This is terrible. All that graphics arts skill gone to waste as someone tries to illustrated something they don’t understand.
Evolution as a linear path towards a particular, narcissistic goal (of course, it’s all about us!) The implications of a teleological purpose. The self-centeredness. The trimming of diversity. Notice how everyone under genus Homo is stereotypically male — all the prior stages may have been masculine in the artist’s mind, too, but it’s hard to tell. This is going to fuel so many continued misconceptions.
At least the conclusion mentions that “Humans are still evolving,” but they should have shut up with that, rather than making predictions. Why should we all converge on a “‘Great Averaging’ where continuous, international mixing will create an average of all current physical differences”? Will drift and mutation stop? Will all population structures break down? Do chance and varied environmental pressures disappear, to favor one pattern of humans being “taller, more lightly built, and less aggressive with smaller brains”? Well, maybe the “smaller brains” is a reasonable extrapolation from our current experience.
I see the creator has “two Master of Science degrees (one in Geochemistry/Astrobiology, another in Biomedical Communications).” I can tell evolutionary biology wasn’t one of them.
No, it’s not the well-known “ladder of evolution fallacy”. It’s a staircase. Totally different.
/;
Praise his noodley appendages for keeping homanz on the evolutionary, straight track.
Isn’t astrobiology what Ted Steele has gotten himself into after the heyday of Lamarck’s Signature? Something along the lines of meteors gifting us COVID?
The graphics are kinda cool and at least “Urbilaterian” gets shoehorned into the rungs along this descending staircase of progress. Yet the Biomedical Communications part of the education needs some remediation for lacking a bushy rendition of reality. What is being communicated biomedically to us? That someone is confused about our phylogeny but didn’t let that stop them?
Most of these are stand-ins adjacent to our actual ancestry. And platyhelminthes was ancestral? It’s a group of spiralian protostomes which seems weird coming right after our ancestor “Deuterostome”. Pikaia was touted by Gould decades ago, but if it was ancestral why are there still lancelets?
Visual capitalism leaves much do be desired.
Wait…cyanobacteria are ancestral too? I guess we lost the photosynthesizing capacity somewhere along the way. They may have become chloroplasts via endosymbiosis, but we ain’t plants.
Holy shit…the novelty of pharyngeal slits evolved with our purported ancestor platyhelminthes? Am I reading that right?
[facepalm smash head into desk]
This is just weird science in multiple dimensions.
Urbilaterian is an actual term for a hypothetical animal, unlike most of the other steps which have documented species on them.
I was surprised to learn that mammals lost their pineal gland/ third eye with Cynognathus.
I give them an F in biomedical communications, and basic human anatomy.
Obv. wrong, since the apex of evolution is not shown as being a mantis shrimp.
@7- Snarki
I think lancelets or cephalochordates in general are the apex. They didn’t get bogged down with all those fancy contraptions vertebrates suckered themselves into like backbones and (for some) limbs. Keep it simple. It’s, as the graphic in the OP implies, all downhill from there.
Honorable mention goes to sea cucumbers for eviscerating themselves as a defense mechanism. Plus they are echinoderms, which is a group oddly close to us as deuterostomes. Chimps are much closer as hominids, but sea cucumbers are still kin. Weird starfish and humans aren’t too far removed relatively speaking when you look at us.
Lancelets and sea cucumbers…why bother with becoming human?
I interviewed for a job a month ago, and made exactly this point in my talk. Got the job! My opening slide included this Alexander Pope quote:
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Yes, but it is a possible antidote to the Hovind nonsense about “goo to you”.
Comments are open at the link. There are a few religious folks saying the graphic is wrong. They are right, just for the wrong reasons. : )
Homo erectus did have stone tools – but not toroidal wheels.
It seems almost Nietzschean that the Man of the Future takes a classic James Bama Doc Savage pose.
(Give him a bonus point that none of those Homos look self-evidently white…)
Oops – my umpteenth apology for html foo!
I see it’s a descending staircase. The apex and still champion is unicellular life.
Strangely, this staircase reminds me of the ones in M C Escher drawings. He just needs the loop back to the “top”.
@14- imback
The synopsis of Gould’s Modal Bacter argument as I recall it was that bacteria still reign supreme.
Except for the hypothetical urbilaterian and generic eukaryote and prokaryote, these are generally side branches instead of ancestors. A couple mistakes there — Cephalaspis after placoderms, Platyhelminthes as deuterostomes (they were probably thinking of acoels but those look different).
I think this kind of chart could be great, though, if only it had arrows out to the sides. “We’re going to follow one particular path out of many, because it happens to be ours, but every living thing has its own.” That’s not so hard, right?
Somehow there is something about the name Visual Capitalist that makes me wonder if understanding our origins was really the point, though.
We used to say in geochem if it moves, rots, eats or gets eaten,or stinks, it’s very likely not geochemistry. It’s weird to see this!
The final stage of evolution appears to be Tucker Carlson as JAQ-Man, tanning his testicles. Is Fox News OK with this?
monad, I agree that the diagram would be much improved by showing branches going off. I also think it should have both male and female examples (as per the OP), and that the arrows should go backwards. This chart only makes sense looking into the past. While the forward arrow acknowledges that evolution is still in action, it implies a single definitive direction for future developments. And that definitiveness only applies retrospectively.
chrislawson,
Arguable.
The title is “Human Evolution from Protocells to People”, and if you shift your perspective it shows humans’ trajectory.
The graphic purports to “illustrate how humans have emerged from 4 billion years of change”.
So, it’s specifically focusing on humans’ evolution, not the evolution of life.
I mean, trivially you are correct: obviously, the future evolution of humans will be from human stock. But that is not showing a trajectory, other than to note humans are still evolving.
But I’m not seeing a particularly teleological slant, there.
As I see it, you’re just the latest example of many people taking PZ’s OP spin on this and working from there.
I was going to weakly defend it as being not unusual for these sorts of illustrations, but then I zoomed in and was all like ‘holy crap!!’
1. Using specific extinct species as our ancestors. Nope. That is very bad form. This illustration would right there be a good test question: “What is wrong with using Ichthyostega as our direct common ancestor?” But no I really wouldn’t use it bc I hate it so much.
2. Homo erectus invented the friggin wheel???? Wtf???
3. And yes, that depiction of of future uber-masculinity is beyond awful.
I have to go flush out my eyes now. Thanks.
3. And yes, that depiction of of future uber-masculinity is beyond awful.
Yeah, it does have a touch of Ayn-Rand/”Triumph of the Will” Superman vibe there.
“And the future belongs to me!”
He’s showing the “descent of man”…literally.
His note connecting the pineal gland to the “third eye” struck me as odd. It’s a common connection in psychic babel.
Not a single crack about “Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2”. Duchamp would be disappointed.
robro @25: there are certainly parts of this piece that are number two.
He missed out a key evolutionary step.: Evolving the ability to arm-wave diagrams like this into existence.
Evolution is a wide bush whose branches fall off more or less at random.
Nobody commented yet on how Homo Neanderthalensis is supposed to be our immediate ancestor?
Also: It’s no wonder there are no female hominids present, Homo Futura probably scared them away.
However we feel about Richard Dawkins, I think it was a good idea to describe human evolution in The Ancestor’s Tale in reverse.
I read it backwards, tbh.
@monad
There are many more mistakes. For example the ages given for many taxa are flat out wrong. Repenomamus is at 230 million years, when it was a mammal from the early Cretaceous, or Plesiadapis at 90 million when it lived in the Palaeocene.
microraptor @ #26 — Perhaps we need a version of Duchamp’s other famous piece: Fountain.
mordred @ #29 — PZ noted in the OP “The trimming of diversity.”
Well, as PZ pointed out this idiot has such narrow scope of thought all he considered was males and he shows all of ‘evolution’ on a single straight path to the ‘magnificence’ of man. I see a clue in the URL of his site: visualcapitalist.com. As a capitalist he almost has to be greedy and single-mindedly focused on gaining wealth and screwing people. I think he must have what I have termed ‘HMTM syndrome’ (Huge Mouth Tiny Mind). He is obviously blind to species diversity and likely to diversity within the human realm, too.
(I haven’t finished reading the other comments, I apologize if mine is somewhat redundant)
As to the staircase is there subconscious significance to the fact that his staircase is heading downwards instead of upwards?
And, the fact that he has masters degrees is no guarantee of competence or honesty. I’ve known some highly credentialed people who are quite brilliant thinkers (pointing at you, PZ) and I’ve known some with doctorates that were absolute drooling idiots (pointing at all the Harvard and Yale grads in the political arena).
That’s such a stupid lie. John Morales @21 is right. Of course there are many errors, but flat out lying about what the graphic depicts doesn’t help.
All, eh? So Obama, Warren, Jamie Raskin, Katie Porter, etc.? You’re the drooling idiot.
@ ^ Jim Balter : Pretty sure those examples weren’t the ones shermanj (#35) was referring to and there are others that fit that description.
FWIW.
Yeah I think its on OK diagram as long as you understand its one of many paths. It would be better if it showed the beginings of branches that did not lead to us, and have them fade out over a few steps.
And the uber male comic strip superhero outline is very sucky.
@36-Jim Balter
Sorry but if you had a modicum of knowledge about phylogeny you would realize the graphic was a steaming pile of dog shit. Too many howlers pointed out by knowledgable people here to think otherwise. The whole platyhelminthes having pharyngeal slits and coming after “Deuterostome” thing was irredeemable nonsense.
hemidactylus, you are (as it seems many others are) missing the point.
Whatever errors are in the chart, it does not purport to show a teleological purpose (which is a telling redundancy, BTW). It may be wrongity-wrong in the specifics, but it’s kinda the opposite of a teleological (creationist, old or young type).
Perhaps PZ might care to elucidate on what makes him think that it can’t purport to show contingent outcomes of a stochastic system, instead of some master plan (by whom?) to achieve some purpose.
This follows immediately after the claim that it’s seemingly teleological, in the same paragraph. Not quite sure I see the linkage there, but he has a point — the graphic could use some boobies, for diversity.
@40 John
You are ignoring the stinking turd unfurled upon us. PZ didn’t get into much of the nitty gritty, but he is far more capable than I to do that, which makes me think he kinda held back doing the OP. Though the graphic is pretty and I was trying to be nice at first, it was fully deserving of scorn however brutal you may think it. One must overlook so much crap to find redeeming qualities.
hemidactylus:
Way to convince me that you get my point about PZ’s characterisation of this or the way people have just adopted it. Goes beyond priming.
You may think your scorn brutal, I think it baseless on the topic I’ve raised and therefore… well, I don’t want to be brutal, so I’ll just note that misguided triumphalism is kinda pathetic.
@37. Borkquotes dammit! Sorry. Wish we could edit. Sigh. (Yeah, I know, I know, I should preview & type better.. a-n-y-h-o-w)
Take II :
Rest of #37 mine & not quoting.
Yale source : https://news.yale.edu/2009/03/27/yale-alumni-us-politics From which :
&
&
Annoyingly, they don’t name those House Congresscritters or former Senators (not so proud of them maybe?) but if you think all of them are really of the same quality, intelligence and decent human being worth as Obama, Warren and Katie Porter; well, I am highly doubtful of that.
Of course they aren’t the people he intended to refer to, moron.
I didn’t say it isn’t, you cretin.
I just want to remind that moron StevoR that the first words of my comment were “All, eh?”
Now what the fuck does he think “all” means?
@42- John
The Platyhelminthes thing was fatal. Call that misguided triumphalism if you will.
And the whole lack of implied branching as birgerjohansson called out with “Evolution is a wide bush” is just part of it. PZ hinted at the other issue with “Will drift and mutation stop?” as the graphic depiction is an adaptive emetic bolus of poorly digested phylogeny.
What PZ glaringly left out is the subject matter of Larry Moran’s recently published What’s in Your Genome? 90% of Your Genome Is Junk! Why is that I wonder and PZ has been silent on that book so far.
And what the fuck does the imbecile hemidactylus think my words “Of course there are many errors” mean? My comment was not about and did not deny the numerous errors, it was specifically about the claim “he shows all of ‘evolution’ on a single straight path to the ‘magnificence’ of man”, you profoundly stupid and dishonest maggot. Again with that word “all”. The graph is not presented as showing all of evolution, it does not show evolution directed toward man, it only purports to show the evolutionary steps that led to humans. (It gets those steps wrong in numerous ways and omits crossover–we don’t have only one ancestor species at every point of time in the past.)
@47- Jim Balter
The feeling is mutual.
I didn’t say that, you imbecile. It takes effort to be this stupid. I responded to a claim that “all the Harvard and Yale grads in the political arena” are drooling idiots by noting some obvious counterexamples.
It’s not about feelings, you stupid cowardly piece of shit who can’t acknowledge an obvious error.
What “obvious error” besides interacting with someone who lives for insulting people as you obviously do given your output here? A legend in your own mind. I noticed a pattern and it ain’t flattering toward you. Sad really.
Yeah, it kinda looks like Balter just came home drunk after an evening of bar-hopping, got on the ‘Tubes, and promptly found something to flip out and rave about before going to bed. He does that some nights.
@36 Jim Balter quotes me: ‘shows all of ‘evolution’ on a single straight path to the ‘magnificence’ of man.’ and says ‘but flat out lying about what the graphic depicts doesn’t help.’
I reply: my perception of the graphic image is not a lie. It is an interpretative opinion.
then Jim Balter quotes me: ‘I’ve known some with doctorates that were absolute drooling idiots (pointing at all the Harvard and Yale grads in the political arena).’
and says ‘All, eh? So Obama, Warren, Jamie Raskin, Katie Porter, etc.? You’re the drooling idiot.’
I reply: pointing at all of them is not accusing all of them. If you would bother to read my previous sentence instead of trying to put words in my mouth you would see I give credit where due ‘I’ve known some highly credentialed people who are quite brilliant thinkers’. As a matter of fact, I respect and have provided support to Jamie Raskin, Katie Porter and Cori Bush among others.
I have always shown respect to the many commenters here who can carry on a civil discussion, regardless of who is completely accurate. But, I have no intention of taking the bait and getting into a flame war here. You are welcome to your opinions. But ad hominem attacks and lack of civility is the domain of the rtwingnuts. And, I aplogize to those intelligent and civil commenters and to PZ if I triggered these personal attacks.
End of discussion.
There may be some slight difference between shermanj‘s “he shows all of ‘evolution’ on a single straight path to the ‘magnificence’ of man” and PZ’s “Evolution as a linear path towards a particular, narcissistic goal (of course, it’s all about us!) The implications of a teleological purpose. The self-centeredness. The trimming of diversity.”
Mainly PZ is a professional biologist. Not sure what background shermanj has but was more concise. Both said roughly the same thing and weren’t off the mark given the shortcomings of the now notorious graphic people are oddly defending for reasons.
@53- shermanj
I wouldn’t stress about it too much.
@55 hemidactylus said: I wouldn’t stress about it too much.
I reply: thanks for your considerate thought. I promise not to stress out over this if you won’t stress out too much either.
Raging Bee, this business of speaking to the audience or a third party when clearly the comment is to the person is… well, cowardly. But, since being personal is OK with you, I note that I fully accept that you are not lying about your perceptions; I believe that it looks like that to you and others of your ilk.
That is indisputable, on the evidence at hand.
Well, I’m more discreet, more oblique, and less smart, and less informed than Jim, but on the other hand, at least I actually get what he writes about.
(do you get what he wrote?)
monad @17: Visual Capitalist doesn’t seem evil or really rabidly pro-capitalist; just kinda pretentious, like “BE PREPARED TO HAVE YOUR MIND BLOWN BY OUR AWESOME VISUAL DEPICTIONS OF INFORMATION!!!” In fact, their invitation to their newsletter says just that: “Subscribe to our free newsletter and get your mind blown on a daily basis!” And I suspect someone just called up this Mark Belan guy and said “Hey, we need some cool graphics to show human evolution, it’s gotta be complex enough to look really informative but simple enough not to scare anyone off.” And, well, who cares if he got a few facts wrong on a deadline and just left off all the other evolutionary paths to keep things simple — it’s “Visual Capitalism,” not “Accurate Capitalism!”
John: I came in late, found a lot of pointless insults, and figured none of it was worth wading through in depth. Does that count as “getting what he wrote?”
@ ^ & 44, 45, et cetera Jim Balter :
So # NotAllCongresscritters.
I gave some obvs counter-examples to your counter-examples. Again, maybe Jim Balter if people keep misunderstanding your comments here you might consider that its also your communication skills that are lacking here? (I could call you names if I wanted too but, meh.)
A German commenter with typing skills as bad as mine mistyping the word “alles” in Deutsch? An American punk rock band and a number of different songs with that title? A community in Missouri? All sorts of things* with context as usual determining which is most likely. In this specific case you (JB) jumped on # #35 shermanj’s line :
Bold and italics added. From that context easily seen by scrolling up here; I think it would be clear to a reasonable person that shermanj was referring to the “absolute drooling idiots” who are :
1) in the political arena
&
2) Harvard & Yale grads
& NOT to all those who are in the political arena and who are Yale and Harvard grads but who are excluded by the clause “absolute drooling idiots” (3) because they are not deserving of the term “absolute drooling idiots” which only applies specifically to the ones that are “absolute drooling idiots.” Non-drooling absolute idiots as well as merely partial rather than absolute idiots presumably being excluded and rhetorical exaggerated language; how does that work again? (Again.)
IOW. the “all” used by shermanj (#35) refers to those who belong in all three categories 1,2 & 3 NOT just in categories 1 or 2.
Wouldn’t have expected that to need spelling out especially to someone who considers his own intelligence far above (most of?) the rest of us & far superior to mine but hey, here we are.
.* See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All
Raging Bee @59:
So all you saw were insults, and furthermore, their pointlessness.
And on that basis you figured none of it (what, tens of words?) was worth wading through in depth. You leave it unclear whether you waded shallowly, or just didn’t wade.
(I like that phrasing; it suggests that, had you seen them as having a point, the consequent would not have applied — else, why mention that quantification?)
But, well done.
You get a partial pass.
Yes, you got that there were insults there.
That you think that is the entirety of the content and of the import of those comments is not so impressive.
—
So… imagine this chart featured Felis catus as the particular species being featured. In the title and all that, just the same.
Basically the same graphic, basically the same until it gets into the mammals.
Presumably, PZ would still have written “At least the conclusion mentions that “
Humanscats are still evolving,” but they should have shut up with that, rather than making predictions.”Again, I don’t see predictions there other than that evolution entails change into the future, which is hardly anti-evolutionary, and that only “hypotheses” are at hand — a couple of which they provide.
Of course, errors remain. For example, “Thousands of years from now” kinda would need deliberate genetic engineering or other eugenic techniques to work in that sort of time frame for speciation).
Thing is, neither Jim nor I have claimed it was error-free.
The claim is that PZ put his spin on it, and in at least a couple of senses that spin is unwarranted. It is tendentious, that much is true, but so many commenters are taking it at face value.
I might have hoped for better, but these are the days of waning.
Replying to @60 StevoR; my typing skills are not great, either. As I admit in our literature, I’m not intellectual giant. But, I always strive to learn more. I appreciate your comments, they always seem like good, coherent contributions to me.
Schiller, as set to music by Beethoven: ‘Alle menschen werden bruder’ (rats, can’t easily type an umlaut in bruder). Aber, some brothers are better brothers than others. Sei ruhig, sei Gesund.
[meta]
StevoR:
This sentence evinces a thorough misunderstanding of the concept of a counterexample.
There is at least one alternative, you know; have you considered that perhaps your apprehension skills are lacking? Your knowledge-base? [and so forth]
shermanj, I like your retort.
For me, it’s easy: the internet and copy/paste.
An die Freude
Freude, schöner Götterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt*;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder*
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
Wem der große Wurf gelungen
Eines Freundes Freund zu sein;
Wer ein holdes Weib errungen
Mische seinen Jubel ein!
Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele
Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund!
Und wer’s nie gekonnt, der stehle
Weinend sich aus diesem Bund!
Freude trinken alle Wesen
An den Brüsten der Natur;
Alle Guten, alle Bösen
Folgen ihrer Rosenspur.
Küsse gab sie uns und Reben,
Einen Freund, geprüft im Tod;
Wollust ward dem Wurm gegeben
und der Cherub steht vor Gott.
Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen
Durch des Himmels prächt’gen Plan
Laufet, Brüder, eure Bahn,
Freudig, wie ein Held zum Siegen.
Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Brüder, über’m Sternenzelt
Muß ein lieber Vater wohnen.
Ihr stürzt nieder, Millionen?
Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?
Such’ ihn über’m Sternenzelt!
Über Sternen muß er wohnen!
Ode: To Joy
Joy, beautiful spark of Divinity [or: of gods],
Daughter of Elysium,
We enter, drunk with fire,
Heavenly One, thy Holiness!
Thy magic binds again
What custom strictly divided;*
All humans become brothers,*
Where thy gentle wing abides.
Whoever has succeeded in the great attempt,
To be a friend’s friend,
Whoever has won a lovely wife,
Add his to the jubilation!
Yes, whoever also has just one other’s Soul
To call his own on this Earth’s round!
And he who never managed it should slink
Weeping from this union!
All creatures drink of joy
At nature’s breasts.
All the Good, all the Evil
Follow her trail of roses.
Kisses she gave us and grapevines,
A friend, proven in death.
Lust was given to the serpent
And the cherub stands before God.
Gladly, as His suns fly
through the heavens’ grand plan
Journey, brothers, on your way,
Joyful, like a hero to victory.
Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss to all the world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
There must dwell a loving Father.
Are you collapsing, millions?
Do you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy!
Above stars must He reside!
(ObWikipedia)
@62. shermanj : Thanks. Ditto John Morales ^
@63. John Morales : “There is at least one alternative, you know; have you considered that perhaps your apprehension skills are lacking? Your knowledge-base? [and so forth]”
Yes. That’s always possible too.
.***
Meanwhile backonthe main topic here whlst the artwork / figure / whatyamcallit in the OP is indeed bad; I’ve been enjoying this almost 3 hr long youtube clip on prehistory by Paleo Analysis as he evolves along the pre-Dinosauria time stream as we know it up to the Great Permian Dying which is entertaining and informative and seems pretty right to me.
No. The main topic is PZ’s OP, titled “Dear god I hate this”.
Your opinion about [blah] is not the main topic.
(“Do you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy!
Above stars must He reside!”)
So all you saw were insults, and furthermore, their pointlessness.
I also saw that all the insults and arguing were practically nothing but pedantic quibbling about specific features of a chart that was, as a whole, utterly useless and possibly misleading, at best.
I think the graphic is superior and on point here.
https://www.amazon.com/Back-Screwed-Evolution-Anti-Trump-Christmas/dp/B07B9DR71H
Saw it back when the blithering idiot was in the offal office.
wzrd1, heh. It is droll indeed.
Still might order one.
Then, wander the apartment building enjoying my morning coffee in it.
@66. John Morales : Fair point. My #65 was certainly tangential.
The OP was about a very bad depiction of evolutionary “progress” from unicellar life to modern humans so I did think I’d contrast it with by suggesting what I consider to be a good example albeit in different form of media. Did you watch it, BTW?