↓ Skip to main content

Constructive neutral evolution: exploring evolutionary theory’s curious disconnect

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 537)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
5 blogs
twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Constructive neutral evolution: exploring evolutionary theory’s curious disconnect
Published in
Biology Direct, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-7-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arlin Stoltzfus

Abstract

Constructive neutral evolution (CNE) suggests that neutral evolution may follow a stepwise path to extravagance. Whether or not CNE is common, the mere possibility raises provocative questions about causation: in classical neo-Darwinian thinking, selection is the sole source of creativity and direction, the only force that can cause trends or build complex features. However, much of contemporary evolutionary genetics departs from the conception of evolution underlying neo-Darwinism, resulting in a widening gap between what formal models allow, and what the prevailing view of the causes of evolution suggests. In particular, a mutationist conception of evolution as a 2-step origin-fixation process has been a source of theoretical innovation for 40 years, appearing not only in the Neutral Theory, but also in recent breakthroughs in modeling adaptation (the "mutational landscape" model), and in practical software for sequence analysis. In this conception, mutation is not a source of raw materials, but an agent that introduces novelty, while selection is not an agent that shapes features, but a stochastic sieve. This view, which now lays claim to important theoretical, experimental, and practical results, demands our attention. CNE provides a way to explore its most significant implications about the role of variation in evolution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 162 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 23%
Researcher 31 18%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Other 11 6%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 22 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 76 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 19%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 26 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2023.
All research outputs
#890,048
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#15
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,099
of 192,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.