[ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 65, Issue 1

[Tom Nowell]

Damien Broderick wrote:

<http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/569>

<http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/587>

<...most people absorb the cultural messages around them. The only 
message most people will take in is from seeing the front cover of 
New Scientist as they walk past the newsstand; millions of people 
will brush past and take on board the message that one of the most 
respected science magazines has announced that Darwin was wrong. Very 
few will buy the magazine to read the article, which is the only way 
they will learn that the story is only about a metaphor that Darwin 
used and not a critique of the theory of evolution.

There is no defence for New Scientist on this one.>

Honestly, living in Britain I've come to ignore the shock tactics every magazine uses to sell. Going to buy New Scientist, you go in and see it on the rack next to the publications with pretty astronomy pictures trying to make you believe that with a small amateur telescope you too will see the wonders of the universe. Nearby, the political magazines will have headlines proclaiming the end of capitalism/birth of a new world order/ shocking scandal of a minister taking the last crumpet in an attempt to make you pick it up.
 In turn, these are dwarfed by the "Lad's mags" with their pictures of scantily-clad young ladies, women's magazines with airbrushed female celebrities on the front, and TV & film magazines plastered with pictures of actors.
 Cut-throat competition means everyone has to use the biggest, most eye-catching titles they can (and indeed, the British tabloids have become notorious for using the most lurid, pun-filled headlines in the known universe). "DARWIN WAS WRONG" in inch-high letters catches the eye slightly better than "discoveries of gene transfer and hybridisation dramatically alter concepts of species and evolution".

The article itself summarises how single-celled life forms swap genes a great deal, plant species hybridise a lot and many species were formed this way, and there's evidence that his has happened in animals too. Trying to trace a molecular "tree of life" has proved very difficult as the "tree" metaphor breaks down into a blurry mess.

The article ends by saying Darwin was as wrong as Isaac Newton - both made colossal intellectual leaps that revolutionised their field, but studies made using their ideas have since revealed deeper levels of complexity underlying things.