LoneShaman
Member
This is what Larry is talking about Yes? What you think? And in turn the new advances in evolutionary theory?
So it is all assumption, where is the empirical anchor so to speak?
At the molecular level it gives more power to drift than selection which is blind to it. Certainly cuts Darwin out here. You have to give up the awesome power of NS. Or maybe you just want a little when it suits? I guess that would be nearly neutral theory.
Then at the phenotype we are back to Charlie again from 150 years ago. Much longer than the hardened modern synthesis. Oh oh.
With no explanation on how genotype relates to phenotype. And certainly no answer to the questions of novelty. It is also not the consensus view and is argued over it's validity.
The modern synthesis is the concensus view!
I knew neutral theory was a move away from NS. I must say, that again makes you look a bit silly Paul, giving all that amazing power to natural selection just to give it up in support of Neutral theory. That is a puzzle!
The neutral theory of molecular evolution holds that at the molecular level most evolutionary changes and most of the variation within and between species is not caused by natural selection but by random drift of mutant alleles that are neutral. A neutral mutation is one that does not affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. The neutral theory allows for the possibility that most mutations are deleterious, but holds that because these are rapidly purged by natural selection, they do not make significant contributions to variation within and between species at the molecular level. Mutations that are not deleterious are assumed to be mostly neutral rather than beneficial. In addition to assuming the primacy of neutral mutations, the theory also assumes that the fate of neutral mutations is determined by the sampling processes described by specific models of random genetic drift.[1]
So it is all assumption, where is the empirical anchor so to speak?
According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin. The proposal of the neutral theory was followed by an extensive "neutralist-selectionist" controversy over the interpretation of patterns of molecular divergence and polymorphism, peaking in the 1970s and 1980s. The controversy is still unsettled among evolutionary biologists.
At the molecular level it gives more power to drift than selection which is blind to it. Certainly cuts Darwin out here. You have to give up the awesome power of NS. Or maybe you just want a little when it suits? I guess that would be nearly neutral theory.
Then at the phenotype we are back to Charlie again from 150 years ago. Much longer than the hardened modern synthesis. Oh oh.
With no explanation on how genotype relates to phenotype. And certainly no answer to the questions of novelty. It is also not the consensus view and is argued over it's validity.
The modern synthesis is the concensus view!
I knew neutral theory was a move away from NS. I must say, that again makes you look a bit silly Paul, giving all that amazing power to natural selection just to give it up in support of Neutral theory. That is a puzzle!
Last edited: