Asklemmy

43958 readers

1327 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What possible, fundamental, misunderstanding of the nature of the universe could make current academics look like flat earthers? (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Daft_ish@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

124 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I would expect randomness to play a larger roll than fitness.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

In the short term (single digit generations) that's probably true, but I don't see how it could be on longer scales. If the random mutations decrease fitness, they won't be passed on at some point, since there is less reproduction. If they increase fitness, they will be passed on to more individuals.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

What OP said is Motoo Kimura's Neutral Theory of evolution. There's a lot of evidence supporting it. The vast majority of mutations have a negligible effect on fitness. So it is very possible that something may evolve purely by chance.