Some evolutionary biologists have argued that the neutral theory should be taken

Question

Some evolutionary biologists have argued that the neutral theory should be taken as the null hypothesis to explain genetic variation within species or populations and genetic differences among them. In this view, adaptation and natural selection should be the preferred explanation only if genetic drift cannot explain the data. Others might argue that since there is so much evidence that natural selection has shaped species’ characteristics, selection should be the explanation of choice and that the burden of proof should fall on advocates of the neutral theory.Why might one of these points of view be more convincing than the other?

Explanation / Answer

When considering evolution at molecular level/genotypically, the neutral theory applies well. And when looking phenotypically, natural selection applies well. Natural selection has seen only the dominant traits and paid emphasis on the majority of individuals. On the other hand, some individuals who survived neutral mutations (as per neutral theory) may also have survived via genetic drift. Since they were very less in number, therefore thay had been ignored/ considered extinct by the natural selection

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.