Now on ScienceBlogs: That Which I Sowed in Tears, I Now Reap in Joy: A Love Letter to my Beautiful Readers
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)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
The greatest progress that the human race has made lies in learning how to make correct inferences.
Nietzsche (from Human, All-Too Human)
« Unscientific America: still useless | Main | Sophisticated theology »
Category: Evolution • Fossils
Posted on: July 15, 2009 8:10 AM, by PZ Myers
Here's an interesting use of tweening: take 5 fossil skulls, use the computer to interpolate between them, and animate the results. 3.5 million years just fly by in 5 minutes.
(The sound track is a bit superfluous though—turn the sound down if you're at work)
Find more posts in: 
Life Science
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/114893
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Comments
Posted by: Jeff S | July 15, 2009 8:26 AM
A better song choice would have greatly improved the impact. It would be amazing if one day we have a (more) complete fossil record and someone is able to do this without the aid of a computer.
How anyone could watch this and not feel in awe at how amazing it is we are what we are today is beyond me.
Posted by: RockProf | July 15, 2009 8:28 AM
Pretty cool. I'd love to see one speeded up a bit, and without the printed comments and music, to use in my class.
Posted by: JohnT | July 15, 2009 8:29 AM
Pretty Cool animation.
I'd like to "keep it going" and see the next 1 billion years...
It think the braincase would start increasing.
The jaws couldn't shrink anymore, could it?!
JT
Posted by: Cruithne | July 15, 2009 8:29 AM
I liked the song. Wonderful piece of video, really gives a sense of awe at the wonder of evolution.
Why do people insist on following fairy tales and superstition when science has so much more to offer us?
Posted by: Michelle R
|
July 15, 2009 8:29 AM
4:18 is closer to 4 minutes than 5 to me. :P
It's sorta cool. Must've taken a while.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
July 15, 2009 8:31 AM
4:18 is closer to 4 minutes than 5 to me. :P
It's sorta cool. Must've taken a while.
Posted by: James F | July 15, 2009 8:35 AM
Put "Monkey Gone to Heaven" behind that bad boy.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 8:37 AM
We need another video showing how Fleury's psychedelic lines change during this period!
Posted by: Ray S. | July 15, 2009 8:40 AM
Outstanding! Personally I would like to see a time indicator, and I could easily have done without the word graphics and music. Still it is amazing as it stands.
It reminds me somewhat of a graphic sequence from Cosmos, though that one was line drawings as I recall.
Posted by: BeckyWS | July 15, 2009 8:42 AM
Not sure about the palaeontological accuracy, although it's a cool idea. Morphing from Neanderthal to modern human is not correct as there's little evidence for ancestry.
It would have been better to use photographs from a proper human evolution textbook with more species rather than a fine art print with skulls lined up like that.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 15, 2009 8:44 AM
That is pretty impressive.
After watching, use the slider bar and move it yourself to see it sped up too.
There is one thing missing: The Red Sox cap at the end!
Posted by: Nichole | July 15, 2009 8:57 AM
There was a time indicator: 500 generations/ sec.
Posted by: inkadu | July 15, 2009 8:58 AM
Creationist giving directions: "Oh, no, you can't get there by walking. No, sir. You have to jump."
Posted by: Didac Lopez-Martinez
|
July 15, 2009 8:59 AM
Of course, it does not reflect accurately the 'transformation' in our lineage in the last 3-4 Myr, because of some choices (see Becky #10). However, it is interesting to see that the opposition between macroevolution and microevolution is only a question of time frame. Said that, we cannot forget that the "History of Our Human Lineage" is far from being the same as the "History of Hominids". There are plenty of collateral branches that cannot be included in our human lineage (Paranthropus, Neanderthals, and so on). A more complex question it is the issue of the selective forces accounting to the transformation we have seen in the video. The video reflects the chronology (first - reduction of jaws ; second - increase of braincase relative volume). Selective forces were not the same along all the period (3-4 Myr): dietary changes, nutritional and social pressures for greater brain activity, etc. So, John T (#3) is asking an impossible: we cannot scientifically predict the next 1 billion of years for the same reason we cannot tell if the next 29th September will be a rainy day or a sunny day. Anyway, 1 billion of years is a lot of time. It is 300-time greater that the time span of the video. The reasonable probability of extinction of our lineage makes 1 billion years out of reach. Of course, if there are some transformations in our lineage or if there are a huge radiation of our lineage, things would be different. However, most anthropologists think that the human lineage will be ultimately extinct through civilization by-products. Anyway, if human civilization could persist on, say, for only 1 thousand years we cannot imagine now the wonders and horrours of this future history.
Posted by: Evan | July 15, 2009 9:03 AM
I turned off the sound after 2 seconds so I completely missed the purpose of the occasional "Macro? Polo!" text. Otherwise a very nice video.
I wonder if the same data could be used to predict possible future anatomical changes in human evolution. What might we become in another million years?
Posted by: inkadu | July 15, 2009 9:05 AM
I enjoy your post-apocalyptic viewpoint and invite you to write a novel that will eventually be made into a film I could watch. My only requirements are that the Catholic Church not be a main player in the plot and that Kevin Costner is not cast.
Posted by: Parrhesia | July 15, 2009 9:06 AM
This sort of thing is also a clarion call for vegetarianism and animal rights, IMHO.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 15, 2009 9:15 AM
@parchesia #17 - I don't follow. Can you expand on this a bit?
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
July 15, 2009 9:16 AM
I disapprove of the use of the term "denialist" in this context.
In effect you are equating creationists to neo-Nazis.
Posted by: Omphaloskepsis | July 15, 2009 9:17 AM
@Abdul
No, they just mean someone who denies evolution. "Denialist" is a general word, not referring to a specific thing.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 15, 2009 9:22 AM
(Just a reminder not to feed drive by trolling.)
Posted by: MrQhuest | July 15, 2009 9:23 AM
I stumbled upon a very similar video last night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbGDJknak9c
I think a whole series of these morphs would be very useful. If only people would watch them.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
July 15, 2009 9:23 AM
Not Muhammad?Posted by: flea | July 15, 2009 9:28 AM
Oh, Abdul, where have you been? Muhammad is so passe! Get with the program!
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 15, 2009 9:31 AM
I have to admit, I turned it off and was not too impressed. Oh, morphing is neat and everything, but I don't think it's a good idea tactically to point to this and shout "see!!!"
You could just as easily morph a skull into a Toyota, after all.
Posted by: Stacey C. | July 15, 2009 9:35 AM
Very Cool! I know it's not technically accurate but it's a great way to really illustrate how amazing evolution is. I agree with Jeff S.--nature and it's mechanisms are so incredible I just don't understand why people search for the supernatural.
Jamshed (if it isn't a parody) I like how you show the true colors of Haryn Yahya by using profit instead of prophet.
Posted by: co | July 15, 2009 9:37 AM
I very much like the result when clicking on Jamshed's blue name.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
July 15, 2009 9:38 AM
Jam...
PROFIT?? LMAO. It's PROPHET you ignorant git.
Posted by: inkadu | July 15, 2009 9:42 AM
Jafafa - This video is hammering on the creationist distinction between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution. Since creationist still want to receive the latest antibiotics from atheist pharmacists, they acknowledge microevolution -- minor changes in things like bacterial resistance within a population -- but macro evolution of new species is unpossible. This video demonstrates that it's at least conceivable to evolve new species by a series of very minor changes.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
July 15, 2009 9:43 AM
Stacy @27..
Had the same thought 2 seconds after I clicked "post"
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 15, 2009 9:44 AM
The Mardy?
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
July 15, 2009 9:44 AM
I'm with Jafafa (#26) on this!
While neat, it's not a completely 'true' or reliable representation of actual evolution, and so it will be used against us. We will be accused of trickery, faking, dishonesty and lying. It's only a matter of time for the first ID-er to bring up "Piltdown man: the computerized version"
Still a neat animation, though.
Posted by: Mobius | July 15, 2009 9:49 AM
That...was...cool!
Posted by: mm | July 15, 2009 9:54 AM
You can download this video as an mp4 at keepvid.com and use quicktime to move the slider and see it faster.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 15, 2009 9:56 AM
Quick, somebody help me translate "in typos there is truth" into Latin!
Mike (@18):
I think "Parchesia" (@17) is trying to suggest that (yet another bit of) evidence of our evolutionary kinship with other animals somehow stands as an argument against eating them.
You know, in the same way that tigers and sharks would refrain from eating animals if only they understood evolution! ;^)
Posted by: Tulse | July 15, 2009 10:00 AM
I agree with Jafafa and Dutchdoc -- The video is very cool, but frankly it's more a demo of morphing software than any rigorously made argument (unless one wants to argue that Ed Norton can turn into The Hulk via similar microevolutionary processes). We do a poor job of advocating for evolution using such questionable techniques.
Posted by: hexkid | July 15, 2009 10:02 AM
Mardy is a great descriptive word for many religious types.
In fact the Artic Monkeys did a whole song on whole song based on the concept, just search for 'Mardy Bum' ;)
Are you sure that 'Profit' is a mistype, I think he makes quite a lot of money from his religion.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
July 15, 2009 10:03 AM
A while back, I ran into a morphing video of Chelicerata evolution (mostly arachnids). My comments were similar to most of the objections I've seen for this video, but it's still pretty cool to watch.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 10:03 AM
JAMSHED,
Posted by: miko | July 15, 2009 10:07 AM
absolutely... this is goofy and non-instructive. outright misleading about morphological change and implying linear transitions between a few skulls we happen to know about.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 15, 2009 10:14 AM
In the same way that Ismail Enver was a great respected humanitarian.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2009 10:17 AM
Wow. you guys are being a bit over critical. I think it just shows what freaks of nature we are... we evolved to carry around a huge brain. That's what was most striking. Regardless if the exact lineage is correct.
Why are the Yahya freaks coming here. Ignorant muslims.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 10:19 AM
Bill Dauphin, OM
LOL!
Here's a try:
In lapsus calami veritas
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 10:33 AM
Actually, this might be better:
In lapsus clavis veritas
Posted by: JJR | July 15, 2009 10:34 AM
@15 >>completely missed the purpose of the occasional "Macro? Polo!" text.
It's sort of a riff on the popular children's swimming pool game "Marco Polo" where one child closes his eyes and yells out "Marco!" and the other kids yell back "Polo". It's a game of tag using echo-location.
Posted by: Joseph Smidt | July 15, 2009 10:37 AM
Who picked that music?
Wait, I'm so confused, why are all the skulls so similar?
Posted by: alexandre van de sande | July 15, 2009 10:44 AM
for those asking about extrapolating the data into the future:
Sorry that's not how evolution works. It's not "going" anywhere nor does it have a endpoint. It's just what happens when selection pressure is applied. Modern medicine and society has mainly taken out this selection pressure based on genes.
More intelligent people, taller people, or with a smaller jaw are not necessarily the ones more likely to spread their genes around, so the shape of future human is probabily more based on random genetic drifts. Unless of course genetic manipulation becomes more common than sex (in which case our future will mainly be based on "fashion trends") or we simply screw this planet too much (in which case our future will be on the dinossaur section of the future hyperevolved mole rats).
Posted by: Rox1SMF | July 15, 2009 10:53 AM
Hey, that's Aaron aka "Human Evolution" (http://myspace.com/hominidae)! His posts get into top blogs on Myspace all the time, and they're chock-full of excellent links and information. The Myspace fundies hate him with a purple passion, so he must be doing something right.
Perhaps the morphing isn't exactly the track of microevolutionary changes, but it's a useful demonstration, especially for us "laymen" with no secondary science education.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 15, 2009 10:55 AM
Great.
Now Ken Ham will morph a bird into a crocodile using 50 skulls instead of 5, while accusing evilutionists of producing the computerized version of Haeckel's embryos.
Science - where accuracy and evidence is supposed to be paramount?
That said, the video has some value, but it needs a lot more disclaimers. The changes in the skulls, after all, are the artist's Photoshop fantasy.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 15, 2009 10:57 AM
How is this any proof of evolution? It's just using animation to fill in the gaps. You can turn a bird into an elephant using the same technique. And there's no explanation as to why each step is advantageous to the survival of the species. Where's your Darwin, now, huh?
/jk
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
July 15, 2009 10:57 AM
It seems to inlude a number of individuals who are not actually on the human lineage. But whatever. Too bad about the hokey lettering, it could be used in a teaching setting.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 15, 2009 11:05 AM
Well, auditory location, actually. Unless, of course, you're playing with porpoises or bats. ;^)
Posted by: lirwo | July 15, 2009 11:09 AM
I'm just curious, I accept evolution, but I am wondering, why would such incremental changes in skull size be selected for? I just don't understand what sort of advantage it would provide for survival and reproduction.
Posted by: lirwo | July 15, 2009 11:11 AM
I'm just curious, I accept evolution, but I am wondering, why would such incremental changes in skull size be selected for? I just don't understand what sort of advantage it would provide for survival and reproduction.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 15, 2009 11:29 AM
John Legend, *ack ptooie*.
Fun video, but it's dumbed-down as science.
Posted by: TheBlackCat | July 15, 2009 11:31 AM
I did this once for a high school biology presentation. It's not that hard, although it took some trial and error since the morphing software of the time (10 years ago) was pretty temperamental. I used drawings of skulls, though, not photos. The latter is probably harder.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 15, 2009 11:43 AM
lirwo@53-
OMNEG, lirwo, that sounds like a lifetime of research, and you want it answered in a blog reply? (Actually, I was facetiously making the same point in #50.)
What I would say is, that if you accept evolution, then you already know that this is essentially how it works; millions of small changes over a very long time. And it did happen, so there had to have been survival pressures driving it. If you want to look at the factors that would influence the evolutionary path, I would suggest reading "The Origin of Species", if you haven't already. As for specifics of what influences each step of change in skull size in hominids, well, good luck on that dissertation.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 15, 2009 11:48 AM
Does anyone know if it's possible yet to generate a plausible image of a living thing from its genome (even if only for relatively simple, perhaps even single-celled, species)?
To my understanding, one thing that's constantly being refined is reconstruction (albeit imperfectly) of each intermediate genetic change in going from an ancestor to a (presumed) descendant.
(There's 0 probability that I'm saying anything original here, but) that could generate some pretty impressive animations.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
July 15, 2009 12:02 PM
Parrhesia @ 17,
Not sure why? Insects are animals, eat them...or are you for the ethical treatment of grubs?
Slightly OT but we add over 200,000 Homo sapiens to the planet every day, that's roughly equivalent to the population of all other species of great apes living on earth today.
Something has gotta give.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 15, 2009 12:09 PM
lirwo@53:
Consider a group of 1000 individuals whose skull sizes follow a normal distribution (bell curve). Say skull size correlates fairly well with certain brain-related capabilities in their environment, like early detection of predator or prey, ability to woo a desirable mate and such. We would expect individuals on the right side the curve to have some reproductive advantage (more offspring per person), whether a fraction of 1% or several 10's of percent. That's the essential mechanism.
Posted by: lirwo | July 15, 2009 1:09 PM
Neil: "Say skull size correlates fairly well with certain brain-related capabilities in their environment, like early detection of predator or prey, ability to woo a desirable mate and such."
Thanks for the response Neil, and it makes sense. But are you speaking about the correlation between minor differences in skull size, and brain-related capabilities as a hypothetical claim? Or is there strong reasons to believe that such a correlation exists?
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
July 15, 2009 1:21 PM
@Neil Schipper (#60)
I think this is right, particularly the second part. While an argument can be made that bigger brains help us spot predators, spot prey, make tools, etc. better than smaller brains, I would think that in tight-knit social groups, those kinds of skills would benefit the entire group more than the particular individual. But putting the group selection hypothesis aside, I think that the biggest advantage of having bigger brains is the ability to understand and exploit an increasingly complex social structure in order to maintain or improve one's status. Thus you would get the better mates plus ensure that your children would get preferential treatment to those of parents with lower status. This model has selection pressures for bigger brains in both sexes.
Of course I could be wrong; this is just what seems to make the most sense to me.
ps--Every time a friend of mine complains about how complicated the dating scene is and wishes it were as simple as "I like you; if you like me, let's hook up", I remind them that the "complex dating scene" is very likely one of the major reasons that we're so smart as a species.
Posted by: Cephus | July 15, 2009 1:28 PM
The problem, of course, is creationists will demand that you produce each and every single one of the 'tweens' to prove your case, if you cannot, then they will cry foul. They want every intermediary step and then every step between those and if they can't have them, they deny the whole process took place. In short, unless you have a fossilized skeleton from everything that has ever lived, as far as the creationists are concerned, evolution is wrong.
Yes, they really are that stupid.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 15, 2009 1:42 PM
lirwo: Hypothetical, but these are capabilities that frequently come up in such discussions. I could just have easily spoken of growth of brain region that processes smell or taste inputs which made it more likely to avoid a certain poisonous berry.
Keep in mind that a 0.1% volume increase 0.4 MYA might have been driven by a very different selection mechanism than a similar increase 2 MYA.
I'm no specialist, I recommend the Ancestor's Tale.
Where are all the smart guys who can say something to my #58?
Posted by: kermit | July 15, 2009 1:58 PM
lirwo @ 60 - Here's a recent study showing a correlation between intelligence and brain size among young humans:
http://tinyurl.com/d2fh25
From the article in Science News:
"Cortical thickness may in part reflect the amount of complex connections between nerve cells. In other words, thicker cortices are likely to have more complex connections with consequences on cognitive ability. A positive link between cortical thickness and cognitive ability was detected in many areas of the frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes. The regions with the greatest relationship were the 'multi-modal association' areas, where information converges from various regions of the brain for processing."
The differences in appearance between an average normal person and a very bright person aren't great. If humans or early proto-humans were being selected partially for intelligence, the apparent skull differences would have been very small - but cumulative.
Posted by: bonafidebob | July 15, 2009 4:10 PM
Agree with others that it's a nice demo of interpolation, but the slow pace almost seems deliberate to hind the changes in direction. Try this: once the video has fully loaded, drag the play point quickly back and forth. At this pace, you can easily spot the three inflections at each of the five real data points. Not surprising given the interpolation is replacing close to a million years of random changes with a smooth progression.
Posted by: bonafidebob | July 15, 2009 4:16 PM
Agree with others that it's a nice demo of interpolation, but the slow pace almost seems deliberate to hide the shifts in direction. Try this: once the video has fully loaded, drag the play point quickly back and forth. At this pace, you can easily spot the three inflections at each of the middle real data points. Not surprising, given interpolation is replacing close to a million years of random changes with a smooth progression...
Posted by: lirwo | July 15, 2009 4:46 PM
Kermit: "The differences in appearance between an average normal person and a very bright person aren't great."
I never knew this, so their would be a difference in the shape of a skull of an average person, and a very bright person, even it was a miniscule one? So if we were to measure the size of Kent Hovinds skull to that of Bill Gates, Gates would more than likely be bigger?
Posted by: Christopher | July 15, 2009 4:50 PM
@Bill Dauphin #35: "I think "Parchesia" (@17) is trying to suggest that (yet another bit of) evidence of our evolutionary kinship with other animals somehow stands as an argument against eating them.
You know, in the same way that tigers and sharks would refrain from eating animals if only they understood evolution! ;^)"
While not an argument, in and off itself, it is complimentary to the many valid arguments against eating animals. I eat animals. I am increasingly sympathetic to vegetarian principles though, and have given up eating mammals completely. I try not to eat birds almost always and make fish a weekly delicacy. Anything below fish (as to human relation) I don't care about, but seeing as how crustaceans and mollusks don't really provide the nutrition that high protein veggies do, I rarely eat them though I love the flavor. As for your joke, I don't think a tiger or shark would stop eating animals because of an education in biology. But, an education in biology, added to the human propensity towards empathy and compassion with those beings we can relate to, including other species, and you get a bit closer to potential vegetarianism. Also, Sharks and tigers require meat for nutrition in ways we do not. Even if they didn't, having rational thought, education and empathic human emotions, they would still lack the thumbs necessary for the technology to gain protein from alternative sources. We are omnivores, it is true, and in a situation of necessity it is 100% justifiable to kill any kind of animal in any way and to eat it. But we have a choice at the supermarket and we choose animal because it comforts our taste buds. We are also closer to the herbivore end of the spectrum than carnivore and, with modern transportation and food prep methods, objectively better health can be gotten from a no-low animal diet.
@Fred the Hun #59: "Not sure why? Insects are animals, eat them...or are you for the ethical treatment of grubs?
Slightly OT but we add over 200,000 Homo sapiens to the planet every day, that's roughly equivalent to the population of all other species of great apes living on earth today.
Something has gotta give."
First, I think it is safe to assume that insects should be very low on our list of beings we are morally obligated to and I don't think our society needs laws regarding the treatment of grubs. But I know that was tongue-in-cheek.
As a matter of fact I try not to kill bugs unless I feel it necessary. I have valid reasons to kill mosquitoes or ticks or dangerous spiders in my living space, but if I have the slightest moment to afford hesitation, I usually end up catching whatever it is and letting it go outside. I do not think people are overtly immoral or amoral for killing a moth; I think people should feel wrong for killing things they can empathize with and I think it very arguable that compassion for any living thing (i.e. baby, pet) shows the potential for compassion for all beings. If you have a moment to quell the swatting instinct, it really isn't very necessary to kill what ever it is, and I think the world would be a better place if everyone just took the time to consider such things before they act against any being. Think of it as exercising your sense of patience and compassion.
As for the population comment, that seems kinda funny, as vegetable farming is far more efficient than ranching in terms of input/output and land usage. If we grew more soy and less cattle, we could better feed those extra 200,000 mouths everyday, begin reducing our own population through better education of the poor (easier to accomplish with better, cheaper nutrition widely available) and soften our own fall when the time comes for that "something [that] has gotta give". With better nutrition, education and future prospects, our 3rd world population might find condoms more available/affordable and actually use them, reducing their own over-population problems.
Posted by: g | July 15, 2009 4:55 PM
I've always liked this image sequence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3
Posted by: Thomas | July 15, 2009 7:30 PM
Nice vid but, why is the skull mounted on a toilet plunger?
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 15, 2009 7:39 PM
Oh come on, several people are trying to read far too much into it. It's a one-trick show. We will learn nothing of the mating habits of penguins from it.
It's a nicely done one-trick show; I'm not complaining. That one point is this: when creos say microevolution is OK but macroevolution is impossible, then you can say "Look at this then, which step is the impossible macro one, eh?"
Posted by: DavidL | July 15, 2009 7:54 PM
Video creator here.
I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and criticisms. If it wasn't already clear, this video isn't meant to be an accurate representation of how own human evolution. It is meant to be a demonstration of why the micro/macro dispute is such a silly one.
This was explained in the info box, however it was hidden until you clicked "more info." I've since moved it up to the top to prevent more confusion. Thanks everyone!
Posted by: Snoof | July 15, 2009 11:49 PM
I'd say in lapsus claviatura veritas, but it's good to see there's some Latin scholarship on this blog. :)Posted by: Ladnil | July 16, 2009 12:21 AM
The video's creator clarified in the comments section that every time the Macro? Polo! text appeared, that was indicating that we had reached a real skull photograph instead of a computer generated transition image.
And DavidL since I see you're reading these comments, I have to agree with the several others who have suggested a time indicator onscreen(in years ago) at all times rather than the 500 generations/second you have there now. The song didn't bother me so much, but I feel like a sped up version, with a lyrics-free sound track, a time indicator, and without the somewhat lame Macro? Polo! jokes would be a whole lot better, and net you more views and links to your work.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 16, 2009 12:30 AM
It is meant to be a demonstration of why the micro/macro dispute is such a silly one.
And it is much appreciated. Please make a shorter version, a version without the sound track, a version without the quips...
Please realize how powerful this is on its own. Roll with it.
Posted by: Davod: | July 16, 2009 12:55 AM
I'll work on an teaching-appropriate version soon. Thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 16, 2009 1:19 AM
Fuck. We comment, the author comes in, we converse, we improve for the betterment of science?
*points at Mooney's head exploding*
Posted by: Mat in Sydney | July 16, 2009 4:05 AM
Very interesting, but I wouldn't expect an anti-evolutionist to be swayed by this. They would easily argue that you can morph just about any two images. The same software could probably morph a human skull into an elephant skull. So, entertaining for the converted, but not a powerful argument in itself.
Posted by: Rico | July 16, 2009 4:32 AM
"They would easily argue that you can morph just about any two images. The same software could probably morph a human skull into an elephant skull."
This would only further demonstrate the point that there is no micro/macro distinction.
It would shift the argument to -- "well, now that we know there is no distinction, is there evidence to say this did happen?" and once they get to that point, it's cake.
Posted by: Brian Spence | July 16, 2009 12:01 PM
I sped this video up (from 4 minutes to 1 minute) and removed the titles here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkutfwKNa20
Posted by: Brian Spence | July 16, 2009 12:15 PM
I sped this video up (from 4 minutes to 1 minute) and removed the titles here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkutfwKNa20
Posted by: DavidL | July 16, 2009 11:38 PM
Alright. Class appropriate version is up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrhYLvNeQd4
A couple of things:
+ Shortened to 2 minutes.
+ Replaced music with license-free track
+ Included a better representation of fossil appearance
I did not include a clock counter as suggested. I this may give off the false impression that these fossils are on a direct lineage. The generation counter prior, was simply meant to illustrate how many generations would have occurred between the changes, had they been on a direct lineage. I don't want that confusion on the educational video, so I did not include it.
I do not currently have names and dates of all of the five fossils, but I'll include annotations when I get this (if anyone can help me out here with the specific names of some, that would be great).
This is meant to illustrate how micro events can lead to macro results, as well as our striking similarities to our family, not our direct lineage.