Brian Clarke, "Darwinian Evolution of Proteins," Science 168 (1970), 1009-1011.
J. L. Hubby and R. C. Lewontin, "A Molecular Approach to the Study of Genic Heterozygosity in Natural Populations. I. The Number of Alleles at Different Loci in Drosophila pseudoobscura," Genetics 54 (1966): 546-595.
Motoo Kimura, "Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level," Nature 217 (1968), 624-626.
Motoo Kimura and James Crow, "The Number of Alleles that Can Be Maintained in a Finite Population," Genetics 49 (1964), pp. 725-738.
Jack L. King, "This Week's Citation Classic," Current Contents 34 (1983), 25.
Jack King and Thomas Jukes, "Non-Darwinian Evolution," Science 164 (1969), 788-798.
Thomas Jukes, “Early Development of the Neutral Theory,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 34 (1991) 473-485.
R.C. Lewontin, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974).
R. C. Lewontin, "Twenty-five ears Ago in Genetics: Electrophoresis in the Development of Evolutionary Genetics: Milestone or Millstone?," Genetics 128 (1991) 657-662.
R. C. Lewontin and J. L. Hubby, "A Molecular Approach to the Study of Genic Heterozygosity in Natural Populations. II. Amount of Variation and Degree of Heterozygosity in Natural Populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura," Genetics 54 (1966): 595-609.
R. C. Lewontin and J. Krakauer, “Distribution of Gene Frequency as a Test of the Theory of the Selective Neutrality of Polymorphisms,” Genetics 74 (1973) 175-195.
G. G. Simpson, "Organisms and Molecules in Evolution," Science 146 (1964), 1535-1538.
Ward B. Watt, "Allozymes in Evolutionary Genetics: Self-Imposed burden or Extraordinary Tool?," Genetics 136 (1994) 11-16.
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins," in Evolving Genes and Proteins, eds. V. Bryson and H. Vogel (New York: Academic Press, 1965). pp. 97-166.
Correspondence between Jack King and Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1970.
This fascinating set of letters centers on a comment that Dobzhansky made to King at a conference regarding King's belief in the reality of non-Darwinian evolution. In addition to the highly detailed scientific minutiae that scientists regularly discuss amongst themselves, one feels a real appreciation for the personal relationship between these two men. In the first letter King defends his belief in non-Darwinian evolution by outlining and critiquing the four "legs" upon which it has rested. Towards the end of the letter, King also describes what he teaches his students about the personality clashes that dominated the classical/balance controversy. Dobzhansky opens his reply by telling King that he only meant to say that King was not "constrained" by his belief in non-Darwinian evolution, unlike others such as Crow and Kimura. He then goes on to explain that he has never been a "hyperselectionist" and that the problem of selection vs. drift has had a long history that proponents of non-Darwian evolution ignore. He then explains why he thinks that the four legs upon which non-Darwinian evolution rests seem to be "very shaky." In the third letter in this series, King responds to Dobzhansky's critique that the apparent Poisson distribution of amino acid changes in various proteins (one of the legs) is problematic. He then discusses various cases in which it appears that proteins have changed at different rates throughout evolutionary history. He concludes with a discussion of the mut-T and the different predictions that emerge from Darwinian and non-Darwinian theories of evolution.
Scientists in Open War over "Neutral Theory"
This page was written by Michael Dietrich and Jay Aronson. It was last updated on 27 March 2003.