Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 173–188 | Cite as

Teaching About Adaptation: Why Evolutionary History Matters

  • Kostas Kampourakis


Adaptation is one of the central concepts in evolutionary theory, which nonetheless has been given different definitions. Some scholars support a historical definition of adaptation, considering it as a trait that is the outcome of natural selection, whereas others support an ahistorical definition, considering it as a trait that contributes to the survival and reproduction of its possessors. Finally, adaptation has been defined as a process, as well. Consequently, two questions arise: the first is a philosophical one and focuses on what adaptation actually is; the second is a pedagogical one and focuses on what science teachers and educators should teach about it. In this article, the various definitions of adaptation are discussed and their uses in some textbooks are presented. It is suggested that, given elementary students’ intuitions about purpose and design in nature and secondary students’ teleological explanations for the origin of adaptations, any definition of adaptation as a trait should include some information about its evolutionary history.


Natural Selection White Color Historical Process Adaptive Characteristic Teleological Explanation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I thank Patrick Forber and five diligent reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this article.


  1. Amudson, R. (1996). Historical development of the concept of adaptation. In M. R. Rose & G. V. Lauder (Eds.), Adaptation (pp. 11–53). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ariew, A., & Lewontin, R. C. (2004). The confusions of fitness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., & Byers, B. E. (2002). Biology: Life on earth (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Avise, J. C. (2010). Inside the human genome: A case for non-intelligent design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beatty, J. (2006). Replaying life’s tape. Journal of Philosophy, CIII(7), 336–362.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, P., & Weisberg, D. S. (2007). Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science, 316, 996–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bock, W. J. (1980). The definition and recognition of biological adaptation. American Zoologist, 20(1), 217–227.Google Scholar
  8. Bowler, P. J. (2003). Evolution: The history of an idea (3rd ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and environment. Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burian, R. M. (1992). Adaptation: Historical perspectives. In E. F. Keller & E. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 7–12). Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, N. A., & Reece, J. B. (2005). Biology (7th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education- Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  12. Cummins, R. (2002). Neo-teleology. In A. Ariew, R. Cummins, & M. Perlman (Eds.), Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology (pp. 157–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  14. Darwin, F. (1995/1902). The life of Charles Darwin. London: Senate.Google Scholar
  15. Dawkins, R. (2006/1986). The Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  16. Depew, D. (2008). Consequence etiology and biological teleology in Aristotle and Darwin. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 39, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, E. M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 263–294). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, E. M., Spiegel, A., Gram, W., Frazier, B. F., Tare, M., Thompson, S., et al. (2010). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 326–353.Google Scholar
  20. Futuyma, D. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Godfrey-Smith, P. (1994). A modern history theory of functions. Noûs, 28(3), 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  24. Griffiths, A. J. F., Gelbart, W. M., Miller, J. H., & Lewontin, R. C. (1999). Modern genetic analysis. New York: WH Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  25. Kampourakis, K. (2011). Children’s intuitive teleology: How the philosophy of science may inform conceptual development research. Paper presented at the 11th International history philosophy and science teaching conference, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  26. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2007). Students’ preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Science & Education, 16(3–5), 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education, 17(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: A basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kampourakis, K., Pavlidi, V., Papadopoulou, M. & Palaiokrassa E. (2011). Children’s teleological intuitions: What kind of explanations do 7–8 year olds give for the features of organisms, artifacts and natural objects? Research in Science Education (online first article).Google Scholar
  30. Keil, F. C. (1992). The origins of an autonomous biology. In M. R. Gunnar & M. Maratsos (Eds.), Modularity and constraints in language and cognition. Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 103–138). New Jersey, Erlbaum: Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  31. Kelemen, D. (1999). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70, 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelemen, D. (2003). British and American children’s preferences for teleo-functional explanations of the natural world. Cognition, 88, 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelemen, D. (2004). Are children “intuitive theists”? reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science, 15(5), 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelemen, D., & DiYanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kitcher, P. (1993). Function and design. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 18, 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lauder, G. V., Leroi, A. M., & Rose, M. R. (1993). Adaptations and history. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 8(8), 294–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewens, T. (2007). Adaptation. In D. L. Hull & M. Ruse (Eds.), Cambridge companion to the philosophy of biology (pp. 1–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewin, R. (2005). Human evolution: An illustrated introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Lewontin, R. C. (2001). The triple helix: gene, organism and environment. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mader, S. S. (2004). Biology (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Mayr, E. (2002). What evolution is. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, K. R., & Levine, J. (2004). Biology. Upper Sadle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Co.Google Scholar
  43. Nehm, R. H., Kim, S. Y., & Sheppard, K. (2010). Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: Biology versus non-biology teachers. Science Education, 93, 1122–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paley, W. (2006/1802). Natural theology or evidence of the existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of nature. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Purves, W. K., Sadava, D., Orians, G. H., & Heller, C. (2004). Life: The science of biology (7th ed.). New York: WH Freeman & Company.Google Scholar
  46. Raven, P. H., Johnson, G. B., Losos, J. B., Mason, K. A., & Singer, S. R. (2008). Biology (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  47. Reeve, H. K., & Sherman, P. W. (1993). Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology, 68(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ridley, M. (2004). Evolution (3rd ed.). London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, M. U. (2010). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. Pedagogical issues. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 539–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sober, E. (1993/1984). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anselmo, J. (2001). Understanding students’ explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85, 328–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and death: An introduction to the philosophy of biology. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Turner, J. S. (2007). The tinkerer’s accomplice: How design emerges from life itself. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Walsh, D. (2008). Teleology. In M. Ruse (Ed.), The oxford handbook of philosophy of biology (pp. 113–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. West-Eberhard, M. J. (1992). Adaptation: Current usages. In E. F. Keller & E. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 13–18). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Williams, G. C. (1996/1966). Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Williams, G. C. (2001/1996). Plan and purpose in nature: The limits of darwinian evolution. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  58. Wright, L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review, 82(2), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geitonas SchoolVari AttikisGreece

Personalised recommendations