Given Darwin dreamt this up before genetics was developed he did very well. Basically the tree of life is a 2d simplification of a multi dimensional reality - that there are alternative pathways to transfer genetic material. But if trying to explain biology to the young or otherwise uneducated a tree is a hell of a lot more use than a thicket. A thicket suggests impenetrability and will tend to lead people to lose interest because they would assess, probably correctly, that their chances of being able to invest the time and effort to understand biology will likely be in vain. Considering how many people reject biology for religion this would not be helpful. Also, while there are alternative pathways, the alternative pathways are much less common than 'standard' reproduction - so the tree is representative of what mostly goes on. Maybe alternative biological pathways should be taught at University like when student who thought they know about the Ancient Greeks are confronted with Aristophanes, priapism and farting contests.
Source: Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | Science | guardian.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment