This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

Tagred's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Tagred

New Scientist seems to get more sensational every day. I don't know who they are employing as journalists but it really is gettiing to the gutter tabloid press stage.

Where i have no problem in a little embellishment to catch the eye, headlines like this do nothing to advance the perception of science. Fairly irresponsible writing in my opinion. Even one with very basic knowledge of cladistics (i still use that word) would be able to rip apart the writer.

Sure, the "tree of life" may need to be changed if the criteria and evidence demands it, but it is essentially still there, now at a higher resolution. In my opinion there is no question that the tree of life is wrong, merely modified to include the new knowledge.

It is as it should be, making the model fit the evidence, i see nothing wrong in the tree of life model evolving.

It is quite sad to see this kind of poor writing in New Scientists. I have read the mag for years before and only recently re0discovered it, but this is not good for people who do not have a good knwledge of science or techniques.

Heck I may as well just start buying the Sun newspaper.

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:45:00 UTC | #311076