Headline writers just can’t help themselves. They are in love with headlines that go, “Was Darwin Wrong?”
Whenever a new scientific study is published that may illustrate a new more advanced understanding of evolutionary processes, the inevitable headline will crow, “Hey folks, look what Darwin didn’t know about!”
Of course Charles Darwin didn’t know everything about evolution. Darwin didn’t know about a lot of things related to his theory of natural selection. Genetics didn’t even exist as a science at the time he developed it. But since the publishing of Origins of Species 101 years ago, the scientific understanding of the way evolution works has only grown and remains the foundation of modern biology.
Now, once again, the media has misreported a recent paper, from the journal Biology Letters, called “Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land.”
From the Huffington Post: “Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues.” And from AOL: “Was Darwin Wrong, A New Theory Emerges.”
Of course, this is not the case at all. Steve Newton, programs and policy director for the National Center for Science Education explains why the media doesn’t know what the heck it’s talking about.
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.
Newton adds:
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.
In reality, the paper explores how major changes to the environment may have affected evolution of tetrapods and how creatures might diversify in response to these new environmental niches. In addition to change through competition – as Darwin postulated – change also occurs due to opportunity.
The full paper is here.
As Newton points out, Darwin’s famous finches still face competition with each other. The selective advantage goes to those with beaks best suited to cracking and eating the nuts on a particular island from year to year.
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.
But in the rush to deadline, the media all too often misses the point. And instead of an writing about an exploration of the different ways mass environmental changes impact life’s diversity, it comes out that Darwin didn’t know what the heck he was talking about.
