Spanking Attenborough
Here’s me grudgingly getting on the bandwagon and helping in the dissemination of the Tree of Life video with David Attenborough.
It’s very pretty. And all the facts are correct, so far as I’m aware. But this video still makes my skin crawl a bit. Why? Because it’s pretty much a perfect illustration of one of the problems I discussed in my post on tree thinking. Here’s evolution depicted as a linear process, with a clear line of progression from the simplest forms of life towards … well, humans, of course. What else?
They do mention insects invading land long before vertebrates did, which is nice. And there’s a short digression into dinosaur territory. But still - the video essentially supports a view of life where evolution inexorably works towards its goal, which is apparently primates with large brains. A tiny group of animals on an earth veritably crawling with other much more abundant forms of life. A self-centered, egotistical species, who cannot for a moment let go of the idea that we’re the pinnacle of creation, whether that creation was effected by a god or physical processes.
Also the video fails to point out that mammals came from the very same lineage Attenborough claims is ancestral to today’s tortoises, snakes, lizards, crocodiles and dinosaurs (including birds). It’s like mammals simply turn up by magic and start taking over the earth once the dinosaurs are gone.
And of course, there’s the glaring omission of the huge part of the tree of life that’s not animal. Plants and fungi are pretty much entirely ignored, bacteria are mentioned briefly and archaea not at all. This is ok, of course - the study of animals is obviously bound to be extra interesting to animals capable of appreciating said study - but I find it disingenious to call it a study of the tree of life when in fact we’re just looking at one of the several main branches.
But. It feels wrong to be critical of Attenborough. He has probably done more to popularise biology than anyone, and although he’s not a scientist he usually gets his facts straight (which, lately, feels more like a boon than it should) - so who am I to complain? Here’s a couple of things I really like about the video:
Firstly, Attenborough states that life began 3000 million years ago, rather than 3 billion. This is a very nice rhetorical trick to make people start realising just how vast a span of time we’re talking about. Graphically, the fact that the tips of the branches are all at the same level somewhat counteracts the idea that any living species is at the “top” of the tree. All living species are! Finally, the video does end with Attenborough pointing out that we mammals actually share the world with many other lineages.
So, Sir Attenborough, should you by any chance read this - I still love you. Just don’t do it again, ok? Now go to your room.
Hmmm. I don’t see the anthropocentrism myself, Felicia. Attenborough actually says at one point, “…the tree of life grew and became more diverse” and the graphic clearly shows the tips of all the branches staying level with each other. I think it’s probably the best explanation that could be done in the time available.
Agreed that it’s a fantastic programme, though - as usual from DA and the BBC!
Comment by Peter Magellan — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 19:38
Sure, it could have been a lot worse. And like I said, the graphics support a less anthropocentric view of the tree. The story is still quite linear however and humans are clearly the end point. Simply listening to the audio gives the impression that there’s one main line of development, from bacteria to mammals, and the other lineages are simply offshoots.
That said I’m probably a bit hyper-sensitive at the moment as I’m studying systematics, where you always have to be extremely aware of your own preconceptions so as to be able to navigate around them, not to fall into any traps.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 19:44
Oh, a disclaimer: I haven’t seen the whole show yet. We don’t have BBC in Sweden. So I am ONLY commenting on the youtube video above, not the whole programme.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 21:16
It’s true these points are problematic. I was pretty surprised that plants and fungi weren’t even mentioned. But I think Peter Magellan is right that they’re making some real attempt to show branching and diversity instead of a linear progression towards a goal.
Comment by C. L. Hanson — Wednesday, February 4, 2009 @ 09:45
FWIW, I think an english billion is 10^12, although with the ascendency of the US monetary system and it’s use of 10^9, it seems to be rarely used any more (well, in Australia it hasn’t been for 30 odd years).
So it may have more to do with his education (and age) rather than anything else.
For the general public, I wonder if it makes any difference? It is pretty hard to conceptualise anything more than a lifetime or two, past that it’s `older’ or `ancient’ (unless you work with such numbers).
Comment by Michael — Wednesday, February 4, 2009 @ 12:06
I thought it was a gorgeous illustration of one of the facets of evolution, something to use as a visualization tool for what the “tree of life” means. There is some confusion, this helps to illustrate why Jonathan Wells is just so wrong when he says that evolution would look more like separate plantings than springing from a single branch.
To my mind, I say that this video creates an introduction to inquisitiveness, and the faults that you see lead to “teachable moments.”
Comment by Mike Haubrich, FCD — Wednesday, February 4, 2009 @ 14:28
C.L. - I guess technically plants ARE mentioned, since plants as we know them are green algae… But people don’t know that.
Michael - That much is true. I’ll have to ask my boyfriend (who is british) what he thinks I mean when I say that life is 3 billion years old. It’s funny you should bring this up because it’s actually the same in Sweden - we have the word “miljard” meaning 10^9, and “biljon” refers to 10^12.
And I think you’re right on that however you talk about it, it’s hard to conceptualise - but 3000 million still sounds more, somehow.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Wednesday, February 4, 2009 @ 14:30
Mike - I hope you’re right!
Like I said above, I’m probably a bit damaged from doing too much systematics right now.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Wednesday, February 4, 2009 @ 14:31
What do you mean Attenborough is not a scientist? In the sense that his profession is not research, perhaps not, but he does have a degree in Natural Sciences (Geology/Zoology) from Cambridge. That doesn’t count because he works in TV now?
Comment by Dologan — Wednesday, February 4, 2009 @ 16:33
Dolo - Good point. I’d say no, he’s not a scientist by profession, and that’s what I meant. More specifically he’s not a biologist by profession. He works as some sort of amalgam of journalist/entertainer. And while I WISH we were able to always expect science journalists to be up to date on biological facts, I think it’s pretty clear that that’s never going to be realised. However, when a biologist speaks out, we should be able to expect him or her to be currently accurate, and publically whip them if they’re not.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Wednesday, February 4, 2009 @ 16:46
Yes, traditionally an English billion was 10^12 and 10^9 was known as a milliard, much as in Sweden. But I’ve not heard either of those terms in any serious, contemporary context since I left school lo, these many years ago. The current usage appears to be 10^9 = 1 billion, as per the American definition.
Attenborough, though, is even more Old Skool than I am, so perhaps he clings to the old definition - or maybe he was aware of the potential for confusion and just trying to avoid ambiguity. Knowing his penchant for accuracy, I suspect the latter.
Comment by Peter Magellan — Friday, February 6, 2009 @ 18:57