Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
To hate man and worship god seems to be the sum of all the creeds.
[Robert G. Ingersoll]
Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution
Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Huckabee is a raving lunatic | Main | Droolworthy »
Category: Books • Evolution
Posted on: January 15, 2008 6:58 PM, by PZ Myers
Watch Neil Shubin discuss evolution on the Colbert Report — he's good. He convinced me to run out and order his new book, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)!
Find more posts in: 
Life Science
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Easy going and affable. He put concepts on the table in little palatable bits without eating a single baby. Shame the best we can do is get a man like this on a Comedy Central show. Who does the scheduling for Leno?
Carson used to have Jack Hanna on as a semiregular, why not Dr. Shubin? Other than the fact a fossil is not quite as telegenic as a bit of mobile fur or scales.
Posted by: Sean | January 15, 2008 7:19 PM
I'm so glad Colbert is back. Shubin managed to get in quite a bit of information during that interview. I just may have to run out and get the book, too.
Posted by: RamblinDude | January 15, 2008 7:19 PM
I didn't really like how he said, "we're from apes, and before that, we were from reptiles." I guess it's a pet peeve of mine, but modern apes and humans evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. They haven't been standing still since we branched off. It kind of leads to the whole "higher" and "lower" forms too. Everything that exists today has been evolving and is evolving constantly. Modern apes are the way they are because they were shaped by their environment, and the same is true for humans.
It's a small thing to harp on, but I think he blew a great teaching moment when Colbert brought up Huckabee and the "from monkeys" fallacy. It is very nice to see evolutionary biologists on pop shows like this though. It will take a lot more exposure yet to wake up the half of this country that believes in "seven days."
Posted by: Leukocyte | January 15, 2008 7:22 PM
What was amazing was Shubin dominating the conversation. Colbert really didn't get into his smarmy creationist mode.
Posted by: natural cynic | January 15, 2008 7:22 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 15, 2008 7:26 PM
Could be something to do with not having the writers around. I'm not sure what they do in preparation for the interview segments but I'm betting that the writers come up with at least some of Colbert's jibes and one-liners.
Stewart and Colbert are still worth watching, but the quality of the shows is suffering noticeably without help from the writing staffs.
Posted by: tacitus | January 15, 2008 7:39 PM
Shubin is a scab. No further comment
Posted by: Richard Gadsden | January 15, 2008 7:45 PM
One of Steven Colbert's best interviews. It's nice when he can provide some Colbert-style humor and yet still show considerable respect for the interviewee (who, in this case, deserved a real opportunity to speak to the audience). Thanks, Steven!
Posted by: David Denning | January 15, 2008 7:54 PM
I am not a regular Colbert viewer. Consensus is that without writers, his conservative attack dog persona was toned down?
I was pleasantly surprised by how he slid into being more of a facilitator than a creationist by the end.
Posted by: Sean | January 15, 2008 8:03 PM
It seemed to me that Colbert was genuinely interested in what Shubin had to say and, writers or not, had a hard time keeping up his shtick (schtick?)
Posted by: S. Fisher | January 15, 2008 8:13 PM
I saw him give a lecture at Fermilab (pout) and it was pretty good. I'll have to check out the Colbert Report. I do agree that it has gotten a bit bad. The Daily Show too, but less. Maybe Jon Stewart is just better at improv type stuff?
Posted by: Mena | January 15, 2008 8:19 PM
Why doesn't "we're from reptiles" annoy you then, Leukocyte? We are from apes - just because apes are still around doesn't make that untrue.
Posted by: The Ridger | January 15, 2008 8:22 PM
They haven't been standing still since we branched off. It kind of leads to the whole "higher" and "lower" forms too.
actually, what offset this tremendously was his use of the ear as an illustration of how many traits have been preserved or re-used from far different aspects of our history.
It's quite rare to see such a good specific example that can get across that message so quickly.
and yes, richard is right, he is a scab. sucks to be a writer these days, whether one is writing a book, or for a TV show. completely irrelevant to the points he raised in his interview, though.
Posted by: Icthyic | January 15, 2008 8:25 PM
Oh yeah, Ridger? Well, if apes are still around, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 15, 2008 8:27 PM
What never ceases to amaze me is how PZ can keep up (in a timely fashion) with all these evolutionary happenings across an incredible spectrum of web sites, radio and tv...hats off to you, PZ!
Posted by: Rick Schauer | January 15, 2008 8:31 PM
The amusing thing about Colbert is that he isn't a creationist nutjob, but parodying one is almost impossible without people taking you seriously because the real ones are already parodies of themselves.
Posted by: darwinfish | January 15, 2008 8:39 PM
Do they know if they have tiktaalik plush toys yet? They would have made great christmas presents.
Posted by: Chris | January 15, 2008 8:48 PM
The amusing thing about Colbert is that he isn't a creationist nutjob, but parodying one is almost impossible without people taking you seriously because the real ones are already parodies of themselves.
which of course is exactly why he does it.
pretty much the entire show revolves around Colbert parodying those who are parodies of themselves, like the talking heads on Fox News.
CC was smart to realize that there was a niche that Colbert's style would fill quite nicely.
really, Stewart/Colbert is like the Satire/Parody hour.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 15, 2008 8:49 PM
Neil Shubin is very good. If he wasn't rehearsed ahead of time on Colbert's questions, then I am truly impressed. He picked his answers from a wide range of specialised information and not only nailed the question, but did so at a good level for the audience. I think I know what I'm getting for my birthday.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | January 15, 2008 8:52 PM
I didn't really like how he said, "we're from apes, and before that, we were from reptiles." I guess it's a pet peeve of mine, but modern apes and humans evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
If you bring up a pet peeve, it's wise that actually be something that someone got wrong. Humans are a modern ape, and humans and non-human modern apes evolved from apes, and they all evolved from reptiles.
They haven't been standing still since we branched off.
That's true, but isn't germane and Shubin didn't say otherwise.
It kind of leads to the whole "higher" and "lower" forms too.
Uh, no, it doesn't ... at least not in any invalid way. Humans did evolve from reptiles, and fish before them, and if you draw the tree, humans are above the branch points of the most recent common ancestors of humans and reptiles and humans and fish. Modern reptiles and fish aren't identical to our reptile and fish ancestors, but they are reptiles and fish, while humans are not.
Everything that exists today has been evolving and is evolving constantly. Modern apes are the way they are because they were shaped by their environment, and the same is true for humans.
Uh, yes and yes; duh. Shubin of course knows this and said nothing to contradict it.
Posted by: truth machine | January 15, 2008 8:59 PM
What never ceases to amaze me is how PZ can keep up (in a timely fashion) with all these evolutionary happenings across an incredible spectrum of web sites, radio and tv...hats off to you, PZ!
I suspect a lot of birdies whisper in his e-mail.
Posted by: truth machine | January 15, 2008 9:01 PM
yeah, shubin came off really, really well. i'm impressed.
not easy with a loose cannon like colbert.
(my favorite was his interview with eleanor holmes norton).
also not easy if you're a geeky scientist.
so hat's off to shubin!
Posted by: kid bitzer | January 15, 2008 9:07 PM
Constrained by the data. Exactly.
Posted by: Moses | January 15, 2008 9:20 PM
Colbert is always good with science interviewees. My favorite interviews of his are with the scientists. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has appeared twice already. Dawkins was OK too, Brian Greene. The Peter Agre one was very funny (he wanted to trade the guy's Nobel for his Pulitzer or something, Agre told him he would trade it for two weeks of control of his show). Ken Miller was very eloquent as always.
Colbert seems to be greatly more scientifically literate than say Jon Stewart and (gasp!) Bill Maher. On Jon's defense, though, he'll readily admit his ignorance, though he still has a self-righteous bit about science and religion being "two extremes" in his standup. Maher I think only uses "science" as a buzz word to advance his environmentalism and (paradoxically) his alt-med crap. Ironically, Colbert, being the religious of the three is actually very scientifically literate for a lay person, let alone for a TV guy.
Posted by: andyo | January 15, 2008 9:57 PM
Posted by: andyo | January 15, 2008 10:03 PM
Whoops, forgot to close the blockquote, but you get the drift.
Posted by: andyo | January 15, 2008 10:05 PM
Colbert was great when he interviewed Behe....regarding irreducible complexity...holds up mouse trap and says to the effect... so other than in a mouse trap we have no use for a spring or metal or a block of wood? Behe stutters and looks like an idiot.
Posted by: S. Fisher | January 15, 2008 10:50 PM
Writers who are already well off? Please andyo, don't comment on a situation if you're that ignorant of it.
Posted by: Kevin | January 15, 2008 11:00 PM
Kevin, who are you comparing them to? I know people who make minimum wage, and even they as single people are living far better than others I know who don't live in this country (the U.S.). I agree with the writers plea, but they aren't exactly needy either.
Posted by: andyo | January 15, 2008 11:35 PM
Anyway, my point was that something like a TV writers strike is not a reason for scientists who have nothing to do with it to avoid going on shows and educating the public even if just a bit, in good fun and in good humor. Even if my comment was ignorant (which I don't see but you can still argue if you want), Richard's comment was way off-base. More science popularizers should be seizing this opportunity.
Posted by: andyo | January 15, 2008 11:42 PM
Certainly some writers make very large salaries, but they are the vast minority. Half of all WGA members make $0 in a given year. People will sometimes cite average incomes, but that's extremely deceptive when you consider very few at the top make ludicrous amounts of money. Most writers are not exactly living the good life.
Posted by: Kevin | January 15, 2008 11:48 PM
Is Shubin a member of the WGA?
Because if he isn't he can't be a scab.
Oli
Posted by: Mystic Olly | January 15, 2008 11:54 PM
Ha! Did I say pulitzer above? I meant Peabody. I have no idea with these award thingys.
Posted by: andyo | January 16, 2008 12:11 AM
Should all members of the WGA who makes nothing in a given year be considered writers? For $75 and one submission, anyone can be a WGA member and own a little slice of the Hollywood dream while they work their real job.
My wife is a minister because she sent in $20 to an ad in the back of Rolling Stone. Does her salary of zero count toward labor statistics for the clergy?
Posted by: Sean | January 16, 2008 12:11 AM
Oli:
Because if he isn't he can't be a scab.
That's not the reason Shubin is not a scab.
He's not a scab because being interviewed on a TV show is not replacing a striking writer. He may be a rat for crossing a picket line, but he's no scab.
Posted by: MartinDH | January 16, 2008 12:14 AM
I really don't want to derail here, but hasn't the Screen Actor's Guild been a little at fault here? If SAG had joined the writer's strike, I guarantee that it would have been resolved very quickly.
Back to topic, any appearance by an actual scientist who is the least bit able to deliver science to the masses without seeming out of reach, or out of touch, is a very valuable thing. If there is a silver lining to the present "Age of Ignorance" it is that, because of the idiotic ideas that thinking folks find themselves up against, there are a few more science personalities becoming more visible. Would Tyson be where he is in public consciousness if not for his need to point out the flaws in hugely popular insanities? In the early nineties, the only scientist anyone could name was Hawking, and then only to say that they were amazed by his "overcoming difficulties"! Come on! Be amazed because he thinks as deeply about the universe as anyone on the planet, not because he's in a 'chair. These days, at least, there are a bunch of more prominent thinkers who are at least in the public's collective eye.
Posted by: autumn | January 16, 2008 12:15 AM
Sean, no they probably shouldn't. That was just an example to demonstrate the fact that writers as a group are not exactly top of the food chain. They rely on residuals and the like to make money and that's precisely part of the reason they're on strike. This isn't just an act of greed, they really do deserve to see some of that money.
Posted by: Kevin | January 16, 2008 12:20 AM
That interview was a brilliant bit of public science education.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 16, 2008 12:27 AM
Take your own advice.
Writer's Guild of America (WGA)
700 West Third Street
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(323) 951-4000
www.wga.org
Membership # (323) 782-4532
The WGA represents writers in the motion picture, broadcast, cable and new technologies industries. Membership requirements for a screenwriter include accumulating 24 units of employment (screenplay for a feature length theatrical motion picture; radio play or teleplay 90 minutes or longer) with a signatory company/distribution company within three years preceding the application.
Once the qualifications are met, $2,500 is due to the guild for activating membership.
Salary Range: Staff television writers generally earn $60,000 to $80,000 per year to start.
There are minimums set by the Writer's Guild of America. Compensation for a television story and teleplay for network prime time television networks begins at $14,700 for a program of 30 minutes or less, $30,145 for a program of 60 minutes or less, and $42,413 for a program of 90 minutes or less. Writers are also entitled to residuals on some programs depending on the number of times the show airs.
That was from a 2006 on breaking into the writing field. Writers aren't poor. By a long shot. And good writers make much more than Union Scale.
BTW, a "year" is not a 52-week year, but a produciton year which is shorter. You can look at the entire WGA scale here:
http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/contracts/min2004.pdf
Posted by: Moses | January 16, 2008 12:28 AM
this strike is about far more than annual salary. The primary issue is, "Who gets paid for residuals?" As it stands, writers don't make anything once a show goes to DVD or pay websites. What they're striking for is payment (and not a lot) on these different sources of revenue corporations are creating with the writers' labor.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 16, 2008 12:33 AM
Moses, so you mean it was an article designed to get people to become writers...?
Staff television writers seems to be a very deliberately chosen label, don't you think? I'm sure the WGA encompasses many, many more categories.
Posted by: Kevin | January 16, 2008 12:36 AM
I used to work as a CPA in LA (various arts). Now I work as a CPA in Nashville (music). There is a massive over-supply of midling-to-crappy writers. Just like there is a massive over-supply of midling-to-crappy musicians, actors, etc.
My experience, watching this as an accountant in this industry for 17 years, is that they CHOOSE this HIGH RISK/HIGH REWARD FIELD voluntarily. Most of them DO NOT MAKE IT. However, writers who are actually GOOD and work get paid quite well and generally don't lack for jobs.
But the reality is, like anyone who tries to make it in entertainment, they've chosen to pursue a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, high-failure-rate career field and most of them make little or nothing. And if they're not making money is usually because they're not good enough to stand out from the crowd.
Frankly, the entertainment business is brutal. And the reason it's so brutal is that you and 200 other people are chasing 20 jobs. Which is why so many end up in food service jobs.
Posted by: Moses | January 16, 2008 12:48 AM
If we are apes is based on how one defines apes. It is purely arbitrary removing humans from apes...
Also, monkey is very poorly defined, and it is actually totally reasonable to define humans as have an ancestor that evolved from "A monkey"
The confusion is purely based on the idea that we did not evolve from the extant apes or monkeys, but share a common ancestor with each modern group (ape or "monkey") in the past. The semantics comes in when we realize that, if we are apes, it seems a bit redundant to say we evolved from apes. It would sorta be like me saying I evolved from the Irish.
Again, semantics but, we did not evolve from fish, but the ancestors we evolved from trace their ancestors back to a point where we eventually come to an ancestor that can be defined as a fish.
Hope I made that clear,,,
Posted by: Lago | January 16, 2008 12:48 AM
Moses (#39), that's pretty misleading, though I don't think you were intending to be misleading. The numbers you quote show that TV and movie writers are fairly well paid when they're working, but the problem is that the majority of WGA members aren't working at any given time. They can often go years between jobs paying those kinds of rates, and in the interim they live off residuals from their previous jobs -- and it's those residuals that are the focus of the strike. The strike isn't about the small handful of writers with a steady gig on a long-running TV show; it's about the vast numbers who are currently out of work, but who previously worked on a show from which the studio is still making money.
Posted by: Dave K | January 16, 2008 12:53 AM
Heh, heh. You and Kevin shouldn't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I deal with this professionally, and have for my entire 17-year career as a CPA. So, some how I bet I'd be on safe ground to say that I know more about royalty/residual payments than both of you put together. I probably also know more about dirty dealings, the star machine process, and how this works than you can shake a stick at.
What's going on right now intimately effects many of my clients, directly or indirectly. But I'm not the one arguing with an emotional appeal that the writers aren't well paid. They are. Quite well paid. Nor am I arguing that they shouldn't strike. Or that all their claims are unfounded. Or that, in some areas, their claims are (frankly) bullshit and over-reaching and the studios are right.
Where they're not compensated is in certain income streams which are, despite the assertion of the writers, quite a bit more murky than either the writers or the studios would have you believe. One side says: "Ah, over-here is a bright line." And the other side says: "No, it's over here." Which is why there is a strike.
And people like me, nobody listens to, we're just "bean counters." Which suits me fine. As groups of people, every damn one of them has shown me their ugly, greedy side on more than one occasion. And I trust that greed to, eventually, make both sides reach some compromise they can live with.
As for the specifics, neither side is entirely right. But of the two proposals, I actually tend to side with the studios who are, essentially, proposing new media sales (movie downloads) be treated the same as DvD sales for royalty/residual purposes.
I tend to be more sympathetic for the WGA on the "Internet streaming" issue because I've seen too much abuse by studios and record labels of "promotional" materials as an excuse to not pay royalties. But even with this sympathy, often times these programs are offered for free (like Battlestar Galactica reruns I've streamed) so I don't see where the artists are really running the high-ground. Especially as these promos are generally to enhance the the long-term success of the show and do not generate revenue to offset the costs of distribution.
Yet, I see studios abusing this. Forcing writers to make non-show promotional content for download/streaming. So, once again, an issue with two compelling sides.
Anyway, I'm back to bed. Maybe I'll fall asleep this time.
Posted by: Moses | January 16, 2008 1:20 AM
Jon Oliver, Rob Riggle, Samantha Bee and Jason Jones have crossed their own picket line to appear on A Daily Show. Are they rats?
Posted by: Janine | January 16, 2008 1:36 AM
Again, semantics but, we did not evolve from fish, but the ancestors we evolved from trace their ancestors back to a point where we eventually come to an ancestor that can be defined as a fish.
You've just contradicted yourself.
Hope I made that clear,,,
As usual, no.
Posted by: truth machine | January 16, 2008 1:42 AM
What about us for watching the shows rahter than boycotting them? I'm not up on my union lingo, but shouldn't we get a label too?
How about:
Clams?
Gluten?
Ingrown hairs?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 16, 2008 1:43 AM
Jamies.
Posted by: thalarctos | January 16, 2008 1:48 AM
What about us for watching the shows rahter than boycotting them? I'm not up on my union lingo, but shouldn't we get a label too?
Hey, this is one of those times where being not having cable turns out to be politically correct rather than just an annoyance. Yay!
Posted by: MAJeff | January 16, 2008 1:49 AM
You've just contradicted yourself.
actually, i read it as saying we didn't evolve directly from fish, meaning fish->human.
rather, fish->amphib->etc.->human
could be wrong, in which case then it would indeed be contradictory. it's a rather trivial point, in either case.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 16, 2008 1:50 AM
Freaky! I cut through Barnes and Noble because it was raining and on my way though I saw this book, Inner Fish. I paused, flipped through it and bought it!
It's a great book and I'm going to spend the rest of the night reading it.
No wonder I can breathe under water! I'm a fish. Who knew!
Posted by: Doc Bill | January 16, 2008 2:50 AM
@ Post #3:
Leukocyte, he didn't say we were from modern apes. I don't find it misleading or confusing at all to say humans evolved from apes.
Posted by: ndt | January 16, 2008 3:07 AM
This is cool -- some new direct evidence for the contribution of expression factors in addition to genes to evolution.
And thanks to Pharyngula, I know what paired-box homeodomain transcription factors are! :)
Posted by: melior | January 16, 2008 5:26 AM
melior,
I'm sure it's not what you meant but there may be more truth in that statement than you intended.
http://isc.temple.edu/marino/embryology/parch98/parchdev.htm
The Primitive Pharynx and Pharyngeal Arches and their Derivatives
During the fourth week of embryonic development, a series of 5 bar-like ridges appear on the ventrolateral surface of the head and neck region. The ridges are called pharyngeal (branchial) arches. The arches are covered by ectoderm. The ectoderm between the arches form clefts (grooves) called pharyngeal (branchial) clefts (grooves). The arches are bordered medially by the pharynx which is lined by endoderm. Medially each of the pharyngeal arches is separated by a pharyngeal pouch. These pouches approach the corresponding branchial cleft. The approximation of the ectoderm of the pharyngeal cleft with the endoderm of the pharyngeal pouch forms the pharyngeal membrane. The grooves and pouches are named (numbered) the same as the preceding arch.
Each arch contains a cartilaginous core, an aortic arch, and a definite cranial nerve. Each cranial nerve will supply the structures that develop from the mesenchyme of the arch.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | January 16, 2008 6:21 AM
Colbert was throwing softballs to Shubin. I had just read the book the day of the interview, and it is amazing how much of the book's talking points Shubin managed to get in. Steven was agreat help to him.
perhaps it was partly lack of writers too. Jon seems to be doing better without writers than Steven.
Posted by: paul01 | January 16, 2008 7:16 AM
For those who would like a little sample of Shubin's writing, pick up a copy of the latest Natural History magazine. There's an article based on "Your Inner Fish" in it. (It's the cover story, in fact -- pretty funny illustration of a fish head popping out of a business suit.)
Posted by: Donnie B. | January 16, 2008 7:46 AM
I said:
"Again, semantics but, we did not evolve from fish, but the ancestors we evolved from trace their ancestors back to a point where we eventually come to an ancestor that can be defined as a fish."
Truth Machine said:
""You've just contradicted yourself.""
Where did I contradict myself?
Next I said:
"Hope I made that clear,,,""
truth machine curiously responds:
""As usual, no.""
So where am I usually not making myself clear T-machine? Examples of this usualness?
Posted by: Lago | January 16, 2008 7:48 AM
Ichthyis said:
"actually, i read it as saying we didn't evolve directly from fish, meaning fish->human.
rather, fish->amphib->etc.->human"
Yes, this is what I mean. It does seem trivial, but the basic idea of direct evolution, is what has confused so many people on the web. Despite objections, it is fine for someone to say that evolutionary biologists say we come from "apes or monkeys." It is all a matter of which apes and "monkeys" you are referring to, and how direct you are claiming.
Posted by: Lago | January 16, 2008 8:07 AM
Sorry folks, us Europeans are uninterested in the writers' strike, but glad to see some good science education going out on the box. I wonder if there was a scientists' strike, would journos refuse to cross a picket? No? Didn't think so.
As for the fish/monkeys thingy, if we are adopting terms like "fish" and "monkeys" as identifiers of *clades*, then we are *still* fish and monkeys. Let's not get too anthropocentric here - these are essentially human labels, flags of convenience. So we may use them as identifiers for common ancestors, but it's a slightly different meaning-set from when we use them to identify extant life-forms.
For example, if we called a cod a "fish", then we would be more "fishy" than a shark. Let's not get hung up on words - it is the underlying concepts that are important.
Posted by: Amenhotep | January 16, 2008 8:25 AM
I still don't see how "We evolved from fish" is in any way problematic. Fish is a folk toxonomy anyway (paraphyletic group?), and it's very clear that, go back far enough, our ancestors were swimming vertebrates with fins and gills, which kind of suggests "fish" to me. The fact that there are other intermediates doesn't seem relevant. I can say that I got here from Oxford, without specifying that I got from Oxford to Longbridge and then Longbridge to here.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 16, 2008 8:27 AM
I agree. Nowhere is *anyone* suggesting we evolved directly from fish. The route matters not, but the starting point remains.
Posted by: maxi | January 16, 2008 8:40 AM
way to go posting on colbert, as if you don't get enough web traffic already... I wish I had half your readership. I think I am going to buy that book myself. Glad to see Colbert back... proves that teleprompting is becoming passe.
Posted by: the constant skeptic | January 16, 2008 8:46 AM
A bit semantical, I suppose, but descended from apes could mean from the family of apes, which would be true because genus homo belongs to the family of apes. The descent would not be wholly temporal, but also classificatory.
Shubin does refer to nested hierarchy quite often in his book. "Fish" could aslo stand in for "vertebrate".
Posted by: paul01 | January 16, 2008 8:54 AM
My initial sensitivity to the usage of those terms has been (unfortunately) tweaked because of stupid creationist slogans such as, "If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" So yes, we are apes, and there are other members of the ape family around too, but all of us modern apes are different from the common ancestor ape that we all (equally) evolved from. The pet peeve that I was inarticulately referring to is the assignment of directionality to evolution, like fish led to amphibians and yada yada yada humans, as though H. sapiens with upright posture and big brains are the inevitable outcome of the evolutionary process. Upon watching the interview again, I agree with you all that Shubin didn't say anything wrong, and the time it would have taken to explain the finer points of his statement would have wasted the rest of the interview and glazed over the audience's eyes.
Posted by: Leukocyte | January 16, 2008 9:03 AM
The answer to from monkeys/why monkeys question is to establish that modern species are in cousin-type relationships, not ancestor-descendant relationships. Most people have cousins, and most people can grasp that their cousin is not their grandfather. In America, assuming you're talking to an Anglo or a Hispanic person, you may also try the "You have European ancestors; Europeans still exist" tack.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 16, 2008 9:14 AM
"I still don't see how "We evolved from fish" is in any way problematic. "
It is very problematic, as it is the basis of the whole debate. The problem of saying we evolved from "Monkeys" implied to many people that humans evolved directly from extant monkeys.
The confusion is two fold, as one part being the fact that they confuse the living monkeys of today with the idea of long dead monkeys that simply do not exist anymore, and the second confusion of directness where they see, by way of the wording an implied, "Monkey-human" transition with no other intermediates. It is this second aspect of the confusion that throws so many people off on both sides of the issue.
Biologists have tried to explain that humans did not evolve from the extant apes, have also stated we did not evolve directly from either extant monkeys OR extinct monkeys. Then, when a creationist utters "I didn't come from no monkey," the well meaning, but confused individual may often try and correct him and say, "Scientists do not say we evolved from monkeys" when in fact science says no such thing. Science only says we did not evolved "Directly" from extant or extinct monkeys, but science does show, depending on how one cares to define monkey, that we DID evolve from a monkey like ancestor indirectly.
So, as obvious as it might sound, when we say, "We evolved from fish," confusion based on directness does show its ugly head. It is due to this confusion that most of the supposed educated people I have met still claim, "Scientists do not say we come from monkeys" despite, based on the above acceptance of, "We evolved from fish" that they would be wrong...
Posted by: Lago | January 16, 2008 10:16 AM
I had the book in my hand...in my hand...and then I changed my mind and bought Irreligion by John Allen Paulos. Now before I make the trek through the snow to Chapters to pick up Shubins book does anyone have any other favourite reads? PZ...considered a monthly book list?
Posted by: chriss | January 16, 2008 11:04 AM
I wonder if there was a scientists' strike, would journos refuse to cross a picket? No? Didn't think so.
"Dammit, Bill, I know there's a scientists' strike. But I'm a journalist. I have an obligation to my readers. And no picket line can keep me from attending the Board of Regents' Special Subcommittee on Funding and Disbursements preliminary planning meeting on appropriations for Academic Year 2011! What a story!"
Posted by: HP | January 16, 2008 11:26 AM
We don't identify "fish" and "monkeys" as clades, though. Both categories are paraphyletic.
We do identify "reptiles" as a clade, but in that sense, we are not reptiles and none of our ancestors were. We're amniotes, and the reptiles descended from a different amniote branch.
(Unless turtles turn out to be basal to both us and the other reptiles, in which case "reptiles" will have to be paraphyletic too. But that doesn't seem to be considered very likely at the moment.)
Posted by: Anton Mates | January 16, 2008 12:31 PM
Lago wrote:
So, as obvious as it might sound, when we say, "We evolved from fish," confusion based on directness does show its ugly head. It is due to this confusion that most of the supposed educated people I have met still claim, "Scientists do not say we come from monkeys" despite, based on the above acceptance of, "We evolved from fish" that they would be wrong...
Lago, I'm not sure if I see your point. Some of my ancestors are fish. For example, all my ancestors that 417 million years ago were fish.
Also, some of my ancestors are monkeys. For example, all my ancestors that lived 40 million years age were monkeys.
And some of my ancestors are apes. For example, all of my ancestors that lived 14 million years ago were apes.
Posted by: Jarvis | January 16, 2008 12:53 PM
Jarvis, I think you are confused to my point. It is simple. It goes like this:
Creationists often say, "I did not evolve from no monkey!" and, "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
Many scientists have tried to correct them explaining that we did not evolve from the "monkeys" that are alive today, but evolved indirectly from monkeys that no longer exist (basically monkey-ape-human, not Monkey-human).
People hearing scientists say, "We did not evolve from monkeys" when the scientists were referring to the living monkeys of today, and not the extinct "monkeys" we evolved from indirectly, ended up confused, and believed the scientists were saying, "Humans have no monkey ancestors in their past"
Now people confused on the issue are correcting creationist incorrectly over and over again...
Get it now?
Posted by: Lago | January 16, 2008 1:25 PM
I, for one, include ourselves in the terms "ape" and "monkey" and support restricting the word "fish" to Actinopterygii, but that's not going to become normal usage anytime soon...
I have, however, eaten ray wing that was served as "fish". I call bullshit. Ray wing is fibrous and slimy at the same time. It is literally palpable that carps and trouts and whatnots are more closely related to cattle and chickens than to rays.
Maybe if we all start talking about "true fishes" or "fishes in the strict sense"...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 16, 2008 2:01 PM
Methinks it should be perfectly alright to say that humans evolved from fish given that cladistically, we ARE fish... more specifically, bony fish. Tee hee.
Either way, it feels as though the issue is more or less resolved here at least, no? We all know what is meant by "humans evolved from monkeys". Now, how is this best communicated to someone who doesn't know much about evolution? "Humans didn't evolve from modern monkeys but monkeys that existed a long time ago and gave rise to both modern monkeys and modern humans" is a bit clunky, no?
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | January 16, 2008 2:23 PM
"Humans didn't evolve from modern monkeys but monkeys that existed a long time ago and gave rise to both modern monkeys and modern humans" is a bit clunky, no?
because again the above implies a direct evolution of humans from monkeys, which is incorrect, as we have went over numerous times..
Posted by: lago | January 16, 2008 2:28 PM
Lago wrote:
"People hearing scientists say, 'We did not evolve from monkeys' when the scientists were referring to the living monkeys of today, and not the extinct 'monkeys' we evolved from indirectly, ended up confused, and believed the scientists were saying, 'Humans have no monkey ancestors in their past'
"Now people confused on the issue are correcting creationist incorrectly over and over again...
"Get it now?"
Kind of. I agree that no human is a descendant of any monkey that is actually living as of January 16, 2008. And, also, the most recent common ancestors that I share with all of the chimpanzees that are alive today probably lived between 4 and 6 million years ago. And those organisms were much more ape-like than monkey-like.
However, some of the monkeys that are alive today are very similar to monkeys that are my ancestors. For example, some of the spider monkeys that are alive today are very similar to all my ancestors that lived 40 million years ago, which were all monkeys.
A question: Are any of the monkeys that are alive today members of the same "species" of monkeys that were alive 40 million years ago and that are my ancestors? I don't know. Maybe somebody does.
Posted by: Jarvis | January 16, 2008 2:37 PM
Lago wrote: "because again the above implies a direct evolution of humans from monkeys, which is incorrect, as we have went over numerous times.."
What do you mean by "direct?" If you mean that no monkey gave birth to a human, then, of course, you are correct. But some of my ancestors are monkeys. For example, all my ancestors that lived 40 million years ago were monkeys. Now a population of those organisms evolved into more ape-like organisms and homo erecti before they evolved into me. But those organisms are my ancestors. I wouldn't invite them to my family reunion. In addition to being dead, they are very distant ancestors. But they are my ancestors.
Posted by: Jarvis | January 16, 2008 2:43 PM
Jarvis asks:
"A question: Are any of the monkeys that are alive today members of the same "species" of monkeys that were alive 40 million years ago and that are my ancestors? I don't know. Maybe somebody does. "
That is pretty much a great big "No", and for several reasons, but again, I am going to just go with "NO"
Jarvis then asks:
"What do you mean by "direct?" If you mean that no monkey gave birth to a human, then, of course, you are correct. But some of my ancestors are monkeys. "
By direct we mean with no intermediates groups left in-between that are unaccounted for. The general public gets confused when we say things without a qualifier. When we say things like, "humans evolved from fish," a very large amount of the general population actually think scientists are saying humans evolved directly from fish with no other intermediate groups involved ( as in; fish-basal tetrapod-amniotes,-basal synapsids-advanced synapsids {eucynodontids blah blah blah} etc...)
Posted by: Lago | January 16, 2008 2:55 PM
Lago said: "That is pretty much a great big 'No', and for several reasons, but again, I am going to just go with 'NO.'"
Are you sure?
Posted by: Jarvis | January 16, 2008 3:00 PM
Jarvis wrote: "By direct we mean with no intermediates groups left in-between that are unaccounted for. The general public gets confused when we say things without a qualifier. When we say things like, 'humans evolved from fish,' a very large amount of the general population actually think scientists are saying humans evolved directly from fish with no other intermediate groups involved ( as in; fish-basal tetrapod-amniotes,-basal synapsids-advanced synapsids {eucynodontids blah blah blah} etc...)"
That's a good point. I think these days when someone says that humans evolved from fish, a lot of people think the person means that a fish gave birth to human. And that obviously didn't happen. So, it's good to make clear that no fish gave birth to a human. And when talking with non-experts, it is good to try to avoid saying: "Humans evolved from fish." It's better to say: "Some ancestors of humans are fish."
But it is important for those of us who realize that some of my ancestors are fish to make clear to those who don't realize this that, indeed, some of my ancestors are fish. It tends to help people understand the causes of the existence of, and differences, among organisms. When I tell people that some of my ancestors are fish, it helps them understand what I mean when I say that bacteria that was on earth about 3.5 billion years ago evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. It gives them a picture to work with.
Posted by: Jarvis | January 16, 2008 3:08 PM
Lago said: "That is pretty much a great big 'No', and for several reasons, but again, I am going to just go with 'NO.'"
Jarvis asks:
"Are you sure?"
Lago responds,
placental mammal species just do not last 40 million years as "species", never mind the fact that monkey is so ill defined that it would be rather uncertain for me to claim what was here 40 million years ago would qualify as monkey even though the Old World-New World split was considered to be about then...
Posted by: Lago | January 16, 2008 3:10 PM
Lago responds,
placental mammal species just do not last 40 million years as "species", never mind the fact that monkey is so ill defined that it would be rather uncertain for me to