Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of molecular biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
Evolvability is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the Enhancement of Selection section, the Olson-Manning reference does not appear to cover any these ideas. Anyone know what references do?
"Mating rituals that allow sexual selection on "good genes", and so intensify natural selection.
Large effective population size increasing the threshold value of the selection coefficient above which selection becomes an important player. This could happen through an increase in the census population size, decreasing genetic drift, through an increase in the recombination rate, decreasing genetic draft, or through changes in the probability distribution of the numbers of offspring.
Recombination decreasing the importance of the Hill-Robertson effect, where different genotypes contain different adaptive mutations. Recombination brings the two alleles together, creating a super-genotype in place of two competing lineages.
Shorter generation time." ~2026-25285-01 (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
The section is poorly written, seemingly in haste, and the connection to the cited source is at best weak, with some items entirely unsupported, so the impression is of slapdash original research. I've therefore removed the section: we'll do far better to start from a solid source and summarize its findings, than attempting to bodge together some kind of support for this low-quality text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
