Why everything you know about evolution is wrong.

The_Minister

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

A good article for those of you who have heard that the version of evolution taught in schools is wrong.

darjeeling

The_Minister wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

A good article for those of you who have heard that the version of evolution taught in schools is wrong.

Or not.

Author Oliver Burkeman isn't one of the Guardian Science team, but rather a 'features writer'. Someone who does contribute regularly to the Guardian's Science pages is Nature editorial team member Adam Rutherford. His response, on the Guardian 'Comment is Free' pages, is pretty damning, given that the two are quasi-colleagues. It begins:

Adam Rutherford wrote:

Beyond a 'Darwin was wrong' headline

The media love to give undue coverage to flimsy attacks on evolutionary science. And leave others to clean up the mess.

Jerry Coyne, blogging Prof. of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago, is far blunter. He headlines his critique:

Jerry Coyne wrote:

Worst science journalism of the year: Darwin completely wrong (again)

The article does highlight a couple of things of interest. It talks of epigenetics, which is transient modification of gene control that is not hard-coded into the genes. Recent work has shown that epigenetic changes can persist across generations, meaning that acquired characteristics can potentially be inherited, albeit in a limited way. However, epigenetic regulation is more likely to be a layer of control allowing organisms to respond relatively rapidly to short term environmental change. In the long term, Darwinian natural selection, acting on the genome, has a far greater role in shaping evolution. That's why countless gene mapping studies have succeeded in finding genetic causes for biological phenomena.

Another area touched on is horizontal gene transfer. In the last decade or more, we've discovered just how much gene swapping goes on in the world of bacteria. Genes regularly jump across into quite distantly related strains, making it hard to classify bacteria into species and come up with a bacterial tree of life.

The rest of the article, however, and the awful headline are best forgotten.

The_Minister

Maybe not wrong, but oversimplified.

Even if you don't like the article linked, there is a similar articles in Time magazine and New Scientist liked at the bottom of the article that go into greater detail on certain aspects.

He isn't saying that evolution is wrong, he's saying, albeit clumsily, that the traditional narrow view of natural selection as evolution is not entirely accurate.

grrrrrrrrrr

Hey miinster, interesting but a bit long..

thanks tho.


Regards,

Leaving Cert Biology Student

humbert

Sensationalist headline and meanders a bit, but quite accessible. I've yet to read/watch a really good explanation of epigenetics. It is dangerous leaving such a vacuum...will read linked to articles tomorrow between periods of alacrity.

Nulty

Im no scientist but I always welcome a challenge to what I think I know. Experts who think they know everything shouldn't be called experts.

A good read, although, hard to get my head around some of the stuff he talks about later in the article. I dont really know what Fodor was on about.

The Chickens and rape things were interesting.

Sorry cant deliver more high level contributions

RichieO

So there's more to evolution than Darwin realized, given the era and general lack of knowledge back then, his Origin of Species is accurate enough for leaning the basics.
Like others with brilliant minds like Einstein, Newton etc, there is always someone trying to prove they were wrong and make a name for themselves.
There is nothing in the article to suggest Darwin was wrong, only that there may be factors influencing evolution that he could not have known about...
Leave him on his pedestal, he deserves it....:cool: