The Driving Forces of Evolution
Depending on the relative importance assigned to the various forces of evolution, three perspectives provide evolutionary explanations for molecular evolution.
While recognizing the importance of random drift for silent mutations, selectionists hypotheses argue that balancing and positive selection are the driving forces of molecular evolution. Those hypotheses are often based on the broader view called panselectionism, the idea that selection is the only force strong enough to explain evolution, relaying random drift and mutations to minor roles.
Neutralists hypotheses emphasize the importance of mutation, purifying selection and random genetic drift. The introduction of the neutral theory by Kimura, quickly followed by King and Jukes' own findings, led to a fierce debate about the relevance of neodarwinism at the molecular level. The Neutral theory of molecular evolution states that most mutations are deleterious and quickly removed by natural selection, but of the remaining ones, the vast majority are neutral with respect to fitness while the amount of advantageous mutations is vanishingly small. The fate of neutral mutations are governed by genetic drift, and contribute to both nucleotide polymorphism and fixed differences between species.
Mutationists hypotheses emphasize random drift and biases in mutation patterns. Sueoka was the first to propose a modern mutationist view. He proposed that the variation in GC content was not the result of positive selection, but a consequence of the GC mutational pressure.
Read more about this topic: Molecular Evolution
Famous quotes containing the words driving, forces and/or evolution:
“There is a blessed necessity by which the interest of men is always driving them to the right; and, again, making all crime mean and ugly.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“In literary circles, the men of trust and consideration, bookmakers, editors, university deans and professors, bishops, too, were by no means men of the largest literary talent, but usually of a low and ordinary intellectuality, with a sort of mercantile activity and working talent. Indifferent hacks and mediocrities tower, by pushing their forces to a lucrative point, or by working power, over multitudes of superior men, in Old as in New England.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“By contrast with history, evolution is an unconscious process. Another, and perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that evolution is a natural process, history a human one.... Insofar as we treat man as a part of nature—for instance in a biological survey of evolution—we are precisely not treating him as a historical being. As a historically developing being, he is set over against nature, both as a knower and as a doer.”
—Owen Barfield (b. 1898)