Scientific American gives up. In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. ...
We are the final frontier. The Guardian asks leading scientists what they think will be the next revolution in science. (It’s almost a trend, spawning books like The Next Fifty Years.) First came the Copernican revolution in the 16th century. The Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus argued that the Earth was not at the centre of the solar system. Charles Darwin got personal more than 300 years later by implying that humans weren’t special either. With the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin promoted his theory of evolution via natural selection. Nearly a century later, two Cambridge-based scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick, unravelled the structure of DNA. So what’s next? What will be the fourth revolution? ...
The Darwin Awards honor thouse who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it. (Tales of silly deaths.) via Abheek
Interesting site on uniforms of airline stewardesses. via boing boing
A simple and detailed explanation for why evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics.
The Machiavellian Intelligence hypothesis says that the brain evolved more for its social purpose, than for finding food and things like that. Incidentally, Google’s collection on evolution is as comprehensive as ever.