So when I logged into AIM tonight, I noticed that there was an article on AOL news titled
"Was Darwin Wrong? An Alternative Theory Emerges." The basic gist of the story is that a couple researchers have suggested that competition between species is less responsible for evolution than an abundance of resources. In the words of the article:
"Using fossils to focus on land animals, the research team suggests that animals have survived more easily in favorable environments that offered more food and less chance of being hunted and eaten by other animals."
First off, NO SHIT SHERLOCK. Animals survive better when there's a lot of food and no predators??? WOW, COLOR ME FUCKING SHOCKED. Hey, guys, I'm in the middle of a scientific study too, to determine whether MASTURBATING FEELS GOOD. NOW WHERE'S MY GRANT??
Secondly, maybe it's because I'm a dumb layman, but I'm not quite sure how this contradicts survival of the fittest, which, as far as I know, only says that a creature best suited to its environment is most likley to survive. I guess the difference is that they think animals are less likely to evole if they're busy engaged in a tooth-and-claw fight for survival? Though that kind of suggests that animals view evolution the same way that yuppies view having kids. "Oh, Buffy, I know you want to evolve, but let's just wait until I've made partner in the firm and also until there aren't so many saber-tooth tigers eating us."
But anyway, I'm just a dumb non-PhD-having maroon, as we know from Pharyngula, so what do I know?
The REAL thing that I want to mention is this.
Go watch the Youtube video embedded in that article.
Apparently, whatever unpaid intern they have at AOL News doing page layout just went to YouTube, did a search for "Was Darwin wrong" and slapped in the first result. Because I can't think of any other reason why an article about an alternative model of evolution should be accompanied by a video where hillbillies blather on EVILUTIONISTS and SHOW US THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS
Again, I'm no SCIENCE-MAN, but I'm a little skeptical of the "scientist" who describes scales as "folds of skin."