Darwin was wrong.

[Darkhole]

Thank you NewScientist, this is gone be gefundenes fressen for the creationisten and IDiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

In a few days we will see that cover on their websites.:mad:

[mummymonkey]

I think it was an error and most unfortunate. Doubtless they hoped to sell a few more magazines. The article itself is hardly news either and in no way justifies the statement "Darwin was wrong".

[quixotecoyote]

Thank you NewScientist, this is gone be gefundenes fressen for the creationisten and IDiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

In a few days we will see that cover on their websites.:mad:

Probably, but we have to smack New Scientist with the same newspaper we routinely smack the creationists with:

Darwin is not integral to modern evolutionary theory. He was a great scientist for his time period and got a lot right, especially with the data and instruments he had to work with.

When people say Darwin was wrong about something I want to ask them if they're aware he has as outdated fashion sense as well.

[MG1962]

Darwin is not integral to modern evolutionary theory. He was a great scientist for his time period and got a lot right, especially with the data and instruments he had to work with.



I have always thought Darwin's greatest contribution was not actually his theory but the fact he got the concept on the table

[The Atheist]

Thank you NewScientist, this is gone be gefundenes fressen for the creationisten and IDiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

In a few days we will see that cover on their websites.:mad:

No need to be sad here, it only strengthens science's case. Darwin was still largely right, but the fact that he not only made mistakes but also that they're highlighted as the ToE itself has evolved. Science is capable of getting it [slightly] wrong and admitting it.

Exactly the opposite of IDiots.

[shadron]

I have always thought Darwin's greatest contribution was not actually his theory but the fact he got the concept on the table

It is no huge secret that there were problems with Darwin's original theory, starting with a lack of knowledge about the mechanism for inheritance and going right on down. The brilliance is that the patching of these holes in his theory did not damage any of its basic concepts, just made them more understandable and provided detail about how they work. One is tempted to compare Newtonian mechanics and what happened when Einstein corrected it; the difference is that the Einstein revelations opened vast new implications for Physics, whereas Darwin provided the implications for Biology up front.

On the other hand, I find a need to sell magazines through shock therapy to be dumb. Someone looking back ten years from now at the cover will just shake his head in wonder. The points in he article are old hat (well, 5-10 years old), not cutting edge.

[Wowbagger]

Does the article promote Creationism as a scientific alternative? If not, there is little to complain about, other than greatly exaggerated headlines.


ETA: Though, I am NO fan of New Scientist, for other reasons.

[athon]

I got the article in my media releases, and read it a few days ago. I was tempted to link to it, but it was embargoed and I'm always a little wary of posting on embargoed items.

NS has a tendency to be a little sensationalist in recent years, which bothers me. This is a perfect example. The controversy as I understand it is a little overinflated in the article, and the writing is hyping the discussion into something of a conflict. There are indeed some extremists, but for the most part the biologists I know agree that the 'tree' is a loose analogy. Like any metaphor, it has its limitations, but the basic concept still stands, even if there is a hell of a lot of branches that split and bump back into one another.

Athon

[Asolepius]

It's irritating that NS should perpetuate the canard that Newtonian mechanics is superseded. Not true. Men went to the moon using Newtonian mechanics. It wasn't wrong, and still isn't wrong, but was built on the observations available at the time. I get this claim quite often from homeopaths, who think that their fantasies have been proven by quantum mechanics.

Yes, the headline is unnecessarily sensationalist. It implies that Darwin was totally wrong, which he certainly wasn't. He was just unaware of HGT, and could not have been aware. The tree model was a good explanation for the observations available at the time, and remains a good explanation for those observations (like Newton). There are now additional observations so the tree is being modified. This is science, and I have no problem with it.

[H3LL]

The cover of New Scientist:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=14&pictureid=572

Yes, the article is interesting;
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?full=true)

but do New Scientist really think that in the current climate that this is a sensible cover.

First, I would argue that the tree of life is an excellent pictorial image for those that need the basics of evolution (already way too few). Most of the details in the article show Darwin "wrong" for those that wish to study evolution in more detail.

The tree of life does for Darwin's theories what the rubber sheet does for Einstein's theories.

I think New Scientist has done a great disservice to the scientific community and I fully expect the ID movement to jump on this cover (without even opening it to see the article) with great gusto.

Anyone want to count the days before this cover appears prominently in some ID/fundy presentation?

New Scientist - 0/10 for science marketing.

[Big Les]

The cover at any rate is a pathetic attempt at attention-grabbing and sensationalism. Are there any popular science mags that don't actually suck?

[H3LL]

Deleted.

Just realised My thread had been moved.

My title was better, BTW. :)

[H'ethetheth]

A similar Dutch magazine called NWT (translated: Natural Science and Technology) did the same thing a few months ago. A hugely overblown cover with Darwin depicted on a chair while the floor is being sawed from under him, cartoon style. The articles, with titles such as "the end of evolution", were about refinements and slight modifications of evolution theory.

Pathetic indeed.

[Kuko 4000]

...but do New Scientist really think that in the current climate that this is a sensible cover.


Indeed, the way I see it, covers and headlines like this are very irresponsible and do way more harm than good. I'd like to hear their side of the story as well, though.

"See, children, even scientists are now saying that Darwin was wrong."

[Mojo]

Thank you NewScientist, this is gone be gefundenes fressen for the creationisten and IDiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

In a few days we will see that cover on their websites.:mad:


Much as we see certain homoeopaths repeatedly citing 13 things that do not make sense (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600) (see number 4).

[Asolepius]

Much as we see certain homoeopaths repeatedly citing 13 things that do not make sense (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600) (see number 4).Good grief, Ennis again. :rolleyes: Whose co-investigator was a director of Boiron, the biggest homeopathy company in France. Whose work has never been replicated anywhere else.

But to return to the topic, the NS cover is an absolute disgrace and is anti-scientific. If Darwin were alive today he would have a good case for a libel suit.

[Old man]

The Tree of Life

http://articles.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2008/January/1.8circustree.jpg

Darwin was wrong, eh?

[Cuddles]

The cover at any rate is a pathetic attempt at attention-grabbing and sensationalism. Are there any popular science mags that don't actually suck?

It depends on exactly what you mean by "popular", but it's really a continuum. The better the science is, the less popular the magazine is. New Scientist has degenerated into a complete waste of trees (or electrons if you read it online). Scientific American is a bit better. More specialised magazines like Physics World are much better but will generally be much harder reading. As far as I know there isn't really a popular science magazine worth spending money on.

[martu]

Who do you guys think will be converted to a an anti-evolutionist stance by this cover? Anyone who uses reason to answer this question sees it for what it is.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What the hell is it with New Scientist, anyway?

~~ Paul

[rjh01]

It is an interesting article. I hope people who believe in ID read it. Then they may learn a small part of the truth. The article is very anti ID without even mentioning ID. So I think you lot are worried about nothing.

[SusanB-M1]

ETA: Though, I am NO fan of New Scientist, for other reasons.
I wonder why? I have been subscribing to it for 18 months now (the CD version) and enjoy listening to most of the articles chosen. But of course I am not in any way a scientist.
Are there any popular science mags that don't actually suck?
I too would be interested to know - but only if they are produced in CD versions ... and are mostly for the general reader.

ETA I see Cuddles has probably answered this last point.

[rjh01]

I think you should get your knowledge from several sources. Reading a science magazine would be one source and reading this forum is another.

Scientific American is available on line in pdf format. You can then get the computer to read it to you. Yes I subscribe to it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thank you NewScientist, this is gone be gefundenes fressen for the creationisten and IDiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

In a few days we will see that cover on their websites.:mad:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169601/posts
especially post #13
Neo-Darwinism is in the process of being completely overturned. And for reasons that Creationists (and more recently) IDers have maintained all along. And when Darwin’s tree of life comes crashing down, and the dust finally settles, you will see Creation/ID standing tall, completely unshaken. I hate to say it (ok, actually I love saying it) WE TOLD YOU SO!

[Kuko 4000]

It is an interesting article. I hope people who believe in ID read it. Then they may learn a small part of the truth. The article is very anti ID without even mentioning ID. So I think you lot are worried about nothing.


Can't speak for others, but I have not commented on the actual article. How many people who see or hear about the cover actually read the article? I think this is similar to a positive homeopathy study, people will see and quote the headline and not even bother checking out the actual study. This word will spread much faster than any corrections that go into any details at all, especially if the message in the cover is something they want to hear.

[Dave_46]

They are aware of the probability of misquotation.

From their editorial.
None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126923.000-editorial-uprooting-darwins-tree.html

Dave

[MG1962]

Who do you guys think will be converted to a an anti-evolutionist stance by this cover? Anyone who uses reason to answer this question sees it for what it is.

It is the exclusion of information trick. Go to a Creationist lecture, you will be told this wrong thats wrong, and even science magazines are starting to question evolution. On the powerpoint, a big image of this cover comes up, the lecture moves on to other images. The audience sees validation, because they have not had access to the information in the actual article

[Dancing David]

Thank you NewScientist, this is gone be gefundenes fressen for the creationisten and IDiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

In a few days we will see that cover on their websites.:mad:

It is a silly point and article unrelated to Darwin and the 'tree of life'.

Duh, 90% of what is commonly calld 'life' represents only 10% of genetic diversity. So yes if you look at archaebacteria and the prokaryotes , the tree does not show. But then, most of what darwin observed in not those two pieces of genetic information.

[cj.23]

I have always thought Darwin's greatest contribution was not actually his theory but the fact he got the concept on the table


He didn't. Evolutionary theories had been around for centuries, and Buffon, Chambers, Lamarck and others had all already brought the idea to popular attention. :)

I am quite keen on people actually learning something about Darwin, his rel achievements and his life, and the truth about what he proposed and how he was wrong. In fact I made a number of suggestions for myths about Darwin that could be addressed on the NY Sceptics Darwin DAy event thread.

The hagiography of Darwin obscures how the actual history of Science proceeded. Well done, New Scientist (which being a British magazine is not actually that worried about Creationist loonies!)

cj x

[cj.23]

But to return to the topic, the NS cover is an absolute disgrace and is anti-scientific. If Darwin were alive today he would have a good case for a libel suit.


No he wouldn't and no it isn't. Have you read Origin of the Species? Darwin was wrong - on a number of counts. No one as far as I know today believes in Darwinian evolution, if you include his proposed mechanism of inheritance. What we believe in is the Darwinian-Mendelian synthesis, a refined and vastly improved version of the model. So Darwin was wrong - fact. So were most people in the past, and so are we, as future generations will show, on much as well. :)

cj x

[athon]

It depends on exactly what you mean by "popular", but it's really a continuum. The better the science is, the less popular the magazine is. New Scientist has degenerated into a complete waste of trees (or electrons if you read it online). Scientific American is a bit better. More specialised magazines like Physics World are much better but will generally be much harder reading. As far as I know there isn't really a popular science magazine worth spending money on.

Cosmos magazine (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/) does a fairly good job. Every now and then there's an article that I find a little sensationalist, but for the most part the editor does a pretty good job. Wilson de Silva is a well known science writer here in Australia, and I know a few of the writers and editors on the team. It's fairly glossy and aimed at something of a lay audience, more towards the younger end, but it does make for a good read.

Athon

[athon]

No he wouldn't and no it isn't. Have you read Origin of the Species? Darwin was wrong - on a number of counts. No one as far as I know today believes in Darwinian evolution, if you include his proposed mechanism of inheritance. What we believe in is the Darwinian-Mendelian synthesis, a refined and vastly improved version of the model. So Darwin was wrong - fact. So were most people in the past, and so are we, as future generations will show, on much as well. :)

cj x

It's actually quite timely, because I'm currently rewriting an old text I'd written into a book on the topic of science theories that are no longer considered 'true'.

The problem is, 'wrong' is the wrong word. Miasma theory wasn't 'wrong'. Phlogiston theory wasn't 'wrong'. Vitalism wasn't 'wrong'. Newton's laws weren't 'wrong'. Hell, even aether theory isn't 'wrong'. But none of them explained things as well as the theories they were replaced by. There were gaps, poor assumptions and shortfalls in explanations. As more and more observations came to light, aspects of each theory needed to give way to more complex models, more precise connections with other theories and more useful definitions.

Now, I know many people might think I'm playing semantics with language, but my point is that theories are rarely ever accepted if they are completely useless at explaining something. For example, miasma theory suggests disease is caused by poisons floating through the air, which is marked by rancid odours and dank conditions. While germ theory replaced it, miasma theory wasn't completely wrong - it just didn't describe all of the observations we subsequently discovered as time went on. Those things it explained were retained in a more detailed theory.

Darwin's theory didn't take into account molecular genetics for an obvious reason. His ideas needed modification, new terminologies and better connections with other theories as time went on. To say it was 'wrong' is to imply that the entire theory was disfunctional, which is nonsense.

Again, it's where a bit of science philosophy comes into play. Part of the reason I want to write this book is to get across the notion that science isn't a cycle of building ideas and then dumping them, but rather taking old ideas and modifying them with better features as new observations come to light.

Athon

[sol invictus]

No he wouldn't and no it isn't. Have you read Origin of the Species? Darwin was wrong - on a number of counts. No one as far as I know today believes in Darwinian evolution, if you include his proposed mechanism of inheritance.

You're right, of course. And you could say precisely the same about Newton, who thought that gravitational influences were instantaneous, that gravity followed an inverse square force law, and had a number of other quite wrong ideas in diverse areas of physics.

And yet I've never seen a magazine cover story "Newton was wrong!". I wonder why?

[I Ratant]

This month's "National Geographic cover.
Strangely, a sober and realistic account of the origin of the paradigm shift he began.
Only a total blithering idiot would expect the first ideas about something that different from what "everyone knows" would cover all the ground the concept embraced, when most of what it brought up wasn't known to anyone at the time!
But since the objections to evolution tend to come from the simpleton branch of homo sap, it's to be expected.

[cj.23]

You're right, of course. And you could say precisely the same about Newton, who thought that gravitational influences were instantaneous, that gravity followed an inverse square force law, and had a number of other quite wrong ideas in diverse areas of physics.

And yet I've never seen a magazine cover story "Newton was wrong!". I wonder why?

I suspect you would have to have been looking around 1911 to find that? :)

cj x

[rjh01]

I just googled "darwin was wrong" "new scientist" (with quotes) and I could not find on the first four pages anything to worry about. Mostly links to articles saying how bad the headline was.

I think the reason there is not much to worry about is that the intellectual standard of ID is too low. See this link www. darwinconspiracy.com/ (remove space to make a link). It has three arguments against Darwin was wrong. All three are very stupid arguments.

[TX50]

Have you read Origin of the Species?

It's "On the Origin of Species", not "Origin of the Species":

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/whisky01/images/origin.jpg

[Mojo]

Phlogiston theory wasn't 'wrong'.


Other than in the sense that it was contradicted by the facts.

[cj.23]

It's "On the Origin of Species", not "Origin of the Species":

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/whisky01/images/origin.jpg

Yes, I can quote the full title if you like - we usually just reduce it to Origin or The Origin of the Species though. :) Just out of curiosity, anyone know Darwin's splendidly titled final publication? It always amuses me!

cj x

[Asolepius]

No he wouldn't and no it isn't. Have you read Origin of the Species? Darwin was wrong - on a number of counts. No one as far as I know today believes in Darwinian evolution, if you include his proposed mechanism of inheritance. What we believe in is the Darwinian-Mendelian synthesis, a refined and vastly improved version of the model. So Darwin was wrong - fact. So were most people in the past, and so are we, as future generations will show, on much as well. :)

cj xI have Origin on the shelf but I'm currently reading The Voyage of the Beagle as preparation. Obviously I have been exposed to the content of Origin in bites over the years, and have thumbed through the full text. I have probably gone a bit over the top in my post above, but I repeatedly get annoyed by people who don't think of the impact of their choice of words. Any lay person seeing that cover will assume that it means Darwin was largely or even completely wrong. Nobody here is saying they agree with that. The core of Darwinian evolution theory is variation on which the environment selects. He got that right and it remains right.

ETA: ....and many people have sued for libel on flimsier evidence that that.

[Mojo]

Yes, I can quote the full title if you like - we usually just reduce it to Origin or The Origin of the Species though. :)


Not the point that was being made, though, which you still don't seem to have taken on board: the title "The Origin of the Species" has quite different implications to "The Origin of Species".

Just out of curiosity, anyone know Darwin's splendidly titled final publication? It always amuses me!


He also spent a long time working on barnacles.

[Kotatsu]

He also spent a long time working on barnacles.

I've read part of that (it's available online through some British library, and possibly elsewhere), and it's amazing work, too! I believe there were some illustrations as well, which were quite good by that time standards. However, they might have been drawn by someone else.

[Mojo]

I've read part of that (it's available online through some British library, and possibly elsewhere), and it's amazing work, too!


Living barnacles (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_LivingCirripedia.html)
Fossil barnacles (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_FossilCirripedia.html)

If you go the the Publications (http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html) page you can download the entire books as pdf files.

[I Ratant]

This month's Smithsonian magazine's article, titled "What Darwin Didn't Know" ends with this:
"When asked about gaps in Darwin's knowledge, Francisco Ayala, a biologist at the University of California at Irvine, laughs.
"That's easy", he says, "Darwin didn't know 99 percent of what we know." Which may sound bad, Ayala goes on, but "the 1 percent he did know was the most important part."

[Beerina]

I think it was an error and most unfortunate. Doubtless they hoped to sell a few more magazines. The article itself is hardly news either and in no way justifies the statement "Darwin was wrong".

It's just more evolution, not revolution, so to speak, of his idea.

The basic concept remains intact.

In any case, given how viruses operate, it should be no surprise that once in awhile they leave behind, or take with them, something that they shouldn't, and thus transfer a small Lego piece here or there.

Heck, I think that's the current explanation for the severity of the superflu every 10 years or so -- a bird flu and a human flu, both of which a pig can catch, get mixed up inside the pig, and re-introduce to humans a flu that looks chemically very little like anything a human has had, and hence takes a lot more work for the body to figure out how to fight off.

[SusanB-M1]

I think you should get your knowledge from several sources. Reading a science magazine would be one source and reading this forum is another.

Scientific American is available on line in pdf format. You can then get the computer to read it to you. Yes I subscribe to it.
Thank you. I'll see what I can do.

[cj.23]

It's just more evolution, not revolution, so to speak, of his idea.

The basic concept remains intact.


Except it wasn't really his idea.

And this I think brings me back to my problem with this year long celebration of Darwin. No look, I'm a fan. I own several standard lives, Darwin's books, have read through the Darwin Correspondence archive and have enthusiastically supported a number of Darwin related projects. Yet increasingly I find myself frustrated that Darwin is misunderstood, misrepresented or just a caricature. And really, I think the ultimate problem is that Darwin is not all that important.

If I asked someone on the street in Britain why Charles Darwin was important they might well say "he discovered Evolution", completely oblivious to the fact that Evolution was widely known, and to some extent accepted, before Charles. I could point to Lamarck, Buffon, Charles's grandfather Erasmus or probably the greatest popularizer of the theory, the Scottish writer Robert Chambers.

A few people might say more accurately "he invented the idea of Natural Selection" - except of course he did not, and the idea can be found back as far as the Ancient Greeks, and especially in some of the pre-Socratics. He did however introduce the phrase, retaining it too the 5th edition where he uses Spencer's "survival of the fittest." A curious circle here: from the political economics of Thomas Malthus, who inspired Darwin, to Darwin to Herbert Spencer and his "social Darwinism" of political economics again.

What Darwin did, and his importance, is that alongside Alfred Russel Wallace he collected so much evidence for the idea of Natural Selection that it, in spite of grave objections from the physicists of the day - for it was in violation of the known natural laws of physics which dictated a younger Earth, but so was Uniformitarianism in Geoology, so something had to give - anyway what he did was make the first reputable evidentially solid case for the hypothesis.

Much was wrong - his notion of how inheritance worked was nonsensical, and not to my mind really that far from Lamarcks, though Lamarck gets a bad press, why I know not really - sure I know about the tragedy of Lysenkoism, but it may be more understandable than those unfamiliar with plant breeding believe - anyway - Darwin's & Wallace's idea would have gone nowhere without Mendel's breakthrough - genetics.


So what is my beef? Simple - the over praise of Darwin obscures the actual history of the idea, and how a scientific hypothesis was refined, developed across a number of research communities, and slowly advanced through a series of often seemingly fatal objections; how an idea, Evolution, that is very ancient (and fairly obvious - if you could not infer something of the sort from animal husbandry, well poor old Johnny Ray (pun intended) and the Linnean system had pretty much classified the Animal Kingdom in a way that shouted "look, lifeforms are diversifying". Natural Selection was a pretty ancient idea as well, but one that was really current in the culture in which Darwin lived, through the Reverend Malthus' depressing musings on the survival of the human population. I don't think many people doubted god was on the side of the Big Battalions.

We have lost sight of the history of Evolution as an idea, have allowed myths about a supposed widespread conflict between religion and science to obscure the actual truth of what happened back then, and all too often imposed our own ideological nonsense on the history of science. We have made it all one man, elevating him to a saintly role, and creating pious hagiographies, that espouse the myth of the Eureka moment, of a man who revolutionized science - and ignoring the quiet dedicated work of the many who worked before, were contemporary with, or the tens of thousands who have developed our knowledge of morphology and evolutionary biology since.

We need a poster of Darwin with a safety pin through the nose, Jamie Reid style. We need to metaphorically defecate on his grave, to drag him from the ridiculous pedestal where he stands taunted by Creationists, who unfairly understand Evolution =Darwin: because we implied it was so! We need more New Scientist headlines not less, more real understanding of the history of science, and more realization that science is a progress done by women and men, not just bearded geniuses of another age. :(

cj x

[The Atheist]

We need more New Scientist headlines not less, more real understanding of the history of science, and more realization that science is a progress done by women and men, not just bearded geniuses of another age. :(

cj x

What is it with Anglicans who understand and accept science and the scientific method, only to be sucked into the abyss of mysticism, lies and obfuscation that is religion?

[technoextreme]

Thank you NewScientist, this is gone be gefundenes fressen for the creationisten and IDiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

In a few days we will see that cover on their websites.:mad:
Whine whine whine whine and more whine. Scientists themselves have done the same thing comparing some of the mechanisms of evolution to a thermostat which for all accounts and purposes is a heck of a lot easier to wrongly extrapolate creationism from than that headline.

[Kuko 4000]

For me this seems very simple, the sensationalist 'Darwin Was Wrong' cover in a science magazine gives unnecessary ammunition for the creationists and other anti-evolution people. The fact that they are blanks just doesn't matter.

Please help me understand your point of view.

[Mojo]

Much was wrong - his notion of how inheritance worked was nonsensical, and not to my mind really that far from Lamarcks, though Lamarck gets a bad press, why I know not really - sure I know about the tragedy of Lysenkoism, but it may be more understandable than those unfamiliar with plant breeding believe - anyway - Darwin's & Wallace's idea would have gone nowhere without Mendel's breakthrough - genetics.


Darwin's notion of inheritance seems to have been similar to that held by many biologists contemporary with him, so it's perhaps not surprising that it might have been similar to Lamarck's.

Indeed, the lack of a compatible mechanism of inheritance was a major problem as far as evolution by natural selection was concerned until the rediscovery of Mendel's work around the start of the 20th century.

[bronson]

What about the discrepancy between the claim made by the title “Darwin was wrong” and the eventual conclusion of the article, which might be paraphrased along the lines of “Some people think one aspect of Darwin’s theory is wrong, and others think that it is still correct. Evidence is equivocal and work continues. We still don’t know for certain.”

Well, I’m sure it sold well.

[Kotatsu]

If you go the the Publications (http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html) page you can download the entire books as pdf files.

Thank you!

So what is my beef? Simple - the over praise of Darwin obscures the actual history of the idea, and how a scientific hypothesis was refined, developed across a number of research communities, and slowly advanced through a series of often seemingly fatal objections; how an idea, Evolution, that is very ancient (and fairly obvious - if you could not infer something of the sort from animal husbandry, well poor old Johnny Ray (pun intended) and the Linnean system had pretty much classified the Animal Kingdom in a way that shouted "look, lifeforms are diversifying". Natural Selection was a pretty ancient idea as well, but one that was really current in the culture in which Darwin lived, through the Reverend Malthus' depressing musings on the survival of the human population. I don't think many people doubted god was on the side of the Big Battalions.

I overheard some people at the museum today talking about books about Darwin. Apparently, there is a book written by a woman who set out to prove that marine biology was what was driving Darwin all his life. She proceeds to show this by quote mining from all kinds of things he wrote, for a reason that was not discussed by these two people. I further understand that there was a book launch tonight at the Natural History Museum , which may or may not have had as its thesis that Darwin's dislike of slavery somehow drove him to formulate his ideas and write all his books.

I have no idea how either of these conclusions were reached (except, apparently, by quote mining of his collected works). Nevertheless, if these overheard anecdotes have a factual basis, they seem to support what I understand is the gist of your post. They also show that there are some people out there who ahve too much time for no good reason.

[cj.23]

??? I just read the New Scientist article on HGT, and i'm totally confused. We have known that through polypolidization two species could generate a fertile hybrid, and hence a new species in a single generation since what, 1950, and probably long before? It's really not that uncommon in trees after all, or grasses. I always wondered why this seemed to be ignored in depictions of the tree of life, and thought the whole concept was rather based on animals (though some experience the same thing). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy What is new about any of this???

cj x

[quarky]

Darwin spilled grape juice on his mom's rug when he was 8 years old.

And that was wrong.

[Pixel42]

Thank you NewScientist, this is gone be gefundenes fressen for the creationisten and IDiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1
Good article on creationism in today's Guardian, and it seems that sadly Darkhole was right:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-science

The theme of pastor John Benton's sermon in the evening is "Genesis and Evolution: Do They Fit Together?" He holds up a recent New Scientist cover, headlined "Darwin was wrong," as evidence that the scientific base for evolution is crumbling, that the Darwinian tree of life can be uprooted.

Mackay, too, is clutching a copy of that issue of New Scientist when I meet him. This is manna from heaven - the science establishment offering up gifts to the creationists.

[H3LL]

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers have been moved to respond as well they might.

What on earth were you thinking when you produced a garish cover proclaiming that "Darwin was wrong" (24 January)?

First, it's false, and second, it's inflammatory. And, as you surely know, many readers will interpret the cover not as being about Darwin, the historical figure, but about evolution.

Nothing in the article showed that the concept of the tree of life is unsound; only that it is more complicated than was realised before the advent of molecular genetics. It is still true that all of life arose from "a few forms or... one", as Darwin concluded in The Origin of Species. It is still true that it diversified by descent with modification via natural selection and other factors....[more]

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126960.100-darwin-was-right.html


:boggled:

[volatile]

Good article on creationism in today's Guardian, and it seems that sadly Darkhole was right:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-science

I read that in the paper -- really surprising to read that there's a creationist museum in the UK!

It reminded me of this thread - how very prescient.

[Asolepius]

Good article on creationism in today's Guardian, and it seems that sadly Darkhole was right:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-scienceSo was I - just as I predicted.

[cj.23]

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers have been moved to respond as well they might.



Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126960.100-darwin-was-right.html


:boggled:


They are wrong - the tree of life was always wrong, as any botanist can attest. (see previous post). To be fair, Darwin illustarted it in other less "historicist" ways - the sprawling in all directions shrub of life is nearer. :)

cj x

[Eos of the Eons]

The cover is so ridiculous that I don't even want to read the article. It will be used as an excuse to say evolution is bunk when others don't even read the article. Mendel was wrong about some things too, but that does't mean genetics is useless NOW. If those wingnuts who approved the cover figured it would get people to READ the article, well they just shot themselves in the head.

I seriously don't want to read it! I guess I won't. Then I'll forget about it even if I do finally get over being offended by the cover.