"...we regard as regrettable the concatenation of Darwin's name with evolution."

[alterego]

Modified slightly to fit in the allotted space, the quote in full, from a recent essay in Nature titled, “Biology’s next revolution”

Refinement through the horizontal sharing of genetic innovations would have triggered an explosion of genetic novelty, until the level of complexity required a transition to the current era of vertical evolution. Thus, we regard as regrettable the conventional concatenation of Darwin’s name with evolution, because other modalities must also be considered.

Is this statement really merited? Is this information really new? I recall reading about this in The Selfish Gene, written in 1976. (goes to look it up)

@Richard Dawkins

The other side of this coin is that viruses may be genes who have broken loose from ‘colonies’ such as ourselves. Viruses consist of pure DNA (or a related self-replicating molecule) surrounded by a protein jacket. They are all parasitic. The suggestion is that they have evolved from ‘rebel’ genes who escaped, and now travel from body to body directly through the air, rather than via the more conventional vehicles–sperms and eggs. If this is true, we might just as well regard ourselves as colonies of viruses!

Is this not prior art for realizing the significance of “Horizontal Gene Transfer?” I even found a usage of the word in 1975 on Google Books!