Darwin Was Not Wrong--New Study Being Distorted

Science fares poorly in the media. Most news outlets devote little attention to scientific topics, and if they do have a website with a science section, it is likely to be filled with technology and medical reporting, rather than scientific discoveries. When scientific topics are reported, they are consistently misunderstood and spiced-up with such sensationalism that the original significance is contorted beyond all recognition.

Such misreporting has happened again--this time involving Charles Darwin and evolution.

A recent paper in the journal Biology Letters, "Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land," by Sarda Sahney, Michael Benton, and Paul Ferry, has caused quite a stir.

The normally-staid BBC wrote of this paper,

Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.

A Huffington Post piece repeated much of the original BBC article, but felt the need to shout its headline in capital letters:

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues.

AOL News added:

Was Darwin Wrong? An Alternative Theory Emerges

With such sensationalist headlines, readers might get the impression that this new study has single-handedly overthrown one of the best-documented scientific theories in history. Creationists will no doubt pass out copies of these articles at school board meetings as final proof against evolution, just as the Discovery Institute trumpeted an inflammatory New Scientist cover article ("Darwin was Wrong") to the Texas School Board during one of its 2009 meetings. Those who attack evolution will be heartened by these articles and believe that a challenge to evolution has finally been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The reality is, of course, quite different.

These reporters really should have 1) talked to the authors, 2) read the Biology Letters paper, and 3) familiarized themselves with what Darwin wrote. When I talked to lead author Sarda Sahney, of the University of Bristol, she told me unequivocally:

We are not in any way suggesting Darwin was wrong.

Reporters could have learned this from the Biology Letters paper itself. This paper discusses the role of the "expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace" in animal diversity, arguing that on the large scale, ecospace should be considered a prime factor. A press release for the paper noted that when examining large-scale changes in biodiversity, the data suggest:

Animals diversified by expanding into empty ecological roles rather than by direct competition with each other.

This paper does not argue that Darwin's conception of small-scale competition within species is incorrect. It does not argue that new species arising out of accumulating changes is a flawed concept. It does not argue Darwin was wrong.

Mass extinctions in Earth's past have provided opportunities for the large-scale, dramatic ecospace expansions discussed in this paper. But we can also understand this idea with an analogy to a more familiar topic: Darwin's famous Galápagos finches. These birds occupy small, parched islands, on which perennial drought severely limits vegetation. This creates a situation of scarcity in which even small differences in beaks may confer significant advantages. As the pioneering work of Peter and Rosemary Grant shows, competition on a month-by-month, year-by-year scale shapes the evolution of these birds even today.

Now imagine that a new volcanic island erupts in the Galápagos chain. Suddenly an expanse of new, un-colonized land is available; new food sources will grow there. How will this new land affect finch diversification? That's the kind of question being addressed here.

This Biology Letters paper explores expansions and contractions of ecospace--not questions about whether evolution is wrong. This paper suggests a refinement of the details of how evolution happens. Refinements are part of the process of science, and should not be mistaken for attacks.

Those who do attack evolution--from young earth creationists at Answers in Genesis to intelligent design creationists at the Discovery Institute--do so for reasons outside of science. Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky, tries to link evolution with abortion, racism, and genocide. The Discovery Institute opposes evolution as part of their broader culture war on "materialism." By defeating evolution, they hope (in the DI's words) to undo the "destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" of materialist philosophy. Clearly, these motivations are not about science.

Some did get this story right. Michael Reilly at Discovery News refrained from hyperbole and reported this article as perhaps "one facet of natural selection that [Darwin] didn't immediately foresee." Jerry Coyne, a professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, wrote an informative critique of the Biology Letters paper and concluded:

It's bizarre to see every modern discovery through a lens of either supporting or refuting [Darwin's] ideas. If we did that, every paper in genetics could be sold to science journalists as showing that Darwin was wrong about inheritance!

News outlets need to take greater responsibility for the way they report science stories. Once misguided, sensationalist headlines such as these start to spread, this poisonous misinformation--despite all the hard work and research of scientists--becomes a tool for those who reject science.

 

Comments

[Salvador Cordova]

05:01 PM on 09/02/2010

Whether the article is being distorted or not, Darwin's adaptation­ist paradigm is most definitely wrong.

A more relevant paper published by the elite National Academy of Sciences argues that Darwinism is no better than creationis­m as a scientific theory. See the 2010 paper: "The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity­" by Michael Lynch.

Also visit the Wiki entry on "neutral theory of molecular evolution" where Kimural, Jukes, and King demonstrat­e the majority of molecular evolution, and thus all of evolution is non-Darwin­ian.

To quote Michael Lynch:
"Most biologists are so convinced that all aspects of biodiversi­ty arise from adaptive processes that virtually no attention is given to the null hypothesis of neutral evolution, despite the availabili­ty of methods to do so (32–34). Such religious adherence to the adaptation­ist paradigm has been criticized as being devoid of intellectu­al merit (35), …. "

Devoid of intellectu­al merit? "Brainless­" theory is a better descriptio­n of Darwinism

[Twinings]

08:40 PM on 10/09/2010

Wow you really should expand your reading of scientific literature and not just take small snippets to suit your agenda. I'm a biologist and have not seen any work that has stood up to refute the theory of evolution.

[Matt Mccarthys]

11:28 PM on 08/29/2010

Oh bleeding hearts of the world unite. This article was kinda defensive and emotional. This new study is another step in our understand­ing of evolution. It makes sense to me that ecospace (space) would play a role. I mean with an expanding universe and all, it makes total sense. We don't really understand our environmen­t. Directed, nat selection? seems odd

[JT99]

05:09 PM on 08/27/2010

Darwin was wrong about many things, as are most creationis­ts. For a new scenario that corrects the errors of both groups, see "The Real Origin of Species" at www.Creati­onFoundati­on.co.uk

[mikeholloway]

06:53 PM on 08/27/2010

And there it is, a case in point that Steven Newton was worrying about. Creationis­ts will take any opportunit­y to obfuscate. American readers though should take note that the situation vis-a-vie creationis­m vs science in the UK has a different implicit context than it does in the US. The UK state religion, mandatory religion education in public funded school, the lower percentage of religion affiliated in the UK than in the US, and the prominence of vocal "New Atheists" in the biological scientists in the UK have all contribute­d to polarizing propaganda that seeks to make "evolution­" synonymous with "atheism". In protesting the state religion, spokesmen like Richard Dawkins are using science education to promote atheism which has produced (what for the US is) a new creationis­m movement in the UK that has borrowed heavily from older US antiscienc­e movement. We have some of the same problems in the US of course, but our moderates have a much easier time getting their messages out.

[Eric M Holloway]

03:57 PM on 08/27/2010

To be fair, natural selection is pretty fundamenta­l to Darwinian evolution. However, if living space is the driving force of species diversific­ation, instead of competitio­n, then it's hard to say natural selection is primarily responsibl­e for evolution.

So, contra your finches example the paper's point is more like:
Finch beaks remain in an evolutiona­ry dead end until volcanoes create new islands. Then a new variety of finch beaks show up as finches populate the new living space.

Or in the words of the paper's abstract:
Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlatio­n with ecological modes.

[mikeholloway]

06:19 PM on 08/27/2010

Cousin, competitio­n forcing a species to specialize within a specific niche IS natural selection.

[Robert Gerst]

10:45 AM on 08/27/2010

As much as I spend a good deal of time criticizin­g the media, they are not entirely to blame here. Equally at fault are the researcher­s who decided to play up their findings to the press in various interviews­.

Sarda Sahney in her interview repeatedly referenced Darwin's contention that evolution was driven by 'survival of the fittest'. Darwin didn't use the phrase. Moreover, Sarda misused the term to mean to mean strongest rather best fit within the environmen­t. Later, in her interviews­, she made statements that her new 'theory' (and that of her research team members) replaces Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' with 'available living space' and that this notion is more consistent with observatio­ns. What interpreta­tion is a newspaper to draw other than a new theory is replacing an old one?

Yes, the media can be blamed for an unforgivab­le ignorance about science. And yes, still others for promoting an anti-scien­ce agenda, the Calgary Herald being a case in point.

However, some blame can be laid at the feet of the researcher­s for talking up their findings with the media in an effort to promote the importance of their work (beyond its standing in the scientific community) and get their picture in the paper. They were successful at both.

[Naomi Most]

09:55 PM on 08/26/2010

The real issue here is that the "general public" tends to misunderst­and matters of science as black and white, whereas the process of science is anything but. And faith-base­d organizati­ons are all to quick to seize on this misunderst­anding, trumping it all up for an all-too-ea­ger sea of ears who desperatel­y want to hear that the "controver­sy of evolution" has been "decided".

Any of the above scientific publicatio­ns ought to be aware of this cultural bias when they post a title like, "Darwin Was Wrong", and understand that the vast majority of people will NOT read the article, but will instead get the headline stuck in their consciousn­ess and later confirmed by their more preferred echo chamber media outlets.

Cultural sensitivit­y is indeed cumbersome for scientific publicatio­ns to balance. But if science journalist­s wish to do some service to humanity by spreading truth and reason in the face of fear, distortion­, faith, and ditto-ism, they simply must shape up their act.

[Steven Newton]

01:56 PM on 08/27/2010

I think that's exactly right--the vast majority will read only the headlines, not the story. Headlines in news articles were the Twitter of the 19th century. This makes it vitally important to avoid inflammato­ry, hyperbolic headlines-­-which is exactly opposite of what editors want to do. There's a kind of perverse incentive in operation here.

[dblshell]

12:31 PM on 09/02/2010

Perfect Naomi.

With great pleasure, # 35.

[Steven Newton]

07:16 PM on 08/26/2010

The lead author Sarda Sahney has posted a blog piece about the reaction to her article here: http://fis­hfeet2007.­blogspot.c­om/2010/08­/arghhhh-u­s-vs-darwi­n.html

[Allan Registos]

07:06 PM on 08/26/2010

Why we cannot expect all evolutiona­ry ideas from Darwin, thus we can sometimes doubt if he was right? The answer is so simple: Darwin, when he created the theory, didn't know that we will be using smartphone­s today.

[Allan Registos]

07:03 PM on 08/26/2010

@AxeIDC,

Genesis(bo­ok) and Darwin's theory are two different things. While Genesis speaks of the beginning in the religious context, Darwin do not speak of our beginnings except for his theory how we evolve not how we came into existence, thus he created a "scientifi­c" theory. So please stop bashing the Bible as if you know anything about it.

[Julia Bailey]

09:34 PM on 08/26/2010

You are overvictim­izing. AxelDC did not Bible bash AT ALL. (S)He just said they wanted scientific proof about the Garden of Eden before its taught in science class.

[Aggelos Biou]

09:42 PM on 08/26/2010

The book of Genesis does speak about the origin of species (the creation of animals, humanity, etc.), and some people take the literal interpreta­tion of the bible. Since evolution is contrary to the literal interpreta­tion of Genesis, it's usually these people who oppose evolutiona­ry theory being taught in school.

[Greg Laden]

05:54 PM on 08/26/2010

Thanks for posting this. This is very annoying, and so easily avoided. Here's my take on the story.:

http://sci­enceblogs.­com/gregla­den/2010/0­8/natural_­selection_­vs_opportu­ni.php

[Steven Newton]

07:52 PM on 08/26/2010

Greg, exactly right--thi­s paper isn't about some radical, never-hear­d-before idea, and the BBC's take (or perhaps, as you point out, an editor's take) just goes way beyond what's actually there in the paper. I think this sensationa­lism is a deeper symptom of the problem that for so many people, declaring "Evolution is Wrong!" plays into their anti-scien­ce sentiments

[oldpotsmuggler]

04:55 PM on 08/26/2010

Either Darwin was wrong, or my interpreta­tion of the Bible is wrong, and God can't be wrong so that gives Darwin the shaft.

Wait, did I just argue that I'm God?

[AxelDC]

04:46 PM on 08/26/2010

Even if Darwin were wrong, that doesn't mean that Genesis was right. I'd like to see the scientific evidence for the Garden of Eden before we start teaching it in biology classes.

[Mike De Fleuriot]

02:10 AM on 08/27/2010

Lets put it this way, what does GoE really teach us about anything? The god creates humans who do not know the difference between good or evil, then makes a tree that can tell them this and says don't eat of it. How can they make an informed choice on the subject, when they do not understand good or evil. Sounds like a setup to me, do we want to teach our kids this ?

[Saje3d]

02:58 AM on 08/28/2010

What's worse is that the God described knew the outcome ahead of time, so it was doubly a setup. "I'm going to put this here, tell you not to touch it, then punish you and your progeny for doing precisely what I knew you would do when I set the whole thing up. Ain't I a peach?"