Difference between revisions of "Neutral Evolution"
(New page: The Neutral theory of molecular evolution suggests that most of the genetic variation in populations is the result of mutation and genetic drift and not selection. Basically, the theory ...) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The | + | The '''neutral theory of molecular evolution''' suggests that most of the genetic variation in populations is the result of mutation and genetic drift and not selection. |
| − | Basically, the theory suggests that if a population carries several different versions of a gene, odds are that each of those versions is equally good at performing its job—in other words, that variation is neutral: whether you carry gene version A or gene version B does not affect your fitness. | + | Basically, the theory suggests that if a population carries several different versions of a [[gene]], odds are that each of those versions is equally good at performing its job—in other words, that variation is neutral: whether you carry gene version A or gene version B does not affect your fitness. |
The neutral theory is easily misinterpreted. It does NOT suggest: | The neutral theory is easily misinterpreted. It does NOT suggest: | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:#That all morphological variation is neutral | :#That all morphological variation is neutral | ||
:#That ALL genetic variation is neutral | :#That ALL genetic variation is neutral | ||
| − | :#That natural selection is unimportant in shaping genomes | + | :#That [[natural selection]] is unimportant in shaping genomes |
The main point of the neutral theory is simply that when we see several versions of a gene in a population, it is likely that their frequencies are simply drifting around. The data supporting and refuting the neutral theory are complicated. Figuring out how widely the neutral theory applies is still the topic of much research. | The main point of the neutral theory is simply that when we see several versions of a gene in a population, it is likely that their frequencies are simply drifting around. The data supporting and refuting the neutral theory are complicated. Figuring out how widely the neutral theory applies is still the topic of much research. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Evolution]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Genetics]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:34, July 13, 2016
The neutral theory of molecular evolution suggests that most of the genetic variation in populations is the result of mutation and genetic drift and not selection.
Basically, the theory suggests that if a population carries several different versions of a gene, odds are that each of those versions is equally good at performing its job—in other words, that variation is neutral: whether you carry gene version A or gene version B does not affect your fitness.
The neutral theory is easily misinterpreted. It does NOT suggest:
- That organisms are not adapted to their environments
- That all morphological variation is neutral
- That ALL genetic variation is neutral
- That natural selection is unimportant in shaping genomes
The main point of the neutral theory is simply that when we see several versions of a gene in a population, it is likely that their frequencies are simply drifting around. The data supporting and refuting the neutral theory are complicated. Figuring out how widely the neutral theory applies is still the topic of much research.