What was actually proved here is that evolutionary biologists a) don’t understand scientody and b) are extraordinarily stupid:
Scientists from Cambridge University, in the U.K., analyzed the relationships between the two, calculating how the number of species per genus and the number of subspecies per species for a number of different animal groups.
Laura van Holstein and Robert Foley used information collected by naturalists to determine the “age” of different species and subspecies to see how they closely they were connected.
They noted a correlation between species variation and subspecies variation. Genera with a higher number of species tended to have species with a higher number of subspecies. This relationship was particularly strong among flying mammals like bats. In comparison, land-based animals showed a positive correlation between species richness and subspecies richness—but this correlation was weaker.
It is often observed, correctly, that correlation is not causation. It is remarkable that Cambridge University scientists don’t understand that correlation is also not conclusive proof. If you’ve paid any attention to the non-science of Neo-Darwinian evolution over the years, you will have noticed that every observation that correlates with the revised theory is a proof of it, while every observation that falsifies it is merely an indication that the revised theory requires further revision.
And while one can’t blame the scientists for the way the media portrays their work, the headline is even more embarrassing.
Scientists ‘prove Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory’