Biology

1424 readers

1 users here now

This is a general community to discuss of all things related to biology!

For a more specific community about asking questions to biologists, you can also visit:

/c/[email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Evolution is not as random as previously thought, finds new study (phys.org)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (10 children)

Yeah 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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (9 children)

The theory has been quite shaken up since Darwin, don't worry. This idea that evolutionary biology hasn't moved since Darwin is basically a strawman. Beside, Social Darwinism has little to do with actual Darwinism, and all reasonable biologist would agree it is pure junk.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (8 children)

So is a crucial part of the theory no longer "survival of the fittest?" Because that's straight Malthus. I'm not a biologist, but I study and read and try to pay attention.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Not a biologist either (and don't mind me butting in) but a lot of social darwinists seem to violently hate sexual selection

load more comments (7 replies)