论文部分内容阅读
香田先生的论点似乎有二:其一曰“中立”一词费解;其二曰“中立于淘汰”意味着“与淘汰无关”,而对于香田先生来说,不可能有“与淘汰无关”的事情,所以“中立于淘汰”这个提法本身欠妥。这种批评看来源出于对自然淘汰的错误解释。首先,如果忠实地按照词义来讲,“中立”(neutr—1)一词表示“不参与任何一方”。因此,在突变与自然淘汰的语境中使用该词时,其含义就是“对自然淘汰既无利也无害(中立的)”(木村资生:《分子进化中立说》)。此时,正如香田先生所说,有利、有害或中立云云,都是与既有的对立基因相比较而言的;但是这一点,犹如普
Mr. Xiang Tian's argument seems to be twofold: one of them is “puzzled”; the other is “neutralized” means “unrelated to obsolescence”; for Mr. Xiang Tian it is impossible to have “irrelevant” Things, so the notion of “neutralization” is inherently defective. This criticism appears to have originated from the wrong interpretation of the natural phase-out. First, the word “neutr-1” means “not participating in any one party” if faithfully according to its meaning. Therefore, the use of the term in the context of mutation and natural elimination means “neither neutral nor harmful (neutral) for the elimination of nature” (Kimura Shizuka: “Molecular Evolutionary Neutrality Theory”). At this point, as Mr. Xiang Tian said, favorable, harmful or neutral things are compared with the existing antagonistic genes; but this is just like Pu