In the late 1960s, the geneticist Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution.
The neutral theory of evolution is the antithesis of ecological genetics.
Those willing to embrace a "thicker," less neutral theory of the human good can substitute an outcome metric like capabilities.
In this report, I incorporate local speciation into neutral theory of biodiversity to predict species abundance distribution patterns.
Kimura predicted that silent substitutions would evolve more rapidly than replacement substitutions before sequence data were available to test his neutral theory of molecular evolution.
For this reason, Kimura (1983) proposed his neutral theory of molecular evolution, founded on the theoretical observation that the probability of fixation of a novel mutant allele with selective coefficient, s >0, was approximately 2s.
The neutral theory of molecular evolution proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result of the fixation of neutral mutations by genetic drift.
In 1968, Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population (although not necessarily changes in phenotypes) are caused by genetic drift.
The gene-centered view of evolution rose to prominence in the 1960s, followed by the neutral theory of molecular evolution, sparking debates over adaptationism, the units of selection, and the relative importance of genetic drift versus natural selection.
In 1968, population geneticist Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most of the genetic changes are caused by genetic drift acting on neutral mutations.
The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography is increasingly accepted as an informative null model of community composition and dynamics.
