Often, evolutionists use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider their work done when they concoct a plausible story.” Secondly, the criteria for acceptance of a story are so loose that many pass without proper confirmation. First, the rejection of one adaptive story usually leads to its replacement by another, rather than to a suspicion that a different kind of explanation might be required. Unfortunately, a common procedure among evolutionists does not allow such definable rejection for two reasons. But if it could be dismissed after failing some explicit test, then alternatives would get their chance. We might still view it as restrictive and object to its status as an argument of first choice. “We would not object so strenuously to the adaptationist programme if its invocation, in any particular case, could lead in principle to its rejection for want of evidence. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Ĭompeting interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.įunding: This work was funded by National Institutes of Health grant R01GM135899 and R35GM139383 to JDJ, and grant STE 325/17 from the Priority Program 1819 of the German Research Foundation (DFG) to WS. Fay, University of Rochester, UNITED STATESĬopyright: © 2022 Johri et al. Citation: Johri P, Stephan W, Jensen JD (2022) Soft selective sweeps: Addressing new definitions, evaluating competing models, and interpreting empirical outliers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |