trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

The rate of evolution scales positively with population size due to increased selection efficacy.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
5 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that the rate of evolution scales positively with population size due to increased selection efficacy?

Yes. Multiple genomic and population-genetics studies confirm that larger effective population sizes enhance the efficiency of natural selection, thereby scaling the rate and efficacy of adaptive and purifying evolution.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 5 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The retrieved literature consistently supports the fundamental population-genetics principle that larger population sizes increase the efficacy of selection (such as purifying selection and the purging of mutation load), while smaller populations suffer from increased genetic drift and reduced selection efficiency. Multiple studies across diverse taxa (yeast, barnacles, birds, bacteria, and social insects) provide direct empirical evidence supporting the claim, and none refute it.

Evidence for · 5
Factors driving effective population size and pan-genome evolution in bacteria
2018
The study highlights that effective population sizes govern genome architecture evolution and selection efficacy under drift-barrier frameworks.
Get citation
Bobay, L. & Ochman, H. (2018). Factors driving effective population size and pan-genome evolution in bacteria. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1272-4

See more details
More for · 4
Population Size, Sex and Purifying Selection: Comparative Genomics of Two Sister Taxa of the Wild Yeast Saccharomyces paradoxus
2020
Results show that larger populations with more frequent sexual generations exhibit higher efficacy of purifying selection.
Get citation
Koufopanou, V., Lomas, S., Pronina, O., Almeida, P., Sampaio, J., Mousseau, T. A., Liti, G., & Burt, A. (2020). Population Size, Sex and Purifying Selection: Comparative Genomics of Two Sister Taxa of the Wild Yeast Saccharomyces paradoxus. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evaa141

The impact of social complexity on the efficacy of natural selection in termites
2024
Findings demonstrate that reductions in effective population size through eusociality strongly decrease the genome-wide efficiency of natural selection.
Get citation
Roux, C., Ha, A., Weyna, A., Lodé, M., & Romiguier, J. (2024). The impact of social complexity on the efficacy of natural selection in termites. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.26.591327

The genome of the Pacific acorn barnacle provides insights into the evolution of extremely large populations
2026
Analyses in large populations reveal elevated nucleotide diversity and strong purifying selection consistent with increased selection efficacy.
Get citation
AG, R., ST, S., E, J., JP, W., & AD, K. (2026). The genome of the Pacific acorn barnacle provides insights into the evolution of extremely large populations. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.04.27.721231

Determinants of mutation load in birds.
2026
In agreement with the nearly-neutral theory, mutation load was substantially higher and purging efficacy lower in populations with small effective population sizes.
Get citation
F, B. & JBW, W. (2026). Determinants of mutation load in birds.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyag033

Related receipts

What does the evidence say?

The retrieved literature consistently supports the fundamental population-genetics principle that larger population sizes increase the efficacy of selection (such as purifying selection and the purging of mutation load), while smaller populations suffer from increased genetic drift and reduced selection efficiency. Multiple studies across diverse taxa (yeast, barnacles, birds, bacteria, and social insects) provide direct empirical evidence supporting the claim, and none refute it.

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 8804 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work