Natural Selectin Companion in Evolution

www.sciencedaily.com...

Title says "Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?"

If this is true, then this is going to change evolutionary world view because it touches the very principles of it. What I believe will happen is that some philosopher somewhere figures out how this is not the case, and biologists (who are the experts on this) are left murmuring.

Basically:

However, surprisingly, the patterns of molecular evolution in many of the genes they found did not contain signals of natural selection. Instead, their evidence suggests that a separate process known as BGC (biased gene conversion) has speeded up the rate of evolution in certain genes. This process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful.

This will propably be interpreted to be "hand of God" by certain fundamentalist christians, and propably by creationists as well.

This is interesting, very interesting.

Even before Biased Gene Conversion was discovered though, Genetic Drift was and still is an explaination besides Natural Selection that described the evolution of organisms. For a recap, genetic drift is when there are mutations in the DNA that don't cause any negative or positive repercussions in an organism. However, if a change happens in the environment a species is in, that can determine if the mutation will have any effect or not.

When it comes to religious people finding proof that god exists through Biased Gene Conversion, I find an issue. If a god is trying to make his or her creation even more perfect through evolution, why would it allow harmful mutations to occur? That's just my 2 cents but none the less, it is an interesting new concept in the realm of evolutionary science.

Allison

Interesting albeit short article!

IMHO, natural selection on a physical scale has been somewhat diluted by societal/sociological changes in the human psyche.

For instance, a woman may choose a partner based on his income and relative financial security, or she may also find herself more attracted to a male who is sensitive and can carry a decent conversation or a partner who shares a similar world view, political leaning, morals, a love of nature, fine arts, poetry and literature for example.

Though it's nice to cuddle up to someone with a fit & healthy body; for the long term, I don't feel the risk of spawning children in an emotionally bankrupt relationship is as alluring as spending your life with someone on the same emotional/intellectual level as yourself.

Times have changed.

IRM

[edit on 28/1/09 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Interesting albeit short article!

IMHO, natural selection on a physical scale has been somewhat diluted by societal/sociological changes in the human psyche.

For instance, a woman may choose a partner based on his income and relative financial security, or she may also find herself more attracted to a male who is sensitive and can carry a decent conversation or a partner who shares a similar world view, political leaning, morals, a love of nature, fine arts, poetry and literature for example.

Yes, but those all all features of men that count when determining whether his children survive better than others or not. It is not a guarantee, obviously, but those features help. Therefore natural selection just takes into account different features than before.

You are right, though, in that those are seen as societal things instead in view of evolution.