A creative, hands-on lab where students build “organisms,” test survival in two environments, and analyze homologous, analogous, and vestigial structures.

This simulation introduces students to comparative anatomy and adaptation by modeling how environmental conditions influence which structures are most likely to persist. Students build organisms using a shared set of base materials and then test how those structures perform under different environmental constraints.

Students are organized into lab groups, each representing an “organism family” derived from a common starting object (for example, hangers, forks, or cups). This shared starting structure allows students to later compare homologous features across their designs. Groups modify their organisms using classroom materials while maintaining at least one identifiable component of their original family structure.

Midway through the simulation, a “natural disaster” divides the class into two environments with different survival demands. One environment favors organisms that can float, while the other favors organisms that can fly. Students must adapt their designs to meet the functional requirements of their assigned environment while preserving their family traits.

After testing and comparing organisms, students analyze:

• which structures improved survival

• which features were shared across related organisms

• which traits differed between environments

• and which structures became nonfunctional

Students then use these observations to reason about homologous, analogous, and vestigial structures. They also make predictions about how organisms in each environment might continue to change over time based on which traits were most successful.

The lesson concludes with a critical discussion of model limitations, including the unrealistic ability of organisms to “choose” their traits. Students use this limitation to contrast Lamarckian ideas with natural selection and to clarify how real evolutionary change occurs across generations rather than by individual choice.

This simulation functions as a physical model of natural selection and structure–function relationships. It provides a concrete way for students to explore adaptation, comparative anatomy, and evolutionary reasoning before moving into more abstract examples and data-based evidence.

To see a preview of this lesson, click here.

Grade Recommendation

Middle School: Grades 7–8
High School: Grades 9–10 Biology / Living Environment

Why:

• Concepts align directly with MS-LS and HS-LS evolution standards.

• Hands-on modeling is accessible for grades 7–8.

• The deeper analysis of model limitations and Lamarck vs. Darwin (explicit in teacher instructions) suits high school.

Cross-Curricular Connections / Extensions

Cross-Curricular Connections

• Engineering / STEM: Students engineer functional “creatures” based on environmental constraints.

• Art / Design: Creature creation encourages divergent thinking and design choices.

• ELA: Writing analyses of structure types, evolutionary predictions, and critiques of the model.

• Social Studies / Philosophy of Science: The comparison of Lamarck vs. Darwin is a historical component of scientific thought.

Extensions

• Students write a “field guide” entry about their species (habitat, adaptations, evolution over time).

• Graphing activity: track survival rates of each “family” to simulate allele frequency change.

• Repeat the simulation with new environments to show directional, stabilizing, or disruptive selection.

• Students propose improvements to remove Lamarckian elements from the model.
  

Join the Lesson Laboratory and Teach for Tomorrow!

NGSS Standards (with CCCs + SEPs)

This lesson aligns extremely well with NGSS evolution standards because students:

• Modify organisms based on environmental pressures.

• Analyze survival outcomes.

• Classify structures as homologous/analogous/vestigial.

• Identify the flaw in a Lamarckian-style model.

• Use models to explain common ancestry and natural selection.

Middle School Standards

MS-LS4-2

Use evidence to explain how genetic variations of traits in a population increase chances of survival and reproduction.

MS-LS4-3

Analyze data to identify patterns in survival across different environments.

MS-LS4-4

Construct explanations showing how natural selection leads to changes in traits over time.

MS-LS4-5

Gather and synthesize information about technologies used to study natural selection and evolution (applies when students discuss model limitations).

High School Standards

HS-LS4-1

Communicate scientific information about DNA/mutation leading to variation (represented symbolically by different “family objects”).

HS-LS4-2

Construct explanations based on evidence that evolution results from environmental pressures and differential survival.
This is the core of the activity.

HS-LS4-3

Apply statistical or graphical analysis to support evolutionary explanations (optional extension).

HS-LS4-4

Construct explanations for how natural selection leads to adaptation of populations.

HS-LS4-5

Evaluate evidence for conditions under which natural selection occurs.

Science & Engineering Practices (SEPs)

• Developing and Using Models: Students create organisms using materials and test survival.
  Teacher Instructions

• Constructing Explanations: Students justify which structures are homologous, analogous, or vestigial.

• Analyzing & Interpreting Data: Students evaluate survival outcomes across environments.

• Engaging in Argument from Evidence: Why did certain traits improve survival? Why is the model Lamarckian?

Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs)

• Structure and Function: Central to homologous/analogous/vestigial structures.

• Cause and Effect: Environmental pressures determine survival.

• Stability and Change: Populations shift over time based on traits.

• Systems and System Models: Students interact with a simplified model of evolution.

• Patterns: Patterns of shared ancestry appear via “family” structures.

Common Core Standards 

Strongly apply because students:

• Write explanations

• Provide evidence-based reasoning

• Compare scientific models

• Describe inferred evolutionary pathways
  …this lesson aligns strongly with CCSS.

Reading Standards (RST)

• RST.6-8.1 / RST.9-10.1 — Cite textual evidence when explaining structures and survival outcomes.

• RST.6-8.4 / RST.9-10.4 — Interpret vocabulary: homologous, analogous, vestigial.

• RST.6-8.7 / RST.9-10.7 — Integrate information from visual models (creatures, room environments, diagrams).

Writing Standards (WHST)

• WHST.6-8.2 / WHST.9-10.2 — Write explanations of evolutionary processes and structure classification.

• WHST.6-8.7 / WHST.9-10.7 — Conduct short research/analysis when discussing adaptations and ongoing evolution.

• WHST.6-8.9 / WHST.9-10.9 — Use evidence from the model to support reasoning.

Speaking & Listening (SL)

• SL.8.1 / SL.9-10.1 — Collaborative discussion during creature design & survival analysis.