was 50% and in most parts of England had decreased to less than 10% (Cook, 2003).
Directional, Balancing/Stabilizing, and Disruptive/Diversifying Selection
Natural selection can be classified as directional, balancing/stabilizing, or disruptive/diversifying, depending on how the pressure is applied to the population (Figure 5.17).

Both of the above examples of natural selection involve directional selection: the environmental pressures favour one phenotype over the other and cause the frequencies of the associated advantageous alleles (ruffled membranes, dark pigment) to gradually increase. In the case of the peppered moths, the direction shifted three times: first, it was selecting for lighter pigment; then, with the increase in pollution, the pressure switched to selection for darker pigment; finally, with reduction of the pollution, the selection pressure shifted back again to favouring light-coloured moths.
Balancing selection (a.k.a. stabilizing selection) occurs when selection works against the extremes of a trait and favours the intermediate phenotype. For example, humans maintain an average birth weight that balances the need for babies to be small enough not to cause complications during pregnancy and childbirth but big enough to maintain a safe body temperature after they are born. Another example of balancing selection is found in the genetic disorder called sickle cell anemia (see “Special Topic: Sickle Cell Anemia”).
Disruptive selection (a.k.a. diversifying selection), the opposite of balancing selection, occurs when both extremes of a trait are advantageous. Since individuals with traits in the mid-range are selected against, disruptive selection can eventually lead to the population evolving into two separate species. Darwin believed that the many species of finches (small birds) found in the remote Galapagos Islands provided a clear example of disruptive selection leading to speciation. He observed that seed-eating finches either had large beaks, capable of eating very large seeds, or small beaks, capable of retrieving tiny seeds. The islands did not have many plants that produced medium-size seeds. Thus, birds with medium-size beaks would have trouble eating the very large seeds and would also have been inefficient at picking up the tiny seeds. Over time, Darwin surmised, this pressure against mid-size beaks may have led the population to divide into two separate species.
Sexual Selection
Sexual selection is an aspect of natural selection in which the selective pressure specifically affects reproductive success (the ability to successfully breed and raise offspring) rather than survival. Sexual selection favours traits that will attract a mate. Sometimes these sexually appealing traits even carry greater risks in terms of survival.

A classic example of sexual selection involves the brightly coloured feathers of the peacock. The peacock is the male sex of the peafowl genera Pavo and Afropavo. During mating season, peacocks will fan their colourful tails wide and strut in front of the peahens in a grand display. The peahens will carefully observe these displays and will elect to mate with the male that they find the most appealing. Many studies have found that peahens prefer the males with the fullest, most colourful tails. While these large, showy tails provide a reproductive advantage, they can be a real burden in terms of escaping predators. The bright colours and patterns as well as the large size of the peacock tail make it difficult to hide. Once predators spot them, peacocks also struggle to fly away, with the heavy tail trailing behind and weighing them down (Figure 5.18). Some researchers have argued that the increased risk is part of the appeal for the peahens: only an especially strong, alert, and healthy peacock would be able to avoid predators while sporting such a spectacular tail.
<!--
-->
It’s important to keep in mind that sexual selection relies on the trait being present throughout mating years. Reflecting on the NF1 genetic disorder (see “Special Topic: Neurofibromatosis Type 1 [NF1]”), given how disfiguring the symptoms can become, some might find it surprising that half of the babies born with NF1 inherited it from a parent. Given that the disorder is autosomal dominant and fully penetrant (meaning it has no unaffected carriers), it may seem surprising that sexual selection doesn’t exert more pressure against the mutated alleles. One important factor is that, while the neurofibromas typically begin to appear during puberty, they usually emerge only a few at a time and may grow very slowly. Many NF1 patients don’t experience the more severe or disfiguring symptoms until later in life, long after they have started families of their own.
Some researchers prefer to classify sexual selection separately, as a fifth force of evolution. The traits that underpin mate selection are entirely natural, of course. Research has shown that subtle traits, such as the type of pheromones (hormonal odors related to immune system alleles) someone emits and how those are perceived by the immune system genotype of the “sniffer,” may play crucial and subconscious roles in whether we find someone attractive or not (Chaix, Cao, & Donnelly 2008).
Special Topic: Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1)
Neurofibromatosis Type 1, also known as NF1, is a genetic disorder that illustrates how a mutation in a single gene can affect multiple systems in the body. Surprisingly common, more people have NF1 than cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy combined. Even more surprising, given how common it is, is how few people have heard of it. One in every 3,000 babies is born with NF1, and this holds true for all populations worldwide (Riccardi 1992). This means that, for every 3,000 people in your community, there is likely at least one person living with this disorder. NF1 is an autosomal dominant condition, which means that everyone born with a mutation in the gene, whether inherited or spontaneous, has a 50/50 chance of passing it on to each of their own children.
The NF1 disorder results from mutation of the NF1 gene on Chromosome 17. Almost any mutation that affects the sequence of the gene’s protein product, neurofibromin, will cause the disorder. Studies of individuals with NF1 have identified over 3,000 different mutations of all kinds (including point mutations, small and large indels, and translocations). The NF1 gene is one of the largest known genes, containing at least 60 exons (protein-encoding sequences) in a span of about 300,000 nucleotides.
We know that neurofibromin plays an important role in preventing tumor growth because one of the most common symptoms of the NF1 disorder is the growth of benign (noncancerous) tumors, called neurofibromas. Neurofibromas sprout from nerve sheaths—the tissues that encase our nerves—throughout the body, usually beginning around puberty. There is no way to predict where the tumors will occur, or when or how quickly they will grow, although only about 15% turn malignant (cancerous). The two types of neurofibromas that are typically most visible are cutaneous neurofibromas, which are spherical bumps on, or just under, the surface of the skin (Figure 5.19), and plexiform neurofibromas, growths involving whole branches of nerves, often giving the appearance that the surface of the skin is “melting” (Figure 5.20).


Unfortunately, there is currently no cure for NF1. Surgical removal of neurofibromas risks paralysis, due to the high potential for nerve damage, and often results in the tumors growing back even more vigorously. This means that patients are often forced to live with disfiguring and often painful neurofibromas. People who are not familiar with NF1 often mistake neurofibromas for something contagious. This makes it especially hard for people living with NF1 to get jobs working with the public or even to enjoy spending time away from home. Raising public awareness about NF1 and its symptoms can be a great help in improving the quality of life for people living with this condition.

One of the first symptoms of NF1 in a small child is usually the appearance of café-au-lait spots, or CALS, which are flat, brown birthmark-like spots on the skin (Figure 5.21). CALS are often light brown, similar to the colour of coffee with cream, which is the reason for the name, although the shade of the pigment depends on a person’s overall complexion. Some babies are born with CALS, but for others the spots appear within the first few years of life. Having six or more CALS larger than five millimetres (mm) across is a strong indicator that a child may have NF1.
Other common symptoms include the following: gliomas (tumors) of the optic nerve, which can cause vision loss; thinning of bones and failure to heal if they break (often requiring amputation); low muscle tone (poor muscle development, often delaying milestones such as sitting up, crawling, and walking); hearing loss, due to neurofibromas on auditory nerves; and learning disabilities, especially those involving spatial reasoning. Approximately 50% of people with NF1 have some type of speech and/or learning disability and often benefit greatly from early intervention services. Generalized developmental disability, however, is not common with NF1, so most people with NF1 live independently as adults. Many people with NF1 live full and successful lives, as long as their symptoms can be managed.
Based on the wide variety of symptoms, it’s clear that the neurofibromin protein plays important roles in many biochemical pathways. While everyone who has NF1 will exhibit some symptoms during their lifetime, there is a great deal of variation in the types and severity of symptoms, even between individuals from the same family who share the exact same NF1 mutation. It seems crazy that a gene with so many important functions would be so susceptible to mutation. Part of this undoubtedly has to do with its massive size—a gene with 300,000 nucleotides has ten times more nucleotides available for mutation than does a gene of 30,000 bases. This also suggests that the mutability of this gene might provide some benefits, which is a possibility that we will revisit later in this chapter.
Special Topic: Sickle Cell Anemia
Sickle cell anemia is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder that affects millions of people worldwide. It is most common in Africa, countries around the Mediterranean Sea, and eastward as far as India. Populations in the Americas that have high percentages of ancestors from these regions also have high rates of sickle cell anemia. In the United States, it’s estimated that 72,000 people live with the disease, with one in approximately 1,200 Hispanic-American babies and one in every 500 African-American babies inheriting the condition (World Health Organization 1996).

Sickle cell anemia affects the hemoglobin protein in red blood cells. Normal red blood cells are somewhat doughnut-shaped—round with a depression on both sides of the middle. They carry oxygen around the bloodstream to cells throughout the body. Red blood cells produced by the mutated form of the gene take on a stiff, sickle-like crescent shape when stressed by low oxygen or dehydration (Figure 5.22). Because of their elongated shape and the fact that they are stiff rather than flexible, they tend to form clumps in the blood vessels, inhibiting blood flow to adjacent areas of the body. This causes episodes of extreme pain and can cause serious problems in the oxygen-deprived tissues. The sickle cells also break down much more quickly than normal cells, often lasting only 20 days rather than the 120 days of normal cells. This causes an overall shortage of blood cells in the sickle cell patient, resulting in low iron (anemia) and problems associated with it such as extreme fatigue, shortness of breath, and hindrances to children’s growth and development.
The devastating effects of sickle cell anemia made its high frequency a pressing mystery. Why would an allele that is so deleterious in its homozygous form be maintained in a population at levels as high as the one in twelve African Americans estimated to carry at least one copy of the allele? The answer turned out to be one of the most interesting cases of balancing selection in the history of genetic study.
While looking for an explanation, scientists noticed that the countries with high rates of sickle cell disease also shared a high risk for another disease called malaria, which is caused by infection of the blood by a Plasmodium parasite. These parasites are carried by mosquitoes and enter the human bloodstream via a mosquito bite. Once infected, the person will experience flu-like symptoms that, if untreated, can often lead to death. Researchers discovered that many people living in these regions seemed to have a natural resistance to malaria. Further study revealed that people who carry the sickle cell allele are far less likely to experience a severe case of malaria. This would not be enough of a benefit to make the allele advantageous for the sickle cell homozygotes, who face shortened life spans due to sickle cell anemia. The real benefit of the sickle cell allele goes to the heterozygotes.
People who are heterozygous for sickle cell carry one normal allele, which produces the normal, round, red blood cells, and one sickle cell allele, which produces the sickle-shaped red blood cells. Thus, they have both the sickle and round blood cell types in their bloodstream. They produce enough of the round red blood cells to avoid the symptoms of sickle cell anemia, but they have enough sickle cells to provide protection from malaria.
When the Plasmodium parasites infect an individual, they begin to multiply in the liver, but then must infect the red blood cells to complete their reproductive cycle. When the parasites enter sickle-type cells, the cells respond by taking on the sickle shape. This prevents the parasite from circulating through the bloodstream and completing its life cycle, greatly inhibiting the severity of the infection in the sickle cell heterozygotes compared to non–-sickle cell homozygotes. See Chapter 14 for more discussion of sickle cell anemia.
Special Topic: The Real Primordial Cells—Dictyostelium Discoideum
The amoeba-like primordial cells that were used as recurring examples throughout this chapter are inspired by actual research that is truly fascinating. In 2015, Gareth Bloomfield and colleagues reported on their genomic study of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum (a.k.a. “slime molds,” although technically they are amoebae, not molds). Strains of these amoebae have been grown in research laboratories for many decades and are useful in studying the mechanisms that amoeboid single-celled organisms use to ingest food and liquid. For simplification of our examples in this chapter, our amoeba-like cells remained ocean dwellers. Wild Dictyostelium discoideum, however, live in soil and feed on soil bacteria by growing ruffles in their membranes that reach out to encapsulate the bacterial cell. Laboratory strains, however, are typically raised on liquid media (agar) in Petri dishes, which is not suitable for the wild-type amoebae. It was widely known that the laboratory strains must have developed mutations in one or more genes to allow them to ingest the larger nutrient particles in the agar and larger volumes of liquid, but the genes involved were not known.
Bloomfield and colleagues performed genomic testing on both the wild and the laboratory strains of Dictyostelium discoideum. Their discovery was astounding: every one of the laboratory strains carried a mutation in the NF1 gene, the very same gene associated with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) in humans. The antiquity of this massive, easily mutated gene is incredible. It originated in an ancestor common to both humans and these amoebae, and it has been retained in both lineages ever since. As seen in Dictyostelium discoideum, breaking the gene can be advantageous. Without a functioning copy of the neurofibromin protein, the cell membrane is able to form much-larger feeding structures, allowing the NF1 mutants to ingest larger particles and larger volumes of liquid. For these amoebae, this may provide dietary flexibility that functions somewhat like an insurance policy for times when the food supply is limited.
Dictyostelium discoideum are also interesting in that they typically reproduce asexually, but under certain conditions, one cell will convert into a “giant” cell, which encapsulates surrounding cells, transforming into one of three sexes. This cell will undergo meiosis, producing gametes that must combine with one of the other two sexes to produce viable offspring. This ability for sexual reproduction may be what allows Dictyostelium discoideum to benefit from the advantages of NF1 mutation, while also being able to restore the wild type NF1 gene in future generations.
What does this mean for humans living with NF1? Well, understanding the role of the neurofibromin protein in the membranes of simple organisms like Dictyostelium discoideum may help us to better understand how it functions and malfunctions in the sheaths of human neurons. It’s also possible that the mutability of the NF1 gene confers certain advantages to humans as well. Alleles of the NF1 gene have been found to reduce one’s risk for alcoholism (Repunte-Canonigo Vez Et al. 2015), opiate addiction (Sanna Et al. 2002), Type 2 diabetes (Martins Et al. 2016), and hypomusicality (a lower-than-average musical aptitude; Cota Et al. 2018). This research is ongoing and will be exciting to follow in the coming years.
Studying Evolution in Action
The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
This chapter has introduced you to the forces of evolution, the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. How do we detect and study evolution, though, in real time, as it happens? One tool we use is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium: a mathematical formula that allows estimation of the number and distribution of dominant and recessive alleles in a population. This aids in determining whether allele frequencies are changing and, if so, how quickly over time, and in favour of which allele? It’s important to note that the Hardy-Weinberg formula only gives us an estimate based on the data for a snapshot in time. We will have to calculate it again later, after various intervals, to determine if our population is evolving and in what way the allele frequencies are changing.
Calculating the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
In the Hardy-Weinberg formula, p represents the frequency of the dominant allele, and q represents the frequency of the recessive allele. Remember, an allele’s frequency is the proportion, or percentage, of that allele in the population. For the purposes of Hardy-Weinberg, we give the allele percentages as decimal numbers (e.g., 42% = 0.42), with the entire population (100% of alleles) equaling 1. If we can figure out the frequency of one of the alleles in the population, then it is simple to calculate the other. Simply subtract the known frequency from 1 (the entire population): 1 – p = q and 1 – q = p.
The Hardy-Weinberg formula is p2 + 2pq + q2, where:
p2 represents the frequency of the homozygous dominant genotype;
2pq represents the frequency of the heterozygous genotype; and
q2 represents the frequency of the homozygous recessive genotype.
It is often easiest to determine q2 first, simply by counting the number of individuals with the unique, homozygous recessive phenotype (then dividing by the total individuals in the population to arrive at the “frequency”). Once we have this number, we simply need to calculate the square root of the homozygous recessive phenotype frequency. That gives us q. Remember, 1 – q equals p, so now we have the frequencies for both alleles in the population. If we needed to figure out the frequencies of heterozygotes and homozygous dominant genotypes, we’d just need to plug the p and q frequencies back into the p2 and 2pq formulas.

Let’s imagine we have a population of ladybeetles that carries two alleles: a dominant allele that produces red ladybeetles and a recessive allele that produces orange ladybeetles. Since red is dominant, we’ll use R to represent the red allele, and r to represent the orange allele. Our population has ten beetles, and seven are red and three are orange (Figure 5.23). Let’s calculate the number of genotypes and alleles in this population.
Of ten total beetles, we have three orange beetles3/10 = .30 (30%) frequency—and we know they are homozygous recessive (rr). So:
rr = .3; therefore, r = √.3 = .5477
R = 1 – .5477 = .4523
Using the Hardy-Weinberg formula:
1=.45232 + 2 x .4523 x .5477 +.54772 = .20 + .50 + .30 = 1
Thus, the genotype breakdown is 20% RR, 50% Rr, and 30% rr
(2 red homozygotes, 5 red heterozygotes, and 3 orange homozygotes).
Since we have 10 individuals, we know we have 20 total alleles: 4 red from the RR group, 5 red and 5 orange from the Rr group, and 6 orange from the rr group, for a grand total of 9 red and 11 orange (45% red and 55% orange, just like we estimated in the 1 – q step).
Reminder: The Hardy-Weinberg formula only gives us an estimate for a snapshot in time. We will have to calculate it again later, after various intervals, to determine if our population is evolving and in what way the allele frequencies are changing.
Interpreting Evolutionary Change: Nonrandom Mating
Once we have detected change occurring in a population, we need to consider which evolutionary processes might be the cause of the change. It is important to watch for nonrandom mating patterns, to see if they can be included or excluded as possible sources of variation in allele frequencies.
Nonrandom mating (also known as assortative mating) occurs when mate choice within a population follows a nonrandom pattern.
Positive assortative mating patterns result from a tendency for individuals to mate with others who share similar phenotypes. This often happens based on body size. Taking as an example dog breeds, it is easier for two Chihuahuas to mate and have healthy offspring than it is for a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard to do so. This is especially true if the Chihuahua is the female and would have to give birth to giant St. Bernard pups.
Negative assortative mating patterns occur when individuals tend to select mates with qualities different from their own. This is what is at work when humans choose partners whose pheromones indicate that they have different and complementary immune alleles, providing potential offspring with a better chance at a stronger immune system.
Among domestic animals, such as pets and livestock, assortative mating is often directed by humans who decide which pairs will mate to increase the chances of offspring having certain desirable traits. This is known as artificial selection.
Among humans, in addition to phenotypic traits, cultural traits such as religion and ethnicity may also influence assortative mating patterns.
Defining a Species
Species are organisms whose individuals are capable of breeding because they are biologically and behaviourally compatible to produce viable, fertile offspring. Viable offspring are those offspring that are healthy enough to survive to adulthood. Fertile offspring are able to reproduce successfully, resulting in offspring of their own. Both conditions must be met for individuals to be considered part of the same species. As you can imagine, these criteria complicate the identification of distinct species in fossilized remains of extinct populations. In those cases, we must examine how much phenotypic variation is typically found within a comparable modern-day species; we can then determine whether the fossilized remains fall within the expected range of variation for a single species.
Some species have subpopulations that are regionally distinct. These are classified as separate subspecies because they have their own unique phenotypes and are geographically isolated from one another. However, if they do happen to encounter one another, they are still capable of successful interbreeding.
There are many examples of sterile hybrids that are offspring of parents from two different species. For example, horses and donkeys can breed and have offspring together. Depending on which species is the mother and which is the father, the offspring are either called mules, or hennies. Mules and hennies can live full life spans but are not able to have offspring of their own. Likewise, tigers and lions have been known to mate and have viable offspring. Again, depending on which species is the mother and which is the father, these offspring are called either ligers or tigons. Like mules and hennies, ligers and tigons are unable to reproduce. In each of these cases, the mismatched set of chromosomes that the offspring inherit produce an adequate set of functioning genes for the hybrid offspring; however, once mixed and divided in meiosis, the gametes don’t contain the full complement of genes needed for survival in the third generation.
Micro- to Macroevolution
Microevolution refers to changes in allele frequencies within breeding populations—that is, within single species. Macroevolution describes how the similarities and differences between species, as well as the phylogenetic relationships with other taxa, lead to changes that result in the emergence of new species. Consider our example of the peppered moth that illustrated microevolution over time, via directional selection favouring the peppered allele when the trees were clean and the dark pigment allele when the trees were sooty. Imagine that environmental regulations had cleaned up the air pollution in one part of the nation, while the coal-fired factories continued to spew soot in another area. If this went on long enough, it’s possible that two distinct moth populations would eventually emerge—one containing only the peppered allele and the other only harbouring the dark pigment allele.
When a single population divides into two or more separate species, it is called speciation. The changes that prevent successful breeding between individuals who descended from the same ancestral population may involve chromosomal rearrangements, changes in the ability of the sperm from one species to permeate the egg membrane of the other species, or dramatic changes in hormonal schedules or mating behaviours that prevent members from the new species from being able to effectively pair up.
There are two types of speciation: allopatric and sympatric. Allopatric speciation is caused by long-term isolation (physical separation) of subgroups of the population (Figure 5.24). Something occurs in the environment—perhaps a river changes its course and splits the group, preventing them from breeding with members on the opposite riverbank. Over many generations, new mutations and adaptations to the different environments on each side of the river may drive the two subpopulations to change so much that they can no longer produce fertile, viable offspring, even if the barrier is someday removed.

Sympatric speciation occurs when the population splits into two or more separate species while remaining located together without a physical barrier. This typically results from a new mutation that pops up among some members of the population that prevents them from successfully reproducing with anyone who does not carry the same mutation. This is seen particularly often in plants, as they have a higher frequency of chromosomal duplications.
One of the quickest rates of speciation is observed in the case of adaptive radiation. Adaptive radiation refers to the situation in which subgroups of a single species rapidly diversify and adapt to fill a variety of ecological niches. An ecological niche is a set of constraints and resources that is available in an environmental setting. Evidence for adaptive radiations is often seen after population bottlenecks. A mass disaster kills off many species, and the survivors have access to a new set of territories and resources that were either unavailable or much coveted and fought over before the disaster. The offspring of the surviving population will often split into multiple species, each of which stems from members in that first group of survivors who happened to carry alleles that were advantageous for a particular niche.
The classic example of adaptive radiation brings us back to Charles Darwin and his observations of the many species of finches on the Galapagos Islands. We are still not sure how the ancestral population of finches first arrived on that remote Pacific Island chain, but they found themselves in an environment filled with various insects, large and tiny seeds, fruit, and delicious varieties of cactus. Some members of that initial population carried alleles that gave them advantages for each of these dietary niches. In subsequent generations, others developed new mutations, some of which were beneficial. These traits were selected for, making the advantageous alleles more common among their offspring. As the finches spread from one island to the next, they would be far more likely to find mates among the birds on their new island. Birds feeding in the same area were then more likely to mate together than birds who have different diets, contributing to additional assortative mating. Together, these evolutionary mechanisms caused rapid speciation that allowed the new species to make the most of the various dietary niches (Figure 5.25).

In today’s modern world, understanding these evolutionary processes is crucial for developing immunizations and antibiotics that can keep up with the rapid mutation rate of viruses and bacteria. This is also relevant to our food supply, which relies, in large part, on the development of herbicides and pesticides that keep up with the mutation rates of pests and weeds. Viruses, bacteria, agricultural pests, and weeds have all shown great flexibility in developing alleles that make them resistant to the latest medical treatment, pesticide, or herbicide. Billion-dollar industries have specialized in trying to keep our species one step ahead of the next mutation in the pests and infectious diseases that put our survival at risk.
Cultural Connections and Contemporary Implications
Sex within Culture and Biology
Research on bonobos (Pan paniscus) reveals a primate species whose social system relies heavily on affiliative and erotic behaviours rather than aggression. Bonobos live in fission–fusion communities in Central African forests, where males remain in their natal groups and females migrate at adolescence. While sexual engagement is a large part of their social ecosystem, we see reproductive rates remain low, with females giving birth roughly every four to five years.
Social cohesion among bonobos is strongly shaped by sexuality. Individuals engage frequently in diverse erotic behaviours; genital rubbing, oral contact, face-to-face copulation, and various forms of genital-to-genital stimulation are performed, but are not directly tied to reproduction. Through these modes of erotic sociality, tension is reduced, conflict is resolved, and food sharing is facilitated; all of which appear to function as peacemaking mechanisms integral to group stability. In this context, sexual pleasure is decoupled from reproduction, a parallel also found in human societies. Humans, like most primates, do not biologically mate for life; monogamy is a social contract, not a biological reality (Fuentes, 2012). Long-term exclusive mating is rare among primate species, and even in socially monogamous human groups, extra-pair copulations contribute substantially to reproductive outcomes.
Human sexual development operates across genetic, hormonal, anatomical, and cultural levels. Biological traits such as chromosomal patterns or endocrine shifts interact with the social categories of gender, including transgender and transsexual identities (Fausto-Sterling, 1993, 2000a,b). Cultural expectations shape how sexual bodies are interpreted, often projecting ideological assumptions onto biological processes. This dynamic is exemplified in Emily Martin’s (1991) critique of gendered metaphors in reproductive medical science, where egg and sperm are frequently described using stereotypically feminine or masculine language. Sexuality in humans is also neurologically mediated; as theorized by Freud, who suggested that humans possess undirected libidinal drives which society channels and constrains. With sex maintaining such sociocultural importance to humans, the anthropology of sex helps emphasize sexual practices, identities, and desires which emerge from the interplay of individual experience, interpersonal relationships, and broader cultural, political, and economic structures.
Archaeologies of Sexuality and the Future of Sex
Early archaeology commonly dismissed or obscured non-normative sexual imagery, classifying it under ‘pornography’ or ‘Whore-Writing’, a term introduced by the archaeologist Müller in 1850 to describe and demonize sexually explicit artifacts from Pompeii. Such categorizations reflected Victorian moral regimes rather than empirical assessment. Recent work highlights greater sexual and gender diversity in ancient material culture. Thousands of Ecuadorian clay figurines from 4400 BCE–1500 CE display non-binary and mixed-gender features, all of which were long-ignored or rationalized by earlier researchers (Ugalde, 2019). Later figurines exhibit more explicitly gendered poses, suggesting the gradual rise of patriarchal social structures. Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949) further explores this, arguing that women have historically been constructed as “the Other,” a philosophical and social position that has shaped interpretations of sex, gender, and embodiment across cultures.
Contemporary technological shifts prompt reconsideration of intimacy, embodiment, and sexual relationships. Robotics, avatars, and artificial companions raise questions about authenticity, relationality, and human–machine attachment. Sherry Turkle (2011) argues that as people become increasingly anxious about interpersonal vulnerability, they may turn to machines for controlled forms of companionship and emotional safety. These developments illuminate broader transformations in how societies conceptualize relationships, desire, and human connection. They also challenge us to reconsider what counts as intimacy, what makes a relationship meaningful, and what ethical considerations arise when technologies substitute or reshape human sexual and emotional experience.
Discussion questions
- With the rise of artificial companions, how might concepts such as intimacy, love, relationships, and sexuality be reconfigured? What might these changes reveal about how we understand human connection?
- How does studying sex and sexuality in other primates, such as bonobos, help us understand human sexuality and social behaviour? What are the limitations of using primates to understand humans?
- How might gendered metaphors and stereotypes influence the way scientific knowledge is produced and interpreted? Can you think of other examples where cultural assumptions have shaped scientific explanations?
Review Questions
- Summarize the Modern Synthesis and provide several examples of how it is relevant to questions and problems in our world today.
- You inherit a house from a long-lost relative that contains a fancy aquarium, filled with a variety of snails. The phenotypes include large snails and small snails; red, black, and yellow snails; and solid, striped, and spotted snails. Devise a series of experiments that would help you determine how many snail species are present in your aquarium.
- Match the correct force of evolution with the correct real-world example:
a. Mutationi. 5-alpha reductase deficiency
b. Genetic Driftii. Peppered Moths
c. Gene Flowiii. Neurofibromatosis Type 1
d. Natural Selectioniv. Scutellata Honey Bees - Imagine a population of common house mice (Mus musculus). Draw a comic strip illustrating how mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection might transform this population over several (or more) generations.
-
The many breeds of the single species of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) provide an extreme example of microevolution. Discuss why this is the case. What future scenarios can you imagine that could potentially transform the domestic dog into an example of macroevolution?
-
The ability to roll one’s tongue (lift the outer edges of the tongue to touch each other, forming a tube) is a dominant trait. In a small town of 1,500 people, 500 can roll their tongues. Use the Hardy-Weinberg formula to determine how many individuals in the town are homozygous dominant, heterozygous, and homozygous recessive.
Key Terms
5-alpha reductase deficiency: An autosomal recessive syndrome that manifests when a child having both X and Y sex chromosomes inherits two nonfunctional (mutated) copies of the SRD5A2 gene, producing a deficiency in a hormone necessary for development in infancy of typical male genitalia. These children often appear at birth to have female genitalia, but they develop a penis and other sexual characteristics when other hormones kick in during puberty.
Adaptive radiation: The situation in which subgroups of a single species rapidly diversify and adapt to fill a variety of ecological niches.
Admixture: A term often used to describe gene flow between human populations. Sometimes also used to describe gene flow between nonhuman populations.
Allele frequency: The ratio, or percentage, of one allele compared to the other alleles for that gene within the study population.
Alleles: Variant forms of genes.
Allopatric speciation: Speciation caused by long-term isolation (physical separation) of subgroups of the population.
Antibiotics: Medicines prescribed to treat bacterial infections.
Artificial selection: Human-directed assortative mating among domestic animals, such as pets and livestock, designed to increase the chances of offspring having certain desirable traits.
Asexual reproduction: Reproduction via mitosis, whereby offspring are clones of the parents.
Autosomal dominant: A phenotype produced by a gene on an autosomal chromosome that is expressed, to the exclusion of the recessive phenotype, in heterozygotes.
Autosomal recessive: A phenotype produced by a gene on an autosomal chromosome that is expressed only in individuals homozygous for the recessive allele.
Balanced translocations: Chromosomal translocations in which the genes are swapped but no genetic information is lost.
Balancing selection: A pattern of natural selection that occurs when the extremes of a trait are selected against, favouring the intermediate phenotype (a.k.a. stabilizing selection).
Beneficial mutations: Mutations that produce some sort of an advantage to the individual.
Benign: Noncancerous. Benign tumors may cause problems due to the area in which they are located (e.g., they might put pressure on a nerve or brain area), but they will not release cells that aggressively spread to other areas of the body.
Café-au-lait spots (CALS): Flat, brown birthmark-like spots on the skin, commonly associated with Neurofibromatosis Type 1.
Chromosomal translocations: The transfer of DNA between nonhomologous chromosomes.
Chromosomes: Molecules that carry collections of genes.
Codons: Three-nucleotide units of DNA that function as three-letter “words,” encoding instructions for the addition of one amino acid to a protein or indicating that the protein is complete.
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction: A mass disaster caused by an asteroid that struck the earth approximately 66 million years ago and killed 75% of life on Earth, including all terrestrial dinosaurs. (a.k.a. K-Pg Extinction, Cretatious-Tertiary Extinction, and K-T Extinction).
Crossover events: Chromosomal alterations that occur when DNA is swapped between homologous chromosomes while they are paired up during meiosis I.
Cutaneous neurofibromas: Neurofibromas that manifest as spherical bumps on or just under the surface of the skin.
Deleterious mutation: A mutation producing negative effects to the individual such as the beginnings of cancers or heritable disorders.
Deletions: Mutations that involve the removal of one or more nucleotides from a DNA sequence.
Derivative chromosomes: New chromosomal structures resulting from translocations.
Dictyostelium discoideum: A species of social amoebae that has been widely used for laboratory research. Laboratory strains of Dictyostelium discoideum all carry mutations in the NF1 gene, which is what allows them to survive on liquid media (agar) in Petri dishes.
Directional selection: A pattern of natural selection in which one phenotype is favoured over the other, causing the frequencies of the associated advantageous alleles to gradually increase.
Disruptive selection: A pattern of natural selection that occurs when both extremes of a trait are advantageous and intermediate phenotypes are selected against (a.k.a. diversifying selection).
DNA repair mechanisms: Enzymes that patrol and repair DNA in living cells.
DNA transposons: Transposons that are clipped out of the DNA sequence itself and inserted elsewhere in the genome.
Ecological niche: A set of constraints and resources that are available in an environmental setting.
Ellis-van Creveld syndrome: An autosomal recessive disorder characterized by short stature (dwarfism), polydactyly (the development of more than five digits [fingers or toes] on the hands or feet), abnormal tooth development, and heart defects. Estimated to affect approximately one in 60,000 individuals worldwide, among the Old Order Amish of Lancaster County, the rate is estimated to be as high as one in every 200 births.
Evolution: A change in the allele frequencies in a population over time.
Exons: The DNA sequences within a gene that directly encode protein sequences. After being transcribed into messenger RNA, the introns (DNA sequences within a gene that do not directly encode protein sequences) are clipped out, and the exons are pasted together prior to translation.
Fertile offspring: Offspring that can successfully reproduce, resulting in offspring of their own.
Founder effect: A type of genetic drift that occurs when members of a population leave the main or “parent” group and form a new population that no longer interbreeds with the other members of the original group.
Frameshift mutations: Types of indels that involve the insertion or deletion of any number of nucleotides that is not a multiple of three. These “shift the reading frame” and cause all codons beyond the mutation to be misread.
Gametes: The reproductive cells, produced through meiosis (a.k.a. germ cells or sperm or egg cells).
Gene: A sequence of DNA that provides coding information for the construction of proteins.
Gene flow: The movement of alleles from one population to another. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Gene pool: The entire collection of genetic material in a breeding community that can be passed on from one generation to the next.
Genetic drift: Random changes in allele frequencies within a population from one generation to the next. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Genotype: The set of alleles that an individual has for a given gene.
Genotype frequencies: The ratios or percentages of the different homozygous and heterozygous genotypes in the population.
Guevedoces: The term coined locally in the Dominican Republic for the condition scientifically known as 5-alpha reductase deficiency. The literal translation is “penis at twelve.”
Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium: A mathematical formula (1=p2 + 2pq + q2 ) that allows estimation of the number and distribution of dominant and recessive alleles in a population.
Harlequin ladybeetle: A species of ladybeetle, native to East Asia, that was introduced to Europe and the Americas as a form of pest control. After many decades of use, one of the North American strains developed the ability to reproduce in diverse environments, causing it to spread rapidly throughout the Americas, Europe, and Africa. It has hybridized with European strains and is now a major pest in its own right.
Heterozygous genotype: A genotype comprising two different alleles.
Homozygous genotype: A genotype comprising an identical set of alleles.
Hybridization: A term often used to describe gene flow between nonhuman populations.
Inbreeding: The selection of mates exclusively from within a small, closed population.
Indels: A class of mutations that includes both insertions and deletions.
Inherited mutation: A mutation that has been passed from parent to offspring.
Insertions: Mutations that involve the addition of one or more nucleotides into a DNA sequence.
Isolation: Prevention of a population subgroup from breeding with other members of the same species due to a physical barrier or, in humans, a cultural rule.
Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA): The ancient organism from which all living things on Earth are descended.
Macroevolution: Changes that result in the emergence of new species, how the similarities and differences between species, as well as the phylogenetic relationships with other taxa, lead to changes that result in the emergence of new species.
Malaria: A frequently deadly mosquito-borne disease caused by infection of the blood by a Plasmodium parasite.
Malignant: Cancerous. Malignant tumors grow aggressively and their cells may metastasize (travel through the blood or lymph systems) to form new, aggressive tumors in other areas of the body.
Microevolution: Changes in allele frequencies within breeding populations—that is, within a single species.
Modern Synthesis: The integration of Darwin’s, Mendel’s, and subsequent research into a unified theory of evolution.
Monosomies: Conditions resulting from a nondisjunction event, in which a cell ends up with only one copy of a chromosome. In humans, a single X chromosome is the only survivable monosomy.
Mutation: A change in the nucleotide sequence of the genetic code. This is one of the forces of evolution.
Natural selection: An evolutionary process that occurs when certain phenotypes confer an advantage or disadvantage in survival and/or reproductive success. This is one of the forces of evolution, and it was first identified by Charles Darwin.
Negative assortative mating: A pattern that occurs when individuals tend to select mates with qualities different from their own.
Neurofibromas: Nerve sheath tumors that are common symptoms of Neurofibromatosis Type 1.
Neurofibromatosis Type 1: An autosomal dominant genetic disorder affecting one in every 3,000 people. It is caused by mutation of the NF1 gene on Chromosome 17, resulting in a defective neurofibromin protein. The disorder is characterized by neurofibromas, café-au-lait spots, and a host of other potential symptoms.
NF1: An abbreviation for Neurofibromatosis Type 1. When italicized, NF1 refers to the gene on Chromosome 17 that encodes the neurofibromin protein.
Nondisjunction events: Chromosomal abnormalities that occur when the homologous chromosomes (in meiosis I) or sister chromatids (in meiosis II and mitosis) fail to separate after pairing. The result is that both chromosomes or chromatids end up in the same daughter cell, leaving the other daughter cell without any copy of that chromosome.
Nonrandom mating: A scenario in which mate choice within a population follows a nonrandom pattern (a.k.a. assortative mating).
Nonsynonymous mutation: A point mutation that causes a change in the resulting protein.
Old Order Amish: A culturally isolated population in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, that has approximately 50,000 current members, all of whom can trace their ancestry back to a group of approximately eighty individuals. This group has high rates of certain genetics disorders, including Ellis-van Creveld syndrome.
Origins of life: How the first living organism came into being.
Peacock: The male sex of the peafowl, famous for its large, colourful tail, which it dramatically displays to attract mates. (The female of the species is known as a peahen.)
Peppered moth: A species of moth (Biston betularia) found in England that has light and dark phenotypes. During the Industrial Revolution, when soot blackened the trees, the frequency of the previously rare dark phenotype dramatically increased, as lighter-coloured moths were easier for birds to spot against the sooty trees. After environmental regulations eliminated the soot, the lighter-coloured phenotype gradually became most common again.
Phenotype: The observable traits that are produced by a genotype.
Phylogenetic tree of life: A family tree of all living organisms, based on genetic relationships.
Phylogenies: Genetically determined family lineages.
Plasmodium: A genus of mosquito-borne parasite. Several Plasmodium species cause malaria when introduced to the human bloodstream via a mosquito bite.
Plexiform neurofibromas: Neurofibromas that involve whole branches of nerves, often giving the appearance that the surface of the skin is “melting.”
Point mutation: A single-letter (single-nucleotide) change in the genetic code, resulting in the substitution of one nucleic acid base for a different one.
Polymorphisms: Multiple forms of a trait; alternative phenotypes within a given species.
Population: A group of individuals who are genetically similar enough and geographically near enough to one another that they can breed and produce new generations of individuals.
Population bottleneck: A type of genetic drift that occurs when the number of individuals in a population drops dramatically due to some random event.
Positive assortative mating: A pattern that results from a tendency for individuals to mate with others who share similar phenotypes.
Retrotransposons: Transposons that are transcribed from DNA into RNA, and then are “reverse transcribed,” to insert the copied sequence into a new location in the DNA.
Scutellata honey bees: A strain of honey bees that resulted from the hybridization of African and European honey bee subspecies. These bees were accidentally released into the wild in 1957 in Brazil and have since spread throughout South and Central America and into the United States. Also known as “killer bees,” they tend to be very aggressive in defence of their hives and have caused many fatal injuries to humans and livestock.
Sexual reproduction: Reproduction via meiosis and combination of gametes. Offspring inherit genetic material from both parents.
Sexual selection: An aspect of natural selection in which the selective pressure specifically affects reproductive success (the ability to successfully breed and raise offspring).
Sickle cell anemia: An autosomal recessive genetic disorder that affects millions of people worldwide. It is most common in Africa, countries around the Mediterranean Sea, and eastward as far as India. Homozygotes for the recessive allele develop the disorder, which produce misshapen red blood cells that cause iron deficiency, painful episodes of oxygen-deprivation in localized tissues, and a host of other symptoms. In heterozygotes, though, the sickle cell allele confers a greater resistance to malaria.
Somatic cells: The cells of our organs and other body tissues (all cells except gametes) that replicate by mitosis.
Speciation: The process by which a single population divides into two or more separate species.
Species: Organisms whose individuals are capable of breeding because they are biologically and behaviourally compatible to produce viable, fertile offspring.
Spontaneous mutation: A mutation that occurs due to random chance or unintentional exposure to mutagens. In families, a spontaneous mutation is the first case, as opposed to mutations that are inherited from parents.
Subspecies: A distinct subtype of a species. Most often, this is a geographically isolated population with unique phenotypes; however, it remains biologically and behaviourally capable of interbreeding with other populations of the same species.
Sympatric speciation: When a population splits into two or more separate species while remaining located together without a physical (or cultural) barrier.
Synonymous mutation: A point mutation that does not change the resulting protein.
Transposable elements: Fragments of DNA that can “jump” around in the genome.
Transposon: Another term for “transposable element.”
Trisomies: Conditions in which three copies of the same chromosome end up in a cell, resulting from a nondisjunction event. Down syndrome, Edwards syndrome, and Patau syndrome are trisomies.
Unbalanced translocations: Chromosomal translocations in which there is an unequal exchange of genetic material, resulting in duplication or loss of genes.
UV crosslinking: A type of mutation in which adjacent thymine bases bind to one another in the presence of UV light.
Viable offspring: Offspring that are healthy enough to survive to adulthood.
Xeroderma pigmentosum: An autosomal recessive disease in which DNA repair mechanisms do not function correctly, resulting in a host of problems especially related to sun exposure, including severe sunburns, dry skin, heavy freckling, and other pigment changes.
For Further Exploration
Explore Evolution on HHMI’s Biointeractive website.
Teaching Evolution through Human Examples, Smithsonian Museum of Natural History websites.
References
Bloomfield, Gareth, David Traynor, Sophia P. Sander, Douwe M. Veltman, Justin A. Pachebat, and Robert R. Kay. 2015. “Neurofibromin Controls Macropinocytosis and Phagocytosis in Dictyostelium.” eLife 4:e04940.
Chaix, Raphaëlle, Chen Cao, and Peter Donnelly. 2008. “Is Mate Choice in Humans MHC-Dependent?” PLoS Genetics 4 (9): e1000184.
Cook, Laurence M. 2003. "The Rise and Fall of the Carbonaria Form of the Peppered Moth." The Quarterly Review of Biology 78 (4): 399–417.
Cota, Bruno Cézar Lage, João Gabriel Marques Fonseca, Luiz Oswaldo Carneiro Rodrigues, Nilton Alves de Rezende, Pollyanna Barros Batista, Vincent Michael Riccardi, and Luciana Macedo de Resende. 2018. “Amusia and Its Electrophysiological Correlates in Neurofibromatosis Type 1.” Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 76 (5): 287–295.
D’Asdia, Maria Cecilia, Isabella Torrente, Federica Consoli, Rosangela Ferese, Monia Magliozzi, Laura Bernardini, Valentina Guida, et al. 2013. “Novel and Recurrent EVC and EVC2 Mutations in Ellis-van Creveld Syndrome and Weyers Acrofacial Dyostosis.” European Journal of Medical Genetics 56 (2): 80–87.
de Beauvoir, S. (2009). The Second Sex (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1949)
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Biological Series. New York: Columbia University Press.
Facon, Benoît, Laurent Crespin, Anne Loiseau, Eric Lombaert, Alexandra Magro, and Arnaud Estoup. 2011. “Can Things Get Worse When an Invasive Species Hybridizes? The Harlequin Ladybird Harmonia axyridis in France as a Case Study.” Evolutionary Applications 4 (1): 71–88.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. The Sciences; 33(2):20–25.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000a). The Five Sexes Revisited. The Sciences; 40(4):18-23
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000b). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.
Fisher, Ronald A. 1919. "The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance." Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52 (2): 399–433.
Ford, E. B. 1942. Genetics for Medical Students. London: Methuen.
Ford, E. B. 1949. Mendelism and Evolution. London: Methuen.
Fuentes, A. (2012). Race, monogamy, and other lies they told you: Busting myths about human nature. University of California Press.
Grant, Bruce S. 1999. “Fine-tuning the Peppered Moth Paradigm.” Evolution 53 (3): 980–984.
Haldane, J. B. S. 1924. “A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection (Part 1).” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 23 (2):19–41.
Hoelzel, A. R., Gkafas, G. A., Kang, H., Sarigol, F., Le Boeuf, B., Costa, D. P., Beltran, R. S., Reiter, J., Robinson, P. W., McInerney, N., Seim, I., Sun, S., Fan, G., & Li, S. (2024). Genomics of post-bottleneck recovery in the northern elephant seal. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8, 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02337-4
Hurst, L. D. (1996). Why are there only two sexes? Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B, 263; 415-422.
Imperato-McGinley, J., and Y.-S. Zhu. 2002. “Androgens and Male Physiology: The Syndrome of 5 Alpha-Reductase-2 Deficiency.” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 198 (1-2): 51–59.
Jablonski, David, and W. G. Chaloner. 1994. "Extinctions in the Fossil Record.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 344 (1307): 11–17.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. W.B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. W.B. Saunders.
Livi-Bacci, Massimo. 2006. “The Depopulation of Hispanic America after the Conquest.” Population Development and Review 32 (2): 199–232.
Lombaert, Eric, Thomas Guillemaud, Jean-Marie Cornuet, Thibaut Malausa, Benoît Facon, and Arnaud Estoup. 2010. "Bridgehead Effect in the Worldwide Invasion of the Biocontrol Harlequin Ladybird.” PLoS ONE 5 (3): e9743.
Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male–female roles. Signs, 16(3), 485–501.
Martins, Aline Stangherlin, Ann Kristine Jansen, Luiz Oswaldo Carneiro Rodrigues, Camila Maria Matos, Marcio Leandro Ribeiro Souza, Juliana Ferreira de Souza, Maria de Fátima Haueisen Sander Diniz, et al. 2016. “Lower Fasting Blood Glucose in Neurofibromatosis Type 1.” Endocrine Connections 5 (1): 28–33.
Pickering, Gary, James Lin, Roland Riesen, Andrew Reynolds, Ian Brindle, and George Soleas. 2004. "Influence of Harmonia axyridis on the Sensory Properties of White and Red Wine." American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 55 (2): 153–159.
Repunte-Canonigo Vez, Melissa A. Herman, Tomoya Kawamura, Henry R. Kranzler, Richard Sherva, Joel Gelernter, Lindsay A. Farrer, Marisa Roberto, and Pietro Paolo Sanna. 2015. “NF1 Regulates Alcohol Dependence-Associated Excessive Drinking and Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid Release in the Central Amygdala in Mice and Is Associated with Alcohol Dependence in Humans.” Biological Psychiatry 77 (10): 870–879.
Riccardi, Vincent M. 1992. Neurofibromatosis: Phenotype, Natural History, and Pathogenesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sanford, Malcolm T. 2006. "The Africanized Honey Bee in the Americas: A Biological Revolution with Human Cultural Implications, Part V—Conclusion." American Bee Journal 146 (7): 597–599.
Sanna, Pietro Paolo, Cindy Simpson, Robert Lutjens, and George Koob. 2002. “ERK Regulation in Chronic Ethanol Exposure and Withdrawal.” Brain Research 948 (1–2): 186–191.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
Ugalde, María Fernanda. 2019. “The Rebel Potters: A Review of Gender Relations, Female Oppression, and Patriarchy from the Perspective of Ecuadorian Archaeology.” Translated by Tiziana Laudato. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 36: 1-23. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda36.2019.03
Weber, DianaS., Stewart, B. S., Garza, J. Carlos., & Lehman, N. (2000). An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck. Current Biology, 10(20), 1287–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00759-4
World Health Organization. 1996. “Control of Hereditary Disorders: Report of WHO Scientific meeting (1996).” WHO Technical Reports 865. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. 2017. “Global Priority List of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria to Guide Research, Discovery, and Development of New Antibiotics.” Global Priority Pathogens List, February 27. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/WHO-PPL-Short_Summary_25Feb-ET_NM_WHO.pdf.
Wright, Sewall. 1932. "The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding, and Selection in Evolution." Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Genetics 1 (6): 356–366.
Acknowledgement
Many thanks to Dr. Vincent M. Riccardi for sharing his vast knowledge of neurofibromatosis and for encouraging me to explore it from an anthropological perspective.





















Suborder Strepsirrhini















Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
Superfamily Hominoidea





























































































