The neutral theory of evolution holds that “most variation at the molecular level does not affect fitness and, therefore, the evolutionary fate of genetic variation is best explained by stochastic [random] processes.”
From ScienceDaily:
However, what scientist Fanny Pouyet and colleagues from the Group of Laurent Excoffier at the SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics and University of Bern recently discovered, is that 95% of our genome actually seems to be affected by selection and other genetic biases and that markers previously thought to be neutral appear to provide skewed estimates. Their study, published in eLife, calls for the re-examination of a plethora of results and provides the tools and recommendations to correct such issues in the future.
Models used to reconstruct the history of a species or to discover how populations are related to one another rely on a key assumption: that the genome regions under scrutiny are made of “neutral” snippets of DNA, i.e. parts that have evolved randomly rather than being selected for or against. But these regions might actually not be as neutral as previously thought, according to a recent finding by scientists at SIB and the University of Bern: “What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as “neutral”,” says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. “This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome,” she concludes. These functional sites encompass both genes and regions involved in gene regulation. Paper. (open access) – Fanny Pouyet, Simon Aeschbacher, Alexandre Thiéry, Laurent Excoffier. Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences. eLife, 2018; 7 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36317
More.
Perhaps the most reasonable conclusion is that all of Darwinism is in a mess similar to that of speciation.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Heads up! Neutral theory of evolution
and
Commenter nails the problem with neutral theory of evolution
“re-examination of a plethora of results”
That phrase sounds familiar 🙂
“This is a striking finding”
Why?
Here is the paper:
Jeffrey Tomkins goes over the implications for ID here:
Bottom line, they were not looking for functionality. They were only looking to see if the genomic data lined up with what neutral theory predicted. It did not.
Dab Graur and Larry Moran, (who, because of ‘neutral theory’, both attacked the ENCODE findings of widespread functionality in the genome), will not be happy!
My only gripes with the study are that they presupposed far less functionality than they should have and also presupposed that selection has far more explanatory power for the genetic sequences they observed than it actually does.
Selection is shown both empirically and mathematically to be powerless as the supposed ‘Designer substitute’. (Sanford, Behe, Axe, Sternberg)
Moreover ENCODE, as well as numerous other studies into the staggering integrated complexity within DNA, have clearly shown that the default assumption should be the assumption of pervasive functionality instead of an assumption of pervasive non-functionality.
Here is a small glimpse into the staggering integrated complexity within DNA
If you believe that level of staggering integrated complexity can be the result of unintelligent processes, as Darwinists believe, then I have some swamp land to sell you.
Implications: Does this rub out neutral theory somewhat???
While we’re dashing expectations, how about this one: evolutionists thought the lower regions of the brain were older, inherited from more primitive species. So part of our brains were “reptilian”. Turns out the cerebellum takes part in higher-level functions: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/10/25/660504533/the-underestimated-cerebellum-gains-new-respect-from-brain-scientists
Darwinism lives again!
Awesomeness. I first saw this posted by Tomkins, nice follow up BA.
So, is this the final, ten-thousandth nail in the mutation that is Darwinism? 😉
Or will Darwinism just mutate itself into another Dan Graur moment? Let the rants begin.