tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post6608947908208382819..comments2024-03-02T00:44:55.128-08:00Comments on Pleiotropy: Titles in Evolution overloadBjørn Østmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-58177789981012813922012-12-05T09:27:56.719-08:002012-12-05T09:27:56.719-08:00Thank you. Thank you. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647952761619665724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-62799314081959862942012-12-05T08:31:20.198-08:002012-12-05T08:31:20.198-08:00Hi Maria.
I have just read the abstract now, and ...Hi Maria.<br /><br />I have just read the abstract now, and will try to read the paper later.<br /><br />For now let me say that i) the paper is contributed. Lynch is a member of NAS, which means he can contribute papers, be the editor of his own submission, and choose reviewers. This is pretty crazy, and a lot of researchers are pretty upset about this. It pretty much means that NAS members can choose friends to review their papers, and that the reviews are then not anonymous. ii) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lynch_%28geneticist%29" rel="nofollow">Lynch</a> has for years been advocating that genetic drift (neutral evolution) is more important than selection, and that adaptation by drift is how most evolution happen. Many people disagree with him, as do I, because we see lots of evidence that populations can adapt using beneficial mutations. Here it seems at first glance that he is dismissing these are just being transient. I don't know what his argument is yet, but will get back (here) about it. Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-68815191661581951202012-12-05T04:48:52.671-08:002012-12-05T04:48:52.671-08:00Hi. I read some of the articles you've indicat...Hi. I read some of the articles you've indicated. I found one of them intriguing because it says that random genetic drift can be a barrier for adaptative refinements and that Darwinian processes can't account for long-term increase in adaptation (Evolutionary layering and the limits to cellular perfection). I'm confused - it's supposed that darwinian processes can account for molecular adaptations we see in living things (that are remarkable). Could you explain how this works? <br /><br />Thanks for your time.<br /><br />Maria Teodosio<br /><br />P.S.: The creationists have been picking on me because of this article. I would be grateful for your response. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647952761619665724noreply@blogger.com