Is "Evolution in Action" really a "breakthrough" of 2005?
For most biological scientists, evolution is old hat. Moreover, none of the "breakthroughs" discussed in the Science Mag article seem to me to be that revolutionary; they are just examples of using our current techniques to make slow progress in the same old fields.
Put another way, discovering the structure of DNA was a breakthrough, sequencing the first viral and then first bacterial genome was a breakthrough; sequencing the human genome was a breakthrough. The fact that we recently sequenced a few additional genomes such as the chimp genome no longer qualifies. Nor does studying a species of bird behaving in a way that "might" lead to its speciation someday in the future. Nor does finding out that the 1918 influenza happened to be a "pure avian strain" that underwent mutation.
In fact, the only potentially revolutionary discovery they mention ("a proposed rearrangement of the microbes at the base of the tree of life") is one that they don't actually explain in any detail.
This is obviously more driven by a perceived need to refute Intelligent Design than by any actual consideration of the "breakthroughness" of the research they discuss.
Update: More on this on Rankine 911: Insane Ravings
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment