School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Evolution. 2019 Jan;73(1):111-114. doi: 10.1111/evo.13650. Epub 2018 Nov 27.
A recent article reassessing the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution claims that it is no longer as important as is widely believed. The authors argue that "the neutral theory was supported by unreliable theoretical and empirical evidence from the beginning, and that in light of modern, genome-scale data, we can firmly reject its universality." Claiming that "the neutral theory has been overwhelmingly rejected," they propose instead that natural selection is the major force shaping both between-species divergence and within-species variation. Although this is probably a minority view, it is important to evaluate such claims carefully in the context of current knowledge, as inaccuracies can sometimes morph into an accepted narrative for those not familiar with the underlying science. We here critically examine and ultimately reject Kern and Hahn's arguments and assessment, and instead propose that it is now abundantly clear that the foundational ideas presented five decades ago by Kimura and Ohta are indeed correct.
最近的一篇重新评估分子进化中性理论的文章声称，它不再像人们普遍认为的那样重要。作者认为，“从一开始，中性理论就得到了不可靠的理论和经验证据的支持，而根据现代的基因组规模数据，我们可以坚决否定其普遍性。”他们声称，“中性理论已经被压倒性地否定了”，而是提出自然选择是塑造物种间分化和种内变异的主要力量。尽管这可能是少数观点，但在当前知识背景下，仔细评估这样的观点是很重要的，因为不准确的观点有时会在不熟悉相关科学的人群中演变成一种被接受的说法。在这里，我们批判性地审查并最终否定了 Kern 和 Hahn 的论点和评估，而是提出，现在已经非常清楚，五十多年前由 Kimura 和 Ohta 提出的基本思想确实是正确的。
