Darwin

I am torn between wanting to be a scientist and being glad that at age 11 when I was offered the choice of O Level studies in Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Latin that I chose Latin. I know its a big divide but at least when I was young I didn't clutter up my brain with bits of this and that that I'd never use (that's science) but at the same time maintain a healthy admiration for those that can and do use whatever they learned to do what seems to be miraculous things.

As I write this on Day 4 of coronavirus lockdown in Penang, I am amazed that it was only last week that it was announced that a Cambridge scientist had 'finally' proved one of Charles Darwin's theories a mere 140 years after he'd hypothesised them. 

I've now read two articles on what this theory is that has now been proven (it's to do with species and sub-species) and I'm afraid I barely understand what it is that has been proven and why it is actually important. Besides, I thought that Darwin became famous 140 years ago and that everyone believed him then, so was a little puzzled why all these years later it has become a big thing, well biggish in scientific circles.

One thing jumped out at me though... 

She used a tool Darwin never did

Van Holstein, however, had what those scientists didn't: Data modeling software.

She wanted to show that the number of subspecies in a species is correlated to the number of species in a genus. If she could prove that, she'd have more evidence to suggest that subspecies are the "raw material" for a new species, she said.  

I love this stuff. Anyway, here's the full write up from Science Daily.

All I can do is echo Caesar's words: 'Alea Jacta Est'. It's only taken 140 years!