The Neutral Theory of Evolution

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@jongarvey

Neutral theory does not refute adaptation and natural selection, to be clear. It just refutes the notion that these are the dominant mechanisms of change.

What kind of percentage of the morphological features of, say the peregrine falcons I saw over the house again today are the result of adaptive genetic natural selection, would you say? Compared with, say, its relative, the smaller hobby I saw trying to take out a swallow a week or so ago, whose lifestyle and equipment are very different? And what features are the result of dominant neutral evolution?

@jongarvey you should also read this paper from 1979 with great relish, thinking about questions of teleology and such,

@swamidass

When you listen to them, you get the distinct impression they have never read The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme . I have no confidence in biologists who want to overthrow a view of evolutionary theory that’s already been dead for half a century. I have no confidence in biologists who aren’t at ease talking about non-adaptive evolution. This is the 21st century.

Read that linked paper, on Panglossian and the Spandrels. That is a modern classic, from Gould. Then review the public debate on natural selection and evolution. Try no to be too appalled by how much they missed the boat, on all sides. Neo-Darwinism has been dead for a long long time.