by Richard William Nelson | Mar 21, 2010
A consensus understanding of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection varies even among evolutionary scientists. Richard Dawkins (pictured left), in his “Illusion of Design” paper originally published in the Natural History Magazine, envisioned natural selection as –
“Non-random survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions.”
While Dawkins’ explanation of natural selection is widely held, developing a consensus among evolutionary scientists remains contentious. In reference to an understanding of natural selection, Darwin conceded –
“No one definition has satisfied all naturalists.”
Continue Reading
by Richard William Nelson | Jan 3, 2010
Molecular clocks played a significant role in the search for evidence of biological evolution over the past seventy-five years. Driven by biotechnological advances, the integration of molecules with morphology reflects the shift from Darwinism to the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution.
Early formulations of the molecular-clock concept assumed that biological molecules—DNA, RNA, and proteins—accumulated sequence changes at consistant rates. These changes were envisioned to as chronological signatures within a lineage, similar to growth rings in a tree trunk. By tracing the order and magnitude of these changes, researchers expected to reconstruct the evolutionary history of each species.
Continue Reading
A consensus understanding of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection varies even among evolutionary scientists. Richard Dawkins (pictured left), in his “Illusion of Design” paper originally published in the Natural History Magazine, envisioned natural selection as –
