http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/flower/

I noted with "satisfaction" that the newer "cladism" has greatly revised the "tree" of plant organization, presumed former fashionable or largely undisputed "knowledge". Based on classifying plants by their genome similarities, the hierarchy (?irreducably) complex computer program-aided and "cousinship" had to be dramatically revised. Again, also tentative, or not?? Some visibly simiiar plants are only distantly similar in DNA, and meanwhile, very different plants can be rather closely related by DNA comparisons.

The nectarine, (looks like a peach, leaves and fruits) is more of a rose, f'rinstance, not a peach, according to my local corner "fruiterer" (Australian term).

No where in the program did I notice the forthright statement of possibility that genetic drift can go towards greater simplicity. The scientists are really preferring to occupy themselves with "forward" evolution, towards greater complexity, I thought.

There are admissions in the program of the extreme complexity of the as yet only tentatively re-revised "progression" scheme. Recognising bidirectionality of genetic drift would only make that more maddening for the sane (grin). Once you are already "crazy", settled on evolution, without allowing ID, you are safe from further maddening influences?