Comments on: Spanking Attenborough

by: Peter Magellan

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:57:41 +0000

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.

by: Felicia Gilljam

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:46:28 +0000

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.

by: Dologan

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:33:52 +0000

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?

by: Felicia Gilljam

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:31:29 +0000

Mike - I hope you’re right! Like I said above, I’m probably a bit damaged from doing too much systematics right now.

by: Felicia Gilljam

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:30:35 +0000

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.

by: Mike Haubrich, FCD

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:28:43 +0000

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.”

by: Michael

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:06:03 +0000

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).

by: C. L. Hanson

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:45:49 +0000

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.

by: Felicia Gilljam

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:16:39 +0000

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.

by: Felicia Gilljam

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:44:53 +0000

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.