The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution [Paperback]

Motoo Kimura (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 22, 1985 | ISBN-10: 0521317932 | ISBN-13: 978-0521317931

Motoo Kimura, as founder of the neutral theory, is uniquely placed to write this book. He first proposed the theory in 1968 to explain the unexpectedly high rate of evolutionary change and very large amount of intraspecific variability at the molecular level that had been uncovered by new techniques in molecular biology. The theory - which asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral mutants - has caused controversy ever since. This book is the first comprehensive treatment of this subject and the author synthesises a wealth of material - ranging from a historical perspective, through recent molecular discoveries, to sophisticated mathematical arguments - all presented in a most lucid manner.

Editorial Reviews

Review

' ... a book which will rank with The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection and The Causes of Evolution as a milestone in evolutionary biology.' Nature

'I have enjoyed the book immensely. It is argumentatively written, but always with fair presentation of the other side.' Bid Essays

'... a work of great significance, which should be read by everyone with a serious interest in evolution.' New Scientist

'... this book is a major contribution to the field.' The Times Higher Education Supplement

Book Description

Motoo Kimura, as founder of the neutral theory, is uniquely placed to write this book. He first proposed the theory in 1968 to explain the unexpectedly high rate of evolutionary change and very large amount of intraspecific variability at the molecular level that had been uncovered by new techniques in molecular biology.

Product Details

• Paperback: 384 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press (February 22, 1985)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521317932
• ISBN-13: 978-0521317931
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,462,742 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A great classic of the evolutionary literature, May 7, 2008

By 

A. J. Cornish Bowden (Marseilles, France) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Paperback)

John H. Ryskamp's "review" is gibberish from beginning to end, and tells us nothing of value about the book, but Mj Dos Reis Barros's review sums it up well.

Motoo Kimura was one of the major evolutionary theorists of the 20th century, and his neutral theory is an essential component for understanding molecular evolution. In particular, he explained why studies of proteins and genes show little evidence of natural selection, whereas studies of whole organisms show a great deal. In essence, biochemical function is much the same in a huge array of organisms, and once a particular protein has arrived at a structure that is very well adapted to its function there is not much selective pressure for it to evolve further. Consequently the evolution that we see is mainly the result of errors that have little or no effect on function, i.e. the result of neutral mutations. This does not, however, exclude negative selection to eliminate mutations that are definitely harmful. We can see this clearly in gene sequences: in many codons the third base can be changed without affecting the amino acid coded for, and thus with no effect on the protein that results, whereas this is not the case for changes in the first and second bases. In accordance with the neutral theory coupled with negative selection, therefore, comparisons between genes coding for the same protein in different organisms show far higher mutation rates for the third base than for the others.

The neutral theory is sometimes claimed by creationists as evidence against natural selection, so it is important to understand that Kimura saw it as nothing of the kind. His position was much more subtle and thoroughly argued than this crude caricature, and he wrote that "[Darwin's] theory of natural selection still remains as the only scientifically acceptable to explain why organisms are so well adaptred to their environments". The point is that Darwin was concerned with organisms and Kimura was concerned with genes: the two are, of course, related to one another, but they are not the same thing.

Another misconception comes from the idea, not only among creationists but also among people who should know better, that the approximately constant rate of change per year (rather than per generation) constitutes an argument against the neutral theory. However, Kimura was perfectly well aware of this constancy when he first proposed the theory, and he discusses it, and his interpretation of it, in detail in his book.

In the quarter century that has passed since the book was written our knowledge of gene sequences has increased immeasurably, but surprisingly little would need to be revised if it were being revised today. It remains one of the great classics of the evolutionary literature.

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars One of the best books ever on molecular evolution, November 8, 2005

By 

Mj Dos Reis Barros (London, UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Paperback)

Kimura's contribution to the area of molecular evolution is unparalleled in this field. This book is a true classic that still has high relevance nowdays and it is continuosly cited in the research literature. The mathematical elegance of this theory is breathtaking, and any student comtemplating a research life in molecular evolution must read it.

4 of 43 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Kimura and "Natural" Mathematics, June 15, 2005

By 

John H. Ryskamp - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Paperback)

"Natural" mathematics is the idea that mathematical formulations are inherently prone to paradox. Therefore, added to them--although not in an internally consistent manner--must be the idea that mathematical formulations are human perception.

This inherently faulty position was taken by mathematicians at the turn of the century in order to avoid the "paradoxes" of Cantorian set theory. However, Garciadiego has shown (in BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES') that the "paradoxes" of set theory were not paradoxes at all--they were meaningless formulations, or simply labels for concepts which had never existed (such as the Burali-Forti "paradox").

This line of mathematical historical research has exposed the flaws of "natural" mathematics. It is well known that Kimura was deficient in mathematical tools when it came time to express his ideas. So he turned to the mathematics of Malecot. Unfortunately, Malecot's mentor was Emile Borel, one of the first mathematicians to develop "natural" mathematics in response to the set-theoretic "paradoxes."

Kimura's neutral theory used to be regarded as the dernier mot in avant garde biological theory. However, it almost certainly is faulty, containing the same flaw as "natural" mathematics. To see how this is so, translate Richard's contradiction (recounted on pp. 141-142 of Garciadiego) into Kimura's theoretical formulation. You will see that it suffers--in its own terms of art--from the flaw Richard saw in his own contradiction (and pointed out in a letter to Poincare). The problem in Richard is that "the collection G had meaning only if the set E was defined in totality; this could not be done except with infinitely many words."

It is very likely that Kimura's notion of "population" plays the same role in the neutral theory, that set E plays in Richard's contradiction, and this identification invalidates the neutral theory. In addition, it is likely that the word "population" is used identically in Darwin, and open to the same objection as set E. This is because "natural" mathematics is an idea with deep historical roots: it has been the response to paradox since ancient times. However, it is almost certainly true that there are no internally consistent paradoxes; they are simply meaningless formulations.

Thus, this book has historical interest, but no internal consistency.