PT141.S1.P1.Q5 > Explanation

Hide analysis

Charles Darwin objected to all attempts to reduce his theory of evolution to its doctrine of natural selection. "Natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification," he declared. …

Context · Darwin opposed reducing evolution to just natural selection

Natural selection is just one mechanism of evolution

Nonetheless, a group of self-proclaimed strict constructionist Darwinians has recently risen to prominence by reducing Darwin's theory in just this way. These theorists use the mechanism of natural selection to explain all biological phenomena; they assert that natural selection is responsible for every aspect of every species' form and behavior, and for the success or failure of species in general.

Strict Constructionists · Disagree with Darwin

They explain all biological phenomena via the mechanism of natural selection

Natural selection is generally held to result in adaptation, the shaping of an organism's form and behavior in response to environmental conditions to achieve enhanced reproductive success. …

Natural Selection · Adaption of an organism to its environment to achieve reproductive success

If the strict constructionists are right, the persistence of every attribute and the survival of every species are due to such adaptation. But in fact, nature provides numerous examples of attributes that are not adaptations for reproductive success and of species whose success or failure had little to do with their adaptations.

Main Point / Critique · Strict constructionists are wrong

Many examples of nonadaptive attributes

For example, while it is true that some random mutations of genetic material produce attributes that enhance reproductive success and are thus favored by natural selection, and others produce harmful attributes that are weeded out, we now know from population genetics that most mutations fall into neither category. Research has revealed that neutral, nonadaptive changes account to a large extent for the evolution of DNA. Most substitutions of one unit of DNA for another within a population have no effect on reproductive success. These alterations often change the attributes of species, but their persistence from one generation to the next is not explainable by natural selection.

Premise / Example · Most mutations have no effect on reproductive success

Yet they still persist from one generation to the next, inexplicable by natural selection.

Additionally, the study of mass extinctions in paleontology has undermined the strict constructionist claim that natural selection can account for every species' success or failure. The extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago was probably caused by the impact of an extraterrestrial body. Smaller animal species are generally better able to survive the catastrophic changes in climate that we would expect to follow from such an impact, and mammals in the Cretaceous period were quite small because they could not compete on the large scale of the dominant dinosaurs. But while this scenario explains why dinosaurs died off and mammals fared relatively well, it does not conform to the strict constructionist view of the adaptive reasons for the success of species. For that view assumes that adaptations are a response to conditions that are already in place at the time the adaptations occur, and mammals could not have adapted in advance to conditions caused by the impact. In a sense, their success was the result of dumb luck.

Premise · Natural selection cannot account for mass extinctions

Smaller animals survived the asteroid impact that killed all dinosaurs because they were lucky. They could not have adapted to conditions that had not occurred yet.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

The author's stance toward the arguments of the strict constructionist Darwinians can most accurately be described as one of

Question Type

Author’s attitude

Implied

This is an Inference question about the author’s attitude toward the constructionists’ view. Her main point is to criticize the constructionists, and she gives a lot of evidence undermining their view, so we know that she strongly disagrees with them.

emphatic disagreement

Supported. The author strongly disagrees with the constructionists. She says that there are “numerous examples” undermining their view, and she spends P3 and P4 giving evidence for why they’re wrong.

81%

mild disapproval

Unsupported— too weak. The author doesn’t just mildly disapprove of the constructionists’ view; she strongly disagrees with it. The main point of the passage is to criticize the constructionists, and she spends P3 and P4 providing evidence that undermines their view.

16%

open-minded neutrality

Anti-supported. The author is not open-minded or neutral toward the constructionists’ view; she strongly disagrees with it. The main point of the passage is to criticize the constructionists, and she spends P3 and P4 providing evidence that undermines their view.

conditional agreement

Anti-supported. The author does not agree with the constructionists’ view; she strongly disagrees with it. The main point of the passage is to criticize the constructionists, and she spends P3 and P4 providing evidence that undermines their view.

unreserved endorsement

Anti-supported. The author does not endorse with the constructionists’ view; she strongly disagrees with it. The main point of the passage is to criticize the constructionists, and she spends P3 and P4 providing evidence that undermines their view.

PrepTest 141 - Section 1 - Passage 1 - Question 5

Passage explanation

Question explanation

Ask a tutor

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action