Talk:Molecular evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

'04 comment[edit]

The article on molecular evolution should mention concrete basic mechanisms, such as mutation and gene duplication early on. Etxrge 07:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to expand in summary style. --Lexor|Talk 08:08, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

A semantic nit: can "drift" of nonfunctional DNA sequences be called "evolution", if it does not lead to better fitness in the evolutionary sense? -130.233.136.69 Mon Dec 13 08:30:52 EET 2004

Yes, because evolution is usually defined a "change in allele frequencies" which can be caused by many factors (drift, mutation, gene flow, selection) only one of these (selection) will necessarily result in an increase in fitness. See the relevant section in the evolution article. --Lexor|Talk 08:08, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

New intro paragraph[edit]

The previous intro paragraph was perhaps a better description of molecular population genetics, a sister field. The new paragraph adds a discussion of protein evolution, and provides a historical account of the development of the field to the current day.NatMor 05:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Embryology[edit]

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Infinite alleles model[edit]

I suggest that we make an article for the "Infinite alleles model". It's an important model, but it's a model of population genetic. -PhDP (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Key researchers in molecular evolution, is this relevant ?[edit]

Is this section relevant ? First of all, there's nothing like that in the other important articles about evolution, and also, it seems subjectives. The important researchers will be quoted in the text anyway... I think we should remove it -PhDP (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the above-- a list of names without concepts is odd for this type of article and the choice of researchers seems incomplete therefore appears arbitrary. I'd nominate the section for deletion OR expand the article so that the related research and names are mentioned naturally. Rlrogers (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolution as a whole handles this division via 2 pages, splitting between evolution for the science and evolutionary biology for the discipline. But the people named in evolutionary biology are chosen (with supporting citations) on the basis of their track record in discipline-building rather than their foundational accomplishments. These names are more the latter. It would be good to work these names into the "history of the science" subsection earlier on this same page, or into the main history of molecular evolution page it links to. If they are already there, I think they can be deleted. Joannamasel (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Is evolution a continuous process[edit]

  • If evolution is a continuous process, why do we see the same 20 proteogenic amino acids in all organisms? Why do we see the same A, T, G and C in DNA of all organisms? Why do we see the same A, T, G and U in RNA of all organisms? Why there is no evolution in proteogenic amino acids and why there is no evolution in the nucleotide residues which can be the parts of DNA/RNA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Causes of change in allele frequency[edit]

This has nothing to do in this article, molecular evolution is not about "allele frequency", again, this is population genetics, molecular evolution is more concerned about nucleotide substitution. In most intro. book about molecular evolution, there's a little paragraph about this, but the core of the book is about nucleotire substitution, this is how the article should be written. -PhDP (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Connection with punctuated equilibrium[edit]

Neutral mutations do not affect the organism's chances of survival in its natural environment and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as punctuated equilibrium; the modern interpretation of classic evolutionary theory.

I don't know much about evolutionary biology, but this seems like complete BS to me.

  • what might result in punctuated equilibrium? The accumulation of neutral mutations over time? Punctuated equilibrium is the rapid evolutionary change due to some sudden selection pressure. What has that got to do with some slow accumulation over time?
  • punctuated equilibrium is "the modern interpretation of classic evolutionary theory"? Maybe one modern interpretation.

--Tgr (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • And hardly an interpretation, because some incarnations of punctuated equilibrium explicity deny some principles of "classic evolutionary theory" like gradual change (what's "classic evolutionary theory" anyway?). This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.135.69 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the claim. If someone wants to replace it, they can include a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.144.220 (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Genome evolution: Questions, Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic genomes[edit]

I am going to delete the subsections on Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic genomes soon as they do not relate to genome evolution per se. This information is also available in genome, and in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Same for the questions. These questions have been answered in various sections or pages already (e.g. the first question, " How did the genome evolve into its current size?" has been answered in the section on Genome size. [[[User:Peteruetz|Peteruetz]] (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)]

Major changes July2013[edit]

I have made major changes to the article to clean up language that was imprecise and to add sections that reflect the current state of the field. The article still needs a bit of work, but I would like to ask for help on making sure it is accessible to the public as well as thoughts on sections to add or expand. I removed the section on History of Molecular Evolution, since there is a separate page for that topic.

Rlrogers (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)