-4

https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutral-theory-of-evolution-challenged-by-evidence-for-dna-selection-20181108/ The article above challenges how mutations work in evolution. Does this disprove the theory of evolution?

Radja Airion Callier
  • 1
  • 5
    That article is discussing the fine points of how to interpret mutations and says nothing that seems even remotely related to the validity of evolutionary theory? If there is something in that article that makes you think it might conflict with evolutionary theory please add it to your question and make sure it is clear that you have taken the time to understand this theory. Otherwise your question is likely to be perceived as creationist trolling and will probably be removed. A useful introduction to evolutionary theory: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 – tyersome Jul 11 '19 at 00:06
  • 2
    Would you please quote the relevant parts instead of just posting a link? Posts should be self-contained, to make sure they are still valid in a future when the link isn't working anymore. – Arsak Jul 11 '19 at 06:54
  • 1
    Questions on this site must be intelligible in their own right. The site is intended as a self-contained Q&A site, and in any case it is impolite to expect users to go to some other site to read something. It may also be dangerous as an external site may be booby-trapped. I need to understand your question by itself. That is why I have voted it off-topic as unclear. If you are able to present the argument yourself in a manner that conforms to allowable questions for SE Biology — for which you should take the Tour (you haven't) and read how to ask a good question — I shall reconsider. – David Jul 12 '19 at 21:04

1 Answers1

1

First, please note that the article you link is not a peer reviewed article. It is a popular, easy-to-read article.

Does this article call into question the theory of evolution?

No, it does not. What makes you think it does?

The article talks about a very old (and somewhat still ongoing) debate about the relative importance of genetic drift vs selection in evolution. I suppose that you may have portrayed selection as being the only evolutionary process and I suppose that reading about genetic drift as being another evolutionary process may have make you feel like "we were wrong all along" while in truth we have always known a bout it. Note that even Darwin with his very limited understanding of evolutionary processes (compared to what we know today) knew that there are other evolutionary processes than selection.

You might want to read about genetic drift. As a start you could read the following:

Remi.b
  • 68,088
  • 11
  • 141
  • 234
  • 1
    Don’t feel the trolls. – David Jul 11 '19 at 07:03
  • 1
    @David — How do we know the OP is a troll as opposed to someone who is starting to explore the limits of their indoctrination? – tyersome Jul 12 '19 at 01:42
  • You will know from experience that there is a body of people who are generally not biologists but do not believe in the theory of evolution on religious, rather than scientific grounds. Such people — possibly from motives they consider morally justified — seek to take every opportunity to publicize their views and frequently abuse this site. One post-hoc means of identifying them is that they never accept an answer. How many of yours have been accepted? (cont.) – David Jul 12 '19 at 10:00
  • …This is a question and answer site so I think one should attempt to discourage such trolls by rigorously applying the site's criteria for on-topic questions, especially when, as in the current case, one is dealing with a new user (no evidence of a previous interest in biology) who hasn't taken taken the trouble to take the tour even (evidence of no interest in the site). A biological question asks for a biological answer. A question of the type "doesn't this prove the theory of evolution" is an attempt to start a discussion (off-topic), at best, or to use the platform to make a statement… – David Jul 12 '19 at 10:02
  • …In this case the question is not self-contained so — as you should be aware — does not fit into our model. We do not exist to discuss articles published elsewhere, nor do we have a mission to convert the indoctrinated. If you feel you must respond, use the comment box to explain why the question is off topic but provide your links to point out where counter arguments can be found. – David Jul 12 '19 at 10:02
  • @David — Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response! I know you're correct about fundie trolls, but I also know of individuals who have managed to escape their programming. Unless you can prove this individual is only here to troll I see no harm in pointing them at places they could begin educating themselves or in Remi.b giving a brief answer and additional links. While it looks to me like my original comment was in line with your suggested response, I'm happy to hear how it could be improved! – tyersome Jul 12 '19 at 18:56
  • @tyersome — whether or not the poster is a troll, the pertinent question is whether the question is on-topic. You may not realize that users with sufficient points ('reputation') who wish to vote to close a question are presented with several defined categories, as well as a free-form onet. Remi.b will be familiar with this. The question indsputably falls in the "unclear" category as it is not comprehensible by itself. This is a self-contained Q&A site not a missionary. I have no idea what the argument is. If the poster wishes an answer, he must first ask a question that conforms to the site. – David Jul 12 '19 at 20:57