Evolutionary Dynamics

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

…on't read that book. Dawkins oversimplifies the important and complicates the obvious. If you want a good book on an analytical approach to evolution, might I recommend "Evolutionary Dynamics" by Nowak in its place.

…ly scratching the surface of the current state of the art (and the idea of TE's acting as fodder for evolution isn't exactly new). Short reply -- Get Martin Nowak's book Evolutionary Dynamics Long reply -- Even Nowak's work is just the beginning (disclaimer: my current Ph.D. thesis work is building off of Nowak's start). Let's start with this notion that TE's are vital for evolution. Real answer: sort of. You see, there's an awful lot of species that don't have an overabundance of "junk" DNA, yet are still able to adapt and evolve. The reason that TE's at least seem to be more important in higher order plants and animals is because of how such organisms organize their genomes. Ok, before I get carried away on a long rant, here's the heart of the matter for the hacker audience: Proteins fold into domains. These are compact structures with …