Post by Benjamin on Feb 8, 2014 7:03:25 GMT
This is interesting.
A recent study suggests that the "fitness" of genetic mutations may be significantly less relevant than previously thought in driving the evolutionary process.
Now, don't read anything into this - I'm not suggesting that evolution, on a broad scale, is an accurate theory of origins (i.e. evolution still has no mechanism by which organisms can go from being less to more complex), but it's an interesting development nonetheless.
A recent study suggests that the "fitness" of genetic mutations may be significantly less relevant than previously thought in driving the evolutionary process.
By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the 'fitness' of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the 'fittest' simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales.
The findings suggest that life on Earth today may not have come about by 'survival of the fittest', but rather by the 'arrival of the frequent'.
Read more at: phys.org/news/2014-02-evolutionary-important-success.html#jCp
The findings suggest that life on Earth today may not have come about by 'survival of the fittest', but rather by the 'arrival of the frequent'.
Read more at: phys.org/news/2014-02-evolutionary-important-success.html#jCp
Now, don't read anything into this - I'm not suggesting that evolution, on a broad scale, is an accurate theory of origins (i.e. evolution still has no mechanism by which organisms can go from being less to more complex), but it's an interesting development nonetheless.
