Dawkins description of the family trees does not recognize our knowledge of the bush of evolution. Using FoxP1-4 master genes we find trees in every direction, but really it is a mess of a bush. Phenotype (body type) does not explain evolution. Genotype does. We do see common descent branching off wildly. Evolution has a built-in mechanism for diversity. -http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IfFZ8lCn5uU-"The rise of comparative genomics and related technologies has
added important new dimensions to the study of human evolution.
Our knowledge of the genes that underwent expression changes
or were targets of positive selection in human evolution is rapidly
increasing, as is our knowledge of gene duplications, translocations,
and deletions. It is now clear that the genetic differences
between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than
previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.
Despite the rapid growth in our understanding of the evolution of
the human genome, our understanding of the relationship between
genetic changes and phenotypic changes is tenuous. This is
true even for the most intensively studied gene, FOXP2, which
underwent positive selection in the human terminal lineage and
is thought to have played an important role in the evolution of
human speech and language. In part, the difficulty of connecting
genes to phenotypes reflects our generally poor knowledge of
human phenotypic specializations, as well as the difficulty of interpreting
the consequences of genetic changes in species that are not
amenable to invasive research. On the positive side, investigations
of FOXP2, along with genomewide surveys of gene-expression
changes and selection-driven sequence changes, offer the opportunity
for "phenotype discovery," providing clues to human phenotypic
specializations that were previously unsuspected. What is
more, at least some of the specializations that have been proposed
are amenable to testing with noninvasive experimental techniques
appropriate for the study of humans and apes."-http://www.pnas.org/content/109/suppl.1/10709.full.pdf-My conclusion is that Dawkins is resting on his laurels and not studying the new findings that conflict with his understandings and intent to tout atheism, because these finds weaken his presentations. Or he ignores all of this. Intellectual honesty or dishonesty?