"There’s no evidence for a key presumption of Darwinian theory – the very presumption that gave birth to Social Darwinism.
It’s rare to see a science article say “Darwin was wrong,” but Live Science reluctantly admitted that a key idea Darwin proposed in The Origin in 1859 is the opposite of the way nature actually works.
One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
Results on algae at the University of Michigan were “unsetting” and “completely unexpected,” the article says. The researchers got self-inflicted headaches over their findings:
The researchers did not set out to disprove Darwin, but were “completely baffled” to find that closely related algae did not compete more strongly. “The hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up, but we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn’t right about the organisms we’ve been studying.”
Darwin’s flawed notion has had far-reaching effects on politics, the article points out. Decisions about what endangered species to save have been made on the basis that closely-related species are less valuable then distant ones." CEH
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,
1 Corinthians 1:21
It’s rare to see a science article say “Darwin was wrong,” but Live Science reluctantly admitted that a key idea Darwin proposed in The Origin in 1859 is the opposite of the way nature actually works.
One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
“It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.“‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”
The researchers did not set out to disprove Darwin, but were “completely baffled” to find that closely related algae did not compete more strongly. “The hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up, but we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn’t right about the organisms we’ve been studying.”
Darwin’s flawed notion has had far-reaching effects on politics, the article points out. Decisions about what endangered species to save have been made on the basis that closely-related species are less valuable then distant ones." CEH
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,
1 Corinthians 1:21
