Evolution is not as random as previously thought, finds new study
Evolution is not as random as previously thought, finds new study
A new study has found that evolution is not as unpredictable as previously thought, which could allow scientists to explore which genes could be useful to tackle real-world issues such as antibiotic resistance, disease, and climate change.
A new study has found that evolution is not as unpredictable as previously thought, which could allow scientists to explore which genes could be useful to tackle real-world issues such as antibiotic resistance, disease, and climate change.
The study, which is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), challenges the long-standing belief about the unpredictability of evolution and has found that the evolutionary trajectory of a genome may be influenced by its evolutionary history, rather than determined by numerous factors and historical accidents.
"The implications of this research are nothing short of revolutionary," said Professor McInerney, the lead author of the study.
(Emphasis mine.)
I get very wary of researchers tooting their own horn that hard. Smells like room temperature super conductor.
19Thanks for this, I was starting to get excited.
1Yeah but the theory of evolution writ large needs shaking up. The whole theory reeks of Malthusianism, a disproved economic theory, since Darwin was influenced by Malthus. Many of the sick consequences of "Social Darwinism" are a result of the theory's flawed precursory logic.
That being said I tend to skew cynical. Still I'd like to see parts of a mostly-correct predictive model questioned and reevaluated
-2
What the...
OK. First, nobody "previously thought" that evolution happens at random... Parts of it, yes, sure, like mutations or genetic drift. But selection is not "at random" in any reasonable meaning of the word.
Second, the paper results are basically about how selections shapes the co-occurring of genes within a genome, in the context of e.g. gene transfer. Interesting, yes. Revolutionary, certainly not. Most biologists would have predicted that outcome... Of course, selection is going to constrain the co-occuring of some gene families, why would this be surprising?
Anyway, look into the study, it looks interesting but you can spare reading the article, it does a very bad job (sorry OP) at placing the idea in its scientific context and the authors are not helping with their bragging about "revolutionary" discovery.
17