Striking images can make scientific ideas accessible to people from all walks of life. But some such pictures do more damage than good, seeding confusion & fueling widespread misconceptions of an essential topic. Two iconic images & (mis)understanding evolution — a thread...1/10
First, an instantly recognizable image that, in our collective consciousness, has become inextricably tied to the very concept of evolution itself. Tragically for one of the most famous scientific illustrations ever, it is fundamentally flawed, & a potent driver of fallacy. 2/10
Key background re origins of Exhibit A. The Road to Homo Sapiens (aka The March of Progress) was created by natural history artist Rudolph Zallinger for a 1965 Time-Life publication “Early Man”. The full version was a multipage annotated foldout including 15 aligned figures. 3/10
It’s likely that Zallinger took inspiration from earlier illustrations, such as this drawing from the 1863 book “Man’s Place in Nature” by T. H. Huxley, a contemporary of Darwin. Here, Huxley is comparing skeletons of different extant apes, not depicting steps in evolution. 4/10
Something about Zallinger’s distinctive procession of figures, from crouching ape to striding hominin, caught the imagination of the public. It spread through popular culture as a virulent meme (even before the term had been defined) spawning multiple variants along the way. 5/10
But this seemingly canonical picture of evolution in action deeply misrepresents its subject. The vision of a linear succession, one form morphing to another, each more sophisticated than the last, is an illusion. Plus, evolution as a process has no foresight, no destination.6/10
Misconceptions fed by this flawed image are embraced by those who deny the reality of evolution. From tired gotcha questions (why are there still monkeys?) to Mike Pence telling US Congress in 2002 that newly uncovered branches of extinct hominins invalidate Darwin, & beyond.7/10
Bringing us neatly to Exhibit B, a drawing Darwin made in 1837 as he puzzled over the origin(s) of species. One rough sketch (with an understated note “I think”) captures a huge idea at the heart of biological evolution: descent with modification from a common ancestor. 8/10
A sad side-note. A few days ago Cambridge University announced that the red leather notebook in which Darwin drew this iconic sketch is one of two that mysteriously went missing 20 years ago. Presumed stolen, the notebooks have yet to be recovered. 9/10 bbc.com/news/entertain…
The inevitable March of Progress is a myth. What evolutionary thinking teaches us is that Homo sapiens is one fragile branch on a vast ancient tree of life, or (in light of evidence that we co-existed with other hominins) just one remaining channel from a braided river. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Links between genes & traits are complex & convoluted. But with the rise of genomic technologies perhaps it's no surprise that some people want to sell you lifestyle advice/products they claim are tailor-made for your DNA profile. Here's an example, h/t @AdamRutherford. 1/6
Let's talk "DNA personalized skincare", summed up by this screenshot from a website promoting it. (See: newstjohns.com/dna-personaliz…) The article mentions costs of $90-$200 for an at-home test kit & that on-site testing with some companies could set you back as much as $1,000. ...2/6
That piece alludes to a UK company GENEU. You can read about their DNA lab-on-a-chip approach to bespoke skincare here: trulyexperiences.com/blog/the-scien…
After a visit to GENEU, the author notes "now that I know the exact rate my skin is degenerating, I will be able to counter nature".3/6
It was 20 years ago today that the US President & UK Prime Minister announced the completion of a rough draft of the human genome sequence. My family & friends didn't get why I (a geneticist myself) wasn't as excited for this landmark as they were. 1/4 nature.com/articles/d4158…
Thing is, the publicly funded sequencing effort had been buzzing along well for some time, pieces of data released to the community as they were collected. Most gigging geneticists were already using available human genome data in our work. There was no sudden transformation. 2/4
I am not downplaying the extraordinary achievements involved. But celebrating an arbitrary target (85% of the genome sequenced to a draft standard) felt more like political theatre than science. It might surprise you to hear that, even now, we still didn't fill all the gaps. 3/4
With UFO sightings again making the headlines in these unsettling times, what we need right now is a thread on aliens, genes & the origins of human language. Buckle up. 1/n
We discovered that rare mutations of FOXP2 cause a severe speech disorder. Over the years, I've spent much time stressing that FOXP2, while interesting, is not the mythical "gene for language". Weirdly, on occasion I've also had to explain why FOXP2 is not "proof of aliens". 2/n
One source of FOXP2-alien nonsense is a TV "documentary" series that aired on the History Channel. In the segment on FOXP2, a man named Giorgio Tsoukalos makes 5-6 statements about the gene, each of which is false. All packed into less than one minute's viewing. Let's dig in. 3/n
What's it like to be a geneticist? A thread, based on stock photos sampled from the internet.
We begin with an image of a state-of-the-art genetics lab in action. Notice all the flasks & tubing filled with blue liquid, & the smart matching attire of these everyday researchers.1/n
Expertise and precision in examining different coloured liquids is an essential skill in the day-to-day life of a geneticist. 2/n
After looking quizzically at the coloured liquid in the flask, this geneticist is recording the observations on a note pad, for later publication in a top scientific journal, such as Nature or Science. 3/n
Your genome is not a blueprint. A thread about misleading metaphors in science communication... 1/11
DNA is often referred to as a "blueprint for life". A blueprint is an architect plan, technical drawing or engineering design. Like a blueprint, DNA contains information to guide construction, in this case of a living organism. Beyond that, the analogy rapidly breaks down...2/11
...For blueprints, there's direct 1-to-1 mapping between each element of a design/drawing & its counterpart in the final constructed product. "DNA as a blueprint" implies that individual genes show 1-to-1 mapping with different parts of a body and/or its functions. Not so...3/11
Cool soundbites about genetics can confuse more than they clarify. An illustration. "You share 98.8% of your genes with a chimpanzee!" Is this true? What does it actually mean? Let's unpack this often quoted pearl of wisdom in a thread all about sharing...1/13
...Statements about sharing genes are notoriously slippery. Here's another. "Identical twins share 100% of their genes, but non-identical twins share 50%, same as regular siblings." So, I share more genes with a chimpanzee (98.8%) than with my own sister? Something's up
...2/13
...First, what's the origin of the 98.8% estimate of chimp/human sharing? It relates to matching sections of the genomes of the two species, where we can align them & count how many DNA bases are identical. On average, for every thousand aligned bases, twelve don't match...3/13