Talk:Nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal 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, and 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 biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution explains why the rates of molecular clocks are generally independent of population size?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/May.

Wikipedia

External link error

the external link returns a 404 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.64.47 (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article?

I'm thinking it might be reasonable to cover the neutral and nearly neutral theory in one article, perhaps. At this stage the neutral theory article isn't very long and this one is quite short, so adding it as a subsection of the neutral theory article is reasonable. However if the details of these theories are expanded it might be more suitable to have two articles to make room for all the details. Richard001 (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]