7. Neutral evolution vs. Natural selection
Kimura's neutral theory of evolution is that mutations that occurred in a population were not products of selection. He thought these mutations was a result of genetic drift within a population. Natural selection is organisms better adapted to their environment have higher rates of survival and therefore produce more offspring within their lifetime, as their offspring will also have a good chance at survival. The natural selection shows us all the parts of evolution, the good and bad. 
Kimura's neutral theory views mutations at more of a molecular level. The main difference between the two is how mutations affect the population. While natural selection sees mutations as traits either becoming more or less favorable, neutral selection sees mutations as neutral effects on a population. Knowing this, it means neutral selection biases evolution based solely on chance rather than a selection of favorable traits. What both of these theories have in common is that they both produce similar outcomes within the same population.
Hi Emily. I enjoyed reading your post, and I liked the graphic you included. Very concise, clean, and to the point. You make a good point in differentiating between the two and even pointed out that natural selection can show us the good or the bad. I think it's ultimately beneficial, otherwise what's the point of evolving, you know? :) Great post!
ReplyDeleteGreat post Emily! I liked that you included the images above that compare the neutral and selection theories as I am a visual learner and always benefit from these type of comparisons. In addition to this, I like how you ended your post by asserting how both the neutral theory and the theory based on selection, will yield similar outcomes of the same population as I believe this is an important aspect to keep in mind when studying different theories and causes of evolution!
ReplyDelete