For giggles, I modified Charles Darwin’s tree of life sketch and sent it to a company that manufactures temporary tattoos. If you happen to be model quality and would like to help promote science, drop me a line and I can send you one. I think it’s good to have images like these show up during searches for “evolution” and “survival of the fittest” so that the public doesn’t just associate evolution with old academics with questionable grooming. The one below is one of my favorites that models sent back … it show’s Victoria’s Secret hem, and evolution was Darwin’s Victorian secret (for many years, at least).
I also dropped the image into Redbubble if you need a sticker or laptop case (for example). Here’s the original sketch, if you’re curious:
Posted in Biology, Education, Graphic design, Photography, Science
Tagged charles darwin, darwin, evolution, i think, image, phylogeny, sketch, tattoo, tree of life
Nothing in religion makes sense except in the light of imagination.
I posted this graphic on Flickr in 2006, but thought I’d re-post here since I’d long ago stopped using Flickr. It shows how religions might have evolved from pre-existing religions, which in turn evolved from the early myths of our prehuman ancestors. If you are a religion buff, you are no doubt frothing at the mouth because of all the mistakes I’ve made … in my defense, it was just a quick sketch because I needed an “evolution of religions” slide for a talk and I couldn’t locate one on the internet thingy.
If you’re interested in the evolution of religions among primates, check this out:
McClenon, J. 1997. Shamanic healing, human evolution, and the origin of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36:345-354. JSTOR
By the way, my lead sentence is just a riffing on the phrase and article by Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
Posted in Biology, Education, Graphic design, Science
Tagged belief, evolution, evolve, faith, God, gods, homo sapiens, myth, mythology, origin, phylogeny, relationship, religion, supernatural
If you’re celebrating Thanksgiving today, you’ll soon be having the annual argument about whether yams and sweet potatoes are different. They are. They really are. Sweet potatoes are dicots and closely related to morning glories (the vine with pretty flowers and hallucinogenic seeds). And yams are monocots, like grass. Yams are vines, too, by the way, and the original source of birth control pills (fyi, they don’t work if you just eat lots of them).
In case you slept through your evolution class, monocots and dicots diverged 150-200 million years ago — that’s during the Mesozoic, when dinosaurs were diversifying. A bonus fact to wow your family with is that neither yams nor sweet potatoes are potatoes, which are in the deadly nightshade family (wild potatoes, pre-domestication, are toxic). The phylogeny (“family tree”) based on their chloroplast genomes is shown above. There are, of course, lots of other plant species, but you should get the picture — sweet potatoes are grouped with kin-folk, and yams are grouped with their kin-folk. They look and taste a lot like each other but are completely different beasties. Yams are more expensive to produce, so sweet potatoes in stores are often labeled as yams. If you think you are eating yams today, chances are you’ve been duped. But with enough marshmallow and butter, you probably won’t notice.
Of course, if you kin-folk don’t accept an Old Earth or evolution, your conversation at the dinner table is probably going to be fundamentally different (so to speak). Can’t help you there.
Posted in Biology, Education, Food, Science
Tagged difference, dinner, Dioscorea, Ipomoea batatas, phylogeny, Solanum tuberosum, sweet potatoes, Thanksgiving, yams