[FRIAM] Neutral Theory: The Null Hypothesis of Molecular Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

[Eric Charles]

When you have a decently-fitted organism in a long-term stable environment
(evolutionary time scale), natural section should be mostly selecting for
least effort,  right? Within biological constraints of various kinds.

The various break adaptations of "Darwin's finches" are least-effort
solutions to various food options, right? And *also* a prime example of
Natural Selection? With the various constraints you get from starting with
mainland finches as your breeding stock.

On Fri, May 8, 2020, 4:11 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, Steve, and everyboy,
>
> In a recent discussion concerning the efficacy of Natural Selection as a
> cause of evolution, I accused Steve of being a neutralist.   Before I
> continued to sling that insult about, I thought I had best find out what it
> meant.
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/neutral-theory-the-null-hypothesis-of-molecular-839/
>
> Now I am not sure my slander should stick.  Where the two positions seem
> to agree is that natural selection is not so important as We on the Other
> Side seem to think it is.  Other explanations should be sought for the way
> things are.
>
> Then I began to wonder if even this was correct.  Is “least action” a
> mechanism distinct from natural selection or is it the principle on which
> natural selection works.
>
> Nick
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200508/200cbf25/attachment.html>