> 'challenges the deeply entrenched idea that evolution progresses steadily forward'
My inner devil's advocate wants to say that the writer meant that that idea is deeply entrenched in the general public's view of evolution, but that is very difficult to argue given the tone of the rest of the article.
Back in my undergrad days (at a small state university), during one of the very first lectures in Biology, the professor really hammered the idea that evolution is not worse -> better or simple -> complex, but rather is governed by fitness, which constantly changes with the environment (so what's really awesome and complex might wind up being very maladaptive when circumstances change). She also made the point, through several counterexamples, that humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, which strangely seemed to offend some students.
At any rate, I kind of assumed that this was standard knowledge in the scientific community if it was being taught in freshman Bio at my modest school.
My inner devil's advocate wants to say that the writer meant that that idea is deeply entrenched in the general public's view of evolution, but that is very difficult to argue given the tone of the rest of the article.
Back in my undergrad days (at a small state university), during one of the very first lectures in Biology, the professor really hammered the idea that evolution is not worse -> better or simple -> complex, but rather is governed by fitness, which constantly changes with the environment (so what's really awesome and complex might wind up being very maladaptive when circumstances change). She also made the point, through several counterexamples, that humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, which strangely seemed to offend some students.
At any rate, I kind of assumed that this was standard knowledge in the scientific community if it was being taught in freshman Bio at my modest school.