Abstract
A recent article reassessing the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution claims that it is no longer as important as is widely believed. The authors argue that “the neutral theory was supported by unreliable theoretical and empirical evidence from the beginning, and that in light of modern, genome-scale data, we can firmly reject its universality.” Claiming that “the neutral theory has been overwhelmingly rejected,” they propose instead that natural selection is the major force shaping both between-species divergence and within-species variation. Although this is probably a minority view, it is important to evaluate such claims carefully in the context of current knowledge, as inaccuracies can sometimes morph into an accepted narrative for those not familiar with the underlying science. We here critically examine and ultimately reject Kern and Hahn's arguments and assessment, and instead propose that it is now abundantly clear that the foundational ideas presented five decades ago by Kimura and Ohta are indeed correct.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 111-114 |
Number of pages | 4 |
Journal | Evolution |
Volume | 73 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs |
|
State | Published - Jan 2019 |
Keywords
- Population Genetics
- The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
- Genetics
- General Agricultural and Biological Sciences