Latest Natural selection Stories
New light has been shed on a genetic variation that may have played a key role in human evolution by two studies published by an international group of researchers this week in the journal Cell.
In a comparison made between the actual progress of evolution and how it would have progressed if the mechanism had been genetic mutation and natural selection, the two progress in opposite directions.
Does believing in evolution inevitably involve believing in determinism--that all human behavior and thinking is entirely subject to physical laws? Or can there be choice in the matter? Finding
It is within the past 5 to 10,000 years that researchers have found that most genetic mutations have occurred, making us genetically different than we once were.
A professor of pathology and developmental biology at Stanford University believes there’s cause to suspect that humanity’s intellectual prowess may actually be eroding, and at an astonishing rate.
Like job-seekers searching for a new position, living things sometimes have to pick up a new skill if they are going to succeed.
Where’s the white hot furnace that powers evolution? For Darwin it lay in natural selection. The “Modern Synthesis” relocated it to genetic mutation.
A classic study from more than 60 years ago suggesting that males are more promiscuous and females more choosy in selecting mates may, in fact, be wrong, say life scientists who are the first to repeat the historic experiment using the same methods as the original.
According to researchers at Moffitt Cancer Center, cancer is subject to the evolutionary processes laid out by Charles Darwin in his concept of natural selection.
Natural selection was never a good idea, according to Contrarian Evolutionist author Shaun Johnston in the second of a series of articles published at http://www.takeondarwin.com.
- A transitional zone between two communities containing the characteristic species of each.