Evidently Darwin's "Tree of Life" just ain't cutting it anymore. Efforts to reconstruct a linear descent history with neat, distinct branches are being pushed aside by (*gasp*) "negative evidence." Evidently, expected results from studying the relatedness of bacteria and other simple organisms using RNA contradicts the "closest relative" that DNA would suggest, creating intertwining trees. I do not mean to suggest that this in any way proves that evolution is wrong, but, in true "Lakatosian" fashion (cf. Imre Lakatos) it adds yet another "ad hoc" fix to save the theory. Perhaps Darwin just didn't adequately distinguish the type of tree he meant? Here's to Darwin's "Ficus of Life."
See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
