As you know, I often write blog posts that are reviews or evaluations (or, often, just English translations) of Peer Reviewed Research. Those blog posts, and all the other ones written by dozens of bloggers around the world, are aggregated at Research Blogging Dot Org. It is a great place to get unfettered expert opinions and enlightened elaborations of current research in all fields of science.
Anyway, every now and then Researchblogging.org, on their own blog site, makes "Editor's selections" of their favorite peer reviewed reviews. It is roughly like getting an Emmy or an Oscar. Very prestigious.
Anyway, I was one of four recipients in this round, all of which you can find listed here. The winning blog post was my piece on "Natural Selection vs. Opportunity in Macroevolutionary Patterning of the Fossil Record," which was really a rant about how when a certain paper came out the press turned it into a "Darwin was Rong" media event. Which was wrong. Darwin was right, and the paper in question is also probably right.
I'd like to thank Jarret Byrnes, the editor at Research Blogging, and Dave Munger for his help in setting up the site, and Bora for his encouragement by helping people get PLoS access (even though this wasn't a PLoS paper) and my parents for leaving me in the woods all those times so I would develop an interest in science, and my family for allowing me to express myself this way, and ... Oh, sorry, out of time, got to go to the store to pick up organisms. (Never mind ... those of you whoa are life science teachers or married to life science teachers will know exactly what I mean.)
Congratulations!
Left out in the woods? Like Hansel and Gretel? Lucky for you the witch and the wolf were elsewhere.
This is really good. There is no excuse for those "Darwin is Dead" headlines. For one thing, since he died in 1882, it's not exactly news.
Cool, Greg!