Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

newscientist.com

5 pointsrobg3 comments

This is well discussed by a biologist and his scientist friends on Pharyngula:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/speaking_of_media...

I was not previously aware of how many times before the New Scientist magazine has muffed reporting on science issues. Some examples are linked in the blog discussion comments on the latest article.

Interesting, about horizontal gene transfer making concepts of heredity and so on more complex than originally thought. But it should not be titled "Darwin was wrong..." That smacks of ID, which is in my opinion nothing less than a major selective disadvantage to homo sapiens.

Agreed. As a theist myself, I'm often embarrassed by the ID bandwagon and the epidemic lack of reason that goes along with it. The cover of this magazine is going to get waved triumphantly as the old "science made a mistake so it must be totally wrong" fallacy gets drug back into the limelight.

A much better title would have been "Evolutionary biology much bigger and more complicated than Darwin imagined." In other words, science as usual. But that wouldn't sell many magazines, now would it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com