Hey, the next episode of the History Channel's series on evolution is coming up soon: Evolve: Sex. I don't quite have the stamina to liveblog it tonight — I'm ready to fall asleep sitting down — but I'll be tuned in and trying to watch it.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
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)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
Christian theology is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is opposed to every other form of rational thinking.
[H. L. Mencken]
Recent Posts
- Religion: adaptation or by-product?
- Botanical Wednesday: Love is in the air
- Things to do when you're godless
- Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be
- How can we not?
- List of science blogs, with an asterisk
- I'm having bad acid flashbacks, man
- That sneaky, nasty blasphemy law
- Rise up, Texans!
- Nice euphemism
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- heddle on A reasonable deconversion
- Eupraxsopher on Nice euphemism
- 'Tis Himself, OM on A reasonable deconversion
- Mike Wagner on Religion: adaptation or by-product?
- strange gods before me, OM on Nothing will stop the never-ending thread! Nothing!
- a_ray_in_dilbert_space on List of science blogs, with an asterisk
- Stephen Wells on Religion: adaptation or by-product?
- Louis on Religion: adaptation or by-product?
- IanM on Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be
- Rev. BigDumbChimp on Religion: adaptation or by-product?
Archives
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« To the clever dicks who think they are annoying me | Main | What year is it, anyway? »
Evolve: Sex
Category: Entertainment • Evolution
Posted on: August 19, 2008 9:07 PM, by PZ Myers
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/79232
Comments
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 19, 2008 9:17 PM
Totally OT, but I came across this on the DailyKos, and just HAD to share. It's a blurb from the AP about McC's veep front runners. Read carefully, and enjoy:
"His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 19, 2008 9:21 PM
The third and final episode of Dawkins's new series, The Genius of Charles Darwin, is torrentable.
Posted by: Ted Powell | August 19, 2008 9:21 PM
OT: Bill Maher, on Larry King Live, a couple of minutes ago, on religion: "It's mainly about getting your butt saved when you die." (As opposed to doing good works.)
Posted by: genesgalore | August 19, 2008 9:24 PM
will be interesting to see what shortshrift they give to human breasts and penes.
Posted by: Mikey H. | August 19, 2008 9:47 PM
I'm going to watch the rerun at 2 a.m. I seem to absorb and process more science when I'm sedate.
Posted by: Brigit | August 19, 2008 9:48 PM
THANKS for the reminder! I consider this my new must-see TV, and I had completely forgotten to tune in.
Posted by: Kobra | August 19, 2008 9:49 PM
I'm going to watch Evolve: Sex, but I don't get why the History Channel has a show on "Ice Road Truckers." What does that have to do with History? Bah!
I refuse to watch that show, so right now my mom's watching the Olympics on Channel 2.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | August 19, 2008 10:04 PM
Apparently, I am still not mature enough to hear someone talk in serious tones about the "usefulness of the penis" without giggling.
I hope that NEVER changes.
Posted by: Platytude | August 19, 2008 10:14 PM
I'll be tuned in and trying to watch it.
What in this day and age you don't have TiVo or at the very least some sort of DVR? TiVo it and watch it later. You deserve some rest.
Posted by: scooter | August 19, 2008 10:15 PM
who'd a thunk live birth pre-dated laying fertilized eggs?
jumping the shark?
Posted by: Doubting Foo | August 19, 2008 10:16 PM
LOL...am I the only one who thought it was funny that PZ doesn't have the stamina for sex tonight? :-P
Posted by: scooter | August 19, 2008 10:18 PM
#8
If you have slack, giggling is mandatory.
praBoB
Posted by: Eric | August 19, 2008 10:30 PM
@#11
No, but I do now. He makes us atheists look bad. Come on, we have to be obsessed with sex.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | August 19, 2008 10:33 PM
#11:
Be fair: It seems he's just doesn't think he can blog while doing it, and maybe he won't last the whole hour.
That's OK. There's a place in married life for the occasional quickie too. (I speak from long experience. Long experiences are great too of course.) And it's fine if you use all your tentacles for one thing at a time.
Posted by: Loren Petrich | August 19, 2008 11:20 PM
Our host PZ wasn't around for "Evolve: Jaws", either. I'd be curious about what he might have to say about that one.
Posted by: Me | August 20, 2008 12:16 AM
penis! vagina! sex!
Posted by: Hamsterpoop | August 20, 2008 12:24 AM
##########################################
##########################################
Could someone please let PZ know about this poll.
Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/
##########################################
##########################################
Posted by: wildcardjack | August 20, 2008 12:45 AM
I'm an engineer with an interest in the works of evolutionary biologist. That being said, what I actually watched contained a few bits of either confusing or wrong information.
They started off with sharks, with their uterine fertilization. Then they leap across time to reptiles with their egg laying. It seemed as if they were making a connection between cartilaginous fish and bony land dwellers, skipping the fact that so many amphibians engage in external fertilization.
I think that if the evo-devo biologists in the audience watched this they'd scream at it the way I scream at Mythbusters or Modern Marvels for getting stuff wrong.
Posted by: jfatz | August 20, 2008 12:46 AM
Penis penis penis penis...
Posted by: LisaJ | August 20, 2008 12:50 AM
Hamsterpoop at #17. I have already posted that poll... in one of my guest posts the other day.
Posted by: F'in Librul | August 20, 2008 1:42 AM
It's quite good. Excellent photography and dry but personal presentation.
Posted by: F'in Librul | August 20, 2008 1:47 AM
It seemed as if they were making a connection between cartilaginous fish and bony land dwellers, skipping the fact that so many amphibians engage in external fertilization.
But sharks came before reptiles, no? I agree they could have made the timeline clearer with graphics, but they did mention the evolutionary timescale. On the other hand, they did insects after reptiles....
Posted by: Amplexus | August 20, 2008 2:03 AM
I have long said this: The breast to penis ratio on cable and movies is horribly out of wack. The only solution is more dongs.
I should send a letter to the FCC requesting more cocks on television. The current policy is really sexist and my 1st admendment rights allow for redress of grievance.
Posted by: strangebeasty | August 20, 2008 2:38 AM
Since you brought it up... I'll bring this up.
The Red Queen:
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219214217&sr=8-1
Super awesome book about the evolution of sex.
Posted by: MTran | August 20, 2008 2:44 AM
I rather enjoyed this episode of Evolve. They used more of a comparative anatomy approach than a chronological approach, and I think that made it more accessible and "viewer friendly" because it didn't distract the audience with too much science while discussing sex.
The social uses of sex among primates that so clearly demonstrate the non-reproductive nature of much if not most sexual activity was really a wonderful break from the usual story that creo-bots insist upon.
Plus, they said "claspers"! Heh, heh...
Posted by: devnull | August 20, 2008 4:22 AM
I wish my sex would evolve.
Ive been using the same damn moves for 20 years. Its getting a little old.
Posted by: Pete Moulton | August 20, 2008 6:46 AM
MTran @ #25, I'm a child of the '60's, and in those days we'd have needed a signed parental release just to hear the word "claspers." Things have (slowly) improved.
It was a little disappointing that they gave so little attention to the unique mating process in Odonata, but at least they mentioned the part about a male's being able to remove most of the sperm deposited by previous males and replacing it with his own. Some short, but lovely, video of a male forktail too.
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 20, 2008 8:14 AM
To MTran and Pete Moulton,
I used to be a sex columnist, so I'm more than a little knowledgeable in this area. With that said, what in God's green hell are claspers?
Posted by: Pete Moulton | August 20, 2008 9:16 AM
Captain Mike, claspers are organs in cartilaginous fishes (like sharks) that serve to introduce semen into the females' cloacas. In insects, claspers are male structures which grip the females during copulation, but don't necessarily have anything to do with the actual insemination.
Posted by: Jason Z | August 20, 2008 10:19 AM
Anyone catch the gay joke the dino guy made about why the dinosaurs went extinct? Ummm weird?
Posted by: Coffeesh0p | August 20, 2008 10:20 AM
Is there anywhere we can torrent this from? I've looked all over.
Posted by: GirBoBytons | August 20, 2008 10:49 AM
#11 and #15-If I had been drinking something when I read that it would have came out of my nose. Thanks for making me smile at work...only happens here at this blog hehe.
Posted by: Falyne | August 20, 2008 11:00 AM
*snicker*
Poor, poor Trophy Wife....
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 20, 2008 11:25 AM
As usual, quite a commendable show for commercial TV.
However, the teleological language is getting to me. I might better state that, while I don't much mind it for my own sake, anyone who already thinks that evolution is teleological is going to have that reinforced. They keep making statements that an organ or behavior was needed, so it evolved.
Because both anti-evolutionists and many who accept evolution do think that evolution is about "it was needed, so it evolved," I wish that they would categorically state that evolution does not work that way. If they did that (possibly on each episode), they might then even go ahead and use their teleological language.
I'm afraid that this series is unlikely to dispel teleological misconceptions regarding evolutionary theory among the public. It's a good series, but it sure could be better.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Metro | August 20, 2008 11:55 AM
"I don't quite have the stamina to liveblog it tonight."
Go have a nap--it'll be repeated at twenty-minute intervals throughout the night.
Posted by: KnowledgeIsPower | August 20, 2008 12:22 PM
devnull@26,
Here are a couple that I have good success with:
In missionary position, instead of placing the man's legs on the inside of the females, try placing them on the outside.
For another, place just one leg on the outside, and then twist so that the man is about 45 degrees from the side. Then, lift straight up. The penis didn't evolve to move like that, and so it does very interesting things to the vagina.
And the best hint: Don't get stuck in a position. Variety! Move around! Change position, sides, etc!
Best of luck, and don't hurt yourself (or others)...At least, not without a safeword!
Posted by: jfatz | August 20, 2008 1:09 PM
Hey! It just occurred to me, but your "To the clever dicks" comment is more appropriate in this thread. ;-)
Posted by: Milo Johnson | August 20, 2008 1:37 PM
DINO PORN!
Posted by: Bezoar | August 20, 2008 4:33 PM
Hasn't anyone been paying attention? Sex has evolved plenty. Republican's are doing it with the lights on.
Posted by: windy, OM | August 20, 2008 4:50 PM
Yep, this episode was not bad. But there were so many weird choices:
-Not even a nod to the evolution of sex in unicellular organisms! I get that they want to focus on "our kind of sex" but it makes no sense to start with corals!
-Again, they skip directly from Tiktaalik to "reptiles". What's up with that?
-The inclusion of dinosaurs made more sense in this episode than the previous ones. But using the same "footage" of early tetrapods-to-dinosaurs in every show is starting to grate.
-The dinosaurs could not have mated in water because "there were no large bodies of water". What, no lakes or rivers anywhere?
-The early Homo are shown as blue-eyed Caucasian types, which is a bit unlikely.
-They could have done a lot more weird insect sex. And I'm not saying this just because this is Pharyngula, but what about cephalopods? And the worm Osedax was in the Guts episode, so if they are going to reuse the same examples, why not mention that Osedax keep a "harem" of dwarf males inside them! That's a lot cooler than their digestion.
-It's great that they talk about the convergent evolution of penises, but where were the vaginas?
-What was the great sexual innovation of cockroaches supposed to be, sperm storage? Come on, almost everyone does that! And it doesn't usually mean that the female "never mates again" or that there's no sperm competition!
-I'm conflicted about the end about genetic engineering of humans, on the other hand it's good that science shows dare to discuss controversial ideas, on the other hand it's not great if someone gets the impression that evolution means that we "should" engineer humans. At least they made it clear that scientists don't agree on it. But what I would have done is: do a proper introduction into the origins of sexual reproduction, mention horizontal gene transfer, and then when you mention genetic engineering and cloning in the end it all ties in nicely with these processes that have been going on for billions of years!
Posted by: BMS | August 20, 2008 5:44 PM
Yes, and yes.
Posted by: MTran | August 20, 2008 5:52 PM
Windy,
You're complaints are well taken and I share them. But I suppose I have such low expectations for tv science shows dealing with sex and evolution that I think this episode was overall a positive one.
Anything that doesn't shy away from using the word "penis" repeatedly or describing the social cohesion qualities of sex goes a long way in breaking a lot of tv barriers without getting in the face of a prudish audience.
And I really think that most non-science types will find a comparative penis approach a lot more understandable and interesting than a more scholarly approach.
For me, that counts a lot.
Posted by: BMS | August 20, 2008 6:03 PM
windy, OM -
I found I was rather non-plussed by several of scientists' statements making value judgments of female animals' mating decisions.
To wit, I seem to remember one of the scientists saying something like,"Females sometimes make weird choices."
Several others echoed that sentiment, although I can't at the moment bring to memory exactly what they said.
Rubbed me quite the wrong way.
I also found the episode a little too focused on penises, "dominance," and "submission" and didn't offer a deeper, more nuanced explanation of animal mating behaviors. For example, in discussing the macaques, I didn't accept the biologist's assertion that a particular female engaged in a "spectacular act of submission" vis a vis a territorial male. I think her behavior was much more complex than that, and much more thoughtful.
Anyway, I'm not a biologist so what do I know...
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | August 20, 2008 6:20 PM
"-It's great that they talk about the convergent evolution of penises, but where were the vaginas?
...at home baking cookies and vaccuming the floors as the fundies say we should be?
Posted by: windy, OM | August 20, 2008 6:36 PM
I don't disagree with that. But I forgot one complaint: the stupid "the Irish elk went extinct because its antlers got too big" theory. Aargh! Traits like that may make it more likely that a population goes extinct if the environment changes, but sexual selection doesn't drive populations to extinction by itself!
It was pretty mild, but amusingly it got a "Parents strongly cautioned" rating anyway. Lord knows what it would have been if they had mentioned vaginas or orgasms. And I wonder, why is the Evolve show not mentioned anywhere on the History channel homepage?
BMS,
I think that was when they were talking about sexually selected ornaments, that the criteria that the females use can be "weird" like the eyes of the stalk-eyed fly, so I don't think that was too bad. But I agree that the focus on dominance was a bit much.
True. And they said that the calls of the female macaque were to "stimulate the male" and make pregnancy more likely. I thought, what about if it's simply a function of when the sex is "good", both partners are more likely to orgasm? And, it seems that they left out parts of the female researcher's theory, which is that the calls are meant to attract other males so that the female can mate with several of them! Maybe they thought that was too racy for TV.
Posted by: windy, OM | August 20, 2008 7:13 PM
...at home baking cookies and vaccuming the floors as the fundies say we should be?
I don't think fundies would like the thought of vaginas that are strong enough to vacuum floors ;)
Posted by: BMS | August 20, 2008 7:17 PM
Yes!!!! Thanks for jogging my memory!
That statement was in / around the whole "Females make weird choices" value judgment segment, that the males' antlers got big because females selected for them, and then laying the blame for extinction on the females and their "weird" choices!
Double aargh!
That's kinda what I was getting at, although with lots of gaps.
Posted by: Danio | August 20, 2008 7:24 PM
Oh dear, the 1950's era commercial now playing in my head is SO sick and wrong!
Posted by: Monado | August 20, 2008 8:33 PM
In Parasite Rex, Carl Zimmer makes it quite plain that females' choices for brighter feathers, larger leg-spurs, or whatever select for a vigorous immune system that is successfully fighting off parasites. It makes a big difference to survival rates of offspring.
Posted by: Loren Petrich | August 20, 2008 9:36 PM
That show tried to make some connection between sharks and amniotes about internal fertilization?
It looks like its producers ought to have made it clearer that here is a clear case of convergent evolution. Internal fertilization has evolved several times from the ancestral state of external fertilization, mostly in the animal kingdom but at least once among plants (pollen tubes).
Posted by: MTran | August 20, 2008 9:41 PM
Windy, OM,
Oh, yeah, that absurdity about female selection of male traits, such as large antlers, driving a species to extinction was grossly -and needlessly- misleading. It also was typical of the generally sexist assumptions that emerged again and again in the "light banter" explanations and asides. I would have much preferred to see more about bonobo social sex. Perhaps bonobos are too human like for the tv commercial comfort zone.
But IIRC, the idea that species have gone extinct because they have "over evolved" certain qualities goes way back to my grand parents' day. (E.g., mammoths went extinct because their tusks grew to the point where they could no longer eat!) I had hoped to never hear that crock again and there really was no excuse for it.
Posted by: zeekster | August 20, 2008 9:52 PM
Did they ever specifically say what a cloaca is? I know, but I would guess the whole audience did not. Like others have mentioned it would have been nice to see some evolution of the vagina as well. Maybe show how some species ended up with it being a 1-job hole? Come to think of it, did they ever use the word vagina at all?
Posted by: Alverant | August 20, 2008 11:23 PM
Was anyone else a little taken back by the elephant's penis? Dang thing looked like a snake getting ready to strike.
Posted by: windy, OM | August 21, 2008 12:38 AM
IIRC, no and no.
Posted by: Sam | August 21, 2008 1:31 AM
Where can i see it?? I missed it.......i cant find it on the web
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | August 21, 2008 1:45 AM
That "submission" bullshit frosted my flakes too. WTF?
I've always wondered, about the guys who go on and on about "submission" and the like--WTF are they doing when they fuck? Are they really such hopeless inept bumbling klutzes that there's nothing in sex for the women they're fucking with? Yeuch. How is this better than the elderly male theoretical virgins telling the rest of us what it's all about?
Plus the gay-dinosaurs "joke." Hell, everybody knows it was smoking that drove them extinct.
Plusplus, the Irish elk and female choice. What vault did they dig that one out of? And "Females make weird choices" is the very klaxon of the, shall we say, unchosen.
How the bloodyfuck did these bumblers manage to fuck up sex??
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, I did get tired of the same old T. rex breathing on the glass. That was clever the first 50 times it was done. After that: cheap.
Posted by: Todd | August 21, 2008 9:08 AM
I don't think fundies would like the thought of vaginas that are strong enough to vacuum floors.
Sweet Jebus, that's got to be the most erotic statement I've heard all week!
This ep probably had the fundies squirming - evolution AND sex in one show. I bet that got their bibles thumpin'.
Posted by: JackC | August 21, 2008 1:56 PM
I believe they did mention the vagina - and that was one part that got me - it was mentioned as something along the lines of "moving forward in the Human female to facilitate the "missionary position"." (WTTE)
What tripe. All the other tripe too. Oh well. The elephant bit WAS pretty impressive - I can probably understand why it was not a closer shot!
I also found it amusing that the human female breast was mostly fuzzed out digitally. After all these penises, we can show a little teat? Give me a break.
JC
Posted by: Joe Felsenstein | August 22, 2008 12:33 AM
I used to work on the population genetics of the origin of "sex" (in that case, recombination with outcrossing), so I watched to see what they would say about why species bother outcrossing. I have come to have low expectations -- almost always science documentaries whiz through that and manage to give a totally bogus explanation. So did this show, I regret to report. At least they didn't argue that "sex creates variability", a howler from 1918 that is easy to disprove. Instead they argued that if we reproduced clonally we'd all look alike, and thus all be susceptible to being wiped out by the same disease. This casually assumes that all parents are the same genotype, otherwise clones would be as diverse as their parents. Perhaps their argument was an unclear reference to W. D. Hamilton's "sex and parasites" theory, one particular biological scenario but not by any means the only credible theory. It was hard to tell what they meant.
The order of the rest of the show was rather weird. Started with sharks who invented internal fertilization. But actually they said they were the "first vertebrates" to do it. Then later, they whizzed off to insects who were shown doing lots of internal fertilization. And the idea that unicellular organisms might have sex seemed to escape them. It was fine as long you didn't try to think too clearly about what they said. (But the Irish Elk example people have been complaining about here may just be a reference to R. A. Fisher's Runaway Sexual Selection process, which is not as people think a howler).
Posted by: chicagoksw | August 22, 2008 12:54 AM
I always miss these things, but I found them on the History Channel iTunes area. Hell Yeah!
Posted by: windy, OM | August 25, 2008 10:15 AM
I am well aware of Fisher's theory, and if they had stopped there that would have been fine, but what they said was that the antlers of the Irish Elk got so big that it couldn't survive.