Are Humans Still Evolving?
A NATURAL SELECTION DISCUSSION LESSON
S tudents harbor widespread misconceptions
about the mechanisms of organic evolution. The prob-
lem is especially apparent when they discuss the evolu-
tion of their own species – year after year I hear from my
students that Homo sapiens will soon evolve to lose the
pinky toe and become more intelligent. Such miscon-
ceptions are not effectively addressed by pedagogy that
teaches Darwin’s theory via memorization of facts and
vocabulary words. This lesson attempts to better devel-
op sound comprehension of natural selection theory by
prompting students to use its concepts to explain the
evolutionary status of humans.
I have used the following lesson successfully with
all ability levels in first and second high school biology
courses. I expect that the lesson would be useful in cer-
tain college biology courses as well.
MARTIN SHIELDS is a biology teacher at Pascack Hills High School,
Montvale, NJ 07645; e-mail: mshields@pascack.k12.nj.us.
MARTIN SHIELDS
The Question
This activity centers on the question: Are humans
still evolving? Of course there is little doubt that human
populations currently undergo microevolutionary
changes in allele frequencies due to natural selection
and other factors. Anthropologist Meredith Small
(1999) writes, “… some people live and some people die,
and some people pass on more genes than others.
Therefore, there is a change in the human gene pool
over time.” Some advanced students will realize this
immediately. Nevertheless, humans behave differently
enough from other species to make the question inter-
esting to consider and to discuss. And, even in an
Advanced Placement Biology classroom, many students
will initially focus on the popular misconceptions that
they have encountered repeatedly in the past.
Moreover, the purpose of this activity is not to expe-
ditiously arrive at a definitive answer to the question
EVOLVING HUMANS 21
posed. Rather, the lesson’s value lies in student appli-
cation, explication, and discussion of selection theory.
The question is simply a tool to stimulate analysis and
student debate on the accurate transfer of evolution’s
concepts to a case study species.
Introductory vs. Advanced
Classes
To my introductory 9th and 10th grade classes, the
question of current human evolution translates to: Are
humans changing over time due to natural selection? I
often offer this version to them as a clarification of the
original question. In some ability levels of Introductory
Biology, I do not specifically teach the concepts (or at
least not the terms) microevolution, macroevolution, or
allele frequency. In these classes, the lesson is neverthe-
less effective at advancing understanding of evolution-
ary biology. The focus in these classes centers simply
on whether or not certain traits are favored by natural
selection and passed on more often than others.
In Honors Level Introductory Biology and
Advanced Placement classes, my students learn the
more complex aspects of population genetics before
this lesson. In these courses, the students tend to sub-
divide the question themselves into: Are humans still
undergoing microevolution and are they still undergo-
ing macroevolution? Microevolution refers to the rela-
tively small changes that occur within a species over a
relatively small number of generations. Macroevolution
refers to large change, such as the origin of a new
species (speciation) that usually occurs over a much
longer time period (Greenberg, 2001).
The Lesson Sequence
I begin with students writing one to two page essays
or journal entries on the central question, “Are humans
still evolving?” This first step is critical in promoting
individual idea development. I stress to the students
that they will not be graded according to the side of the
issue they choose to argue. It is important to avoid
restricting students at this point through fear of getting
the wrong answer. I want to draw the students out, to
coax the entrenched misconceptions to the surface.
After I have read their essays, we have a class dis-
cussion. The students and I clear desks from the room
center and we arrange ourselves in a circle. While this
may seem unnecessary or incidental I have found the
quality of student-to-student interaction vastly
improves when I am not physically positioned as a focal
point. The group discussion usually fills a 44-minute
class period.
22 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 66, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004
I begin the discussion by choosing a student to
express his/her ideas on the topic. Then I call on an
adjacent student, followed by a series of nearby stu-
dents. I call on students in the beginning, rather than
soliciting volunteers, to prevent the discussion from
moving immediately into debate. I have found it fruitful
to begin by eliciting a pool of ideas (some valid, some
not) that can subsequently be critiqued by the group.
In this initial phase, I provide little feedback and I
refrain from correcting inaccuracies. I want other stu-
dents to do that later. Also, at this point, I don’t want to
inhibit students. Eventually, I open the discussion to
volunteer contributors and I begin to pose questions. I
usually pick a recurring misconception, repeat it, and
solicit opinions on its validity. The discussion heats up
and it is easy to simply facilitate as students respond to
one another.
My role during the discussion is primarily that of
moderator. I challenge inaccuracies with questions. I
push students to reason their way to a more sound
understanding. Periodically I interject a new subtopic
to move the discussion in a different direction. Often, I
need to ask a student to temporarily defer an idea until
a current one has been successfully discussed and
resolved. The more students talking, the better.
However, I often need to weigh in on a debated point
when the group hasn’t correctly explained it. The stu-
dents still need the teacher as final arbiter and informa-
tion resource. The key is to subjugate this role to allow
as much as possible for student-constructed knowl-
edge.
Typical Student Responses
Table 1 provides some topics typically raised in stu-
dent essays and in the discussion. The right side of the
table includes appropriate application of selection the-
ory to the topic. Ideally, these explanations will be gen-
erated by the students with varying degrees of instruc-
tor guidance.
I have found students need continual reminders of
the connection between evolution and genes. They for-
get that beneficial traits will not emerge or increase in
frequency unless the same happens to genes that influ-
ence those traits. For instance, many students claim
that humans “need to be” increasingly more intelligent
to survive in a technology-rich world, and that this pro-
motes the evolution of increased intelligence. If such
an issue is not correctly resolved by other students, I
will respond with a question. I might ask, “Does a
Silicon Valley software designer leave more of his or
her genes to the next generation than someone who
doesn’t even use a computer?” There is, of course, no
evidence that technological facility or even intelligence
Table 1.
STUDENT-GENERATED TOPIC APPROPRIATE EXPLANATIONS
Pinky/pinky toe getting smaller or disappearing. Variant forms do not provide survival advantage or disadvantage, so allele frequencies should
“Wisdom teeth” will disappear. not change (e.g., large and small pinky toes will be passed on with equal frequency).

Appendix getting smaller or disappearing. It is possible that allele(s) for smaller/less likely-to-become-infected appendixes could be
favored in areas without access to quality health care. But this is probably not an issue where
infected appendixes are easily treated.

Aren’t humans taller than in the 1700s? If true, this is based on differences in nutrition/health care, not natural selection.

Lethal diseases. Alleles for lethal disorders or predispositions for diseases are selected against, especially if
they kill the individual before reproductive age. Alleles that confer resistance are selected for.
For example, individuals with 2 CCR5 alleles do not acquire AIDS even if infected with HIV
(O’Brien & Dean, 1997).These alleles should increase in frequency where AIDS mortality is
high (e.g., Africa).

People evolving to be smarter in response to Ability to use technology is not gene-based or normally related to survival/reproduction.
new technologies. “Intelligence” is difficult to define.

Modern medicine. People with potentially lethal alleles may have life prolonged, thus maintaining the
distribution of those alleles in populations. For example, the PKU allele probably exists in
higher frequency in countries where the disorder is diagnosed and treated (Ridley, 2001).

Biotechnology: These are forms of artificial selection – further removing humans from the influence of
“Genius sperm banks” natural selection?
Embryo screening
Gene therapy/“designer” babies.

Skin color, race. Skin color probably has little, if any, effect on survival today due to clothing, housing,
behavior, nutrition, sunscreen, etc. Recent research suggests a benefit to light skin for vitamin
D production in northern latitudes (Kirchweger, 2001).
Existence of distinct human races is not supported by human genome analysis (Paabo, 2001).

Speciation/macroevolution Not occurring. If anything, there is less gene pool isolation today due to advances in global
travel (Hayden, 2002).

(a difficult to define and controversial concept) increas-
es a person’s fitness in the modern environment.
Students need to employ the selection theory litmus
test: Does the trait affect an individual’s ability to sur-
vive into and through the reproductive years (relative
to individuals lacking the trait), and does it affect an
individual’s ability to produce fertile offspring? If so,
then the frequency of occurrence of an allele that influ-
ences the trait will be altered, and the population will
experience microevolution due to natural selection. Or,
in simpler terms: The gene for that trait will be passed
on more often and it will be found in more individuals
of the following generations.
There are two important side issues raised by the
software engineer example. One is the student proclivi-
ty to refer to the “need” for a species to evolve in
response to an environmental pressure. Research has
revealed this misconception to be prevalent even in
medical students who have, presumably, a strong aca-
demic background in biology (Brumby, 1984). I usual-
ly interrupt when I hear students ask, “Do species need

EVOLVING HUMANS 23
to adapt?” A short discussion then reminds students
that populations often, in fact, don’t adapt to change
and they are extirpated. Either they adapt, or they don’t,
and “need” has nothing to do with it. Those that adapt
do so because some individuals already possessed ben-
eficial traits that were born of random genetic variations
and gave them a survival advantage.
A second issue relevant to these discussions cen-
ters on our status as a bizarre species. Unlike most
other organisms, individuals of Homo sapiens do not
usually strive to maximize their reproductive success.
The software designer may, for many possible reasons,
choose against passing genes to the next generation.
Also, he or she may or may not choose to enhance
inclusive fitness (a topic only explored in my AP level
Announcing...
NABT’s
2004
National
Convention
in Chicago
November 10-13
at the Hyatt Regency
See page 78 for details.
24 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 66, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004
courses) by helping to rear the children of relatives. By
choosing against reproducing, and thus against
increasing our fitness, don’t humans somewhat dis-
tance our gene pool from the formative influence of the
environment? Even in the case of lethal disorder alle-
les, humans have, in some cases, supplanted the envi-
ronment as the selecting mechanism. Many individuals
with nonlethal forms of alleles choose not to repro-
duce, while many with potentially harmful alleles are
now, due to medical advances, able to survive and pass
on those alleles. Or, are humans and their technologies
just another element of the environment? Students
become quite animated in discussing these ideas.
Convergence with Social Issues
Usually students will steer the discussion toward a
variety of important societal issues. If they don’t, I will
initiate these meaningful contributions to the dis-
course. The most fundamental issue is raised when a
student asks the group, “Which people are we talking
about?” Differential survival and reproductive success
obviously is influenced by socioeconomic factors such
as access to nutrition and health care. Thus, are
humans in underdeveloped countries or impoverished
American regions under a greater influence of natural
selection? It is critical here to dispel any race-based
associations. High school students in some popula-
tions may need to be reminded that poverty comes in
all colors. If race does become a topic, it would be use-
ful to discuss Human Genome Project conclusions that
there is not enough genetic variation between groups
with different skin colors to even support the concept
of race in humans (Paabo, 2001).
The impact of biotechnology on human evolution
yields some of the most intriguing discussion. For
instance, with “genius sperm banks,” are we replacing
natural selection with artificial selection? But haven’t
humans always (in most societies) selected mates
based on their traits? The issue of artificial selection is
taken a step further with testing for disorder alleles,
medical abortions, and embryo screening. And what
about gene therapy and the future possibility of
“designer” babies? Realizing that such technologies
would be expensive, students often raise the issue of
access. In a recent discussion, a student asked if genet-
ic modification might create a new gene pool isolating
mechanism separating rich from poor. Could such a
process lead to evolutionary divergence between iso-
lated populations? Such topics move the discussion
into the realm of science fiction, but they also reinforce
that stunning advances in genetic engineering need to
be accompanied by thoughtful societal debate.
Conclusion
Some high school teachers avoid open-ended dis-
cussions out of fear of the unknown. An unscripted les-
son such as this one often generates questions outside
of the teacher’s expertise. However, successful teachers
accept that they will not be able to answer every stu-
dent question. In fact, answers to many student ques-
tions are not completely known to anyone. If a student
makes a claim in this activity, and the teacher is unsure
of its validity, there is a simple way to respond. I
respond to such claims with, “If that were true then …
?” questions. If a student says that humans have
become taller than in the 1700s, I would say, “If that is
true, is there a possible explanation other than natural
selection for it?” Or, “If that is true, can you explain a
survival benefit that would have favored certain height
influencing alleles over others?” In this way the empha-
sis is shifted from the veracity of the claim to a valid
application of selection theory to the issue.
There are many valuable resources for the teacher
intending to use this lesson. In The Cooperative Gene,
Mark Ridley (2001) devotes the latter two chapters to
the current and future evolutionary status of Homo
sapiens. He argues that natural selection may be
“relaxed” in today’s wealthy soci-
eties because of modern medical
technologies. Jared Diamond
(1992) applies Darwinian ideas
to humans and human cultures
in a number of books. The one
that is most focused on the topics
of this lesson is The Third
Chimpanzee (1992). In Why We
Get Sick: The New Science of
Darwinian Medicine, Nesse and
Williams (1995) provide a natu-
ral selection-based view of
human illness and medical treat-
ments. For general information
on evolution, the PBS Evolution
Web site is a rich resource.
Shellberg (2001) offers an excel-
lent lesson idea for teaching stu-
dents how to accurately explain
the evolutionary origin of traits.
The topic of human evolution
is inherently interesting to stu-
dents. The discussion is as vibrant
with 9th grade Introductory
Biology groups as it is with 12th
grade Advanced Placement class-
es. By the end of the lesson, stu-
dents have debunked some of
their own misconceptions about evolution and they are
better able to use Darwin’s theory to explain the natu-
ral world.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Jerry Phillips for reviewing
an early draft of this manuscript. My wife, Phyllis, made
many editorial improvements in the article and helped
in innumerable ways.
References
Brumby, M. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of
natural selection by medical biology students. Science
Education, 68(4), 493-503.
Diamond, J. (1992). The Third Chimpanzee: The Future and
Evolution of the Human Animal. New York:Harper Collins.
Greenberg, J. (2001). BSCS Biology: A Molecular Approach, 8th
Edition. Colorado Springs, CO: Everyday Learning Co.
Hayden, T. (2002). A theory evolves: How evolution really
works and why it matters more than ever. U.S. News and
World Report 133(4), 42-50.
Kirchweger, G. (2001). The biology of
skin color: Black and white.
Discover, 22 (2). Available online
at www.discover.com/recent_
issue/index.html.
Nesse, R. & Williams, G. (1995). Why
We Get Sick: The New Science of
Darwinian Medicine. New York:
Times Books.
O’Brien, S. & Dean, M. (1997). In
search of AIDS–resistance genes.
Scientific American, 277(3), 44-51.
Paabo, S. (2001). The human genome
and our view of ourselves.
Science, 291(5507), 1219-1220.
PBS Evolution Web site: www.pbs.
org/wgbh/evolution/index.html.
Ridley, M. (2001). The Cooperative
Gene. New York: The Free Press.
Shellberg, T. (2001). Teaching how to
answer “why” questions about
biology. The American Biology
Teacher, 63(1), 16-19.
Small, M. (1999). Ask the experts: biol-
ogy. Scientific American Online.
Available online at: www.sciam.
com/askexpert_question.cfm?page
=3&topicID=3.
EVOLVING HUMANS 25