The French screw up evolution. Again.

Yes, this ad is grotesque. Posted on the  I Believe in Advertising blog, it  is by DraftFCB Paris, for the CHRONIC'ART web magazine:

“What impact will new technologies have on human evolution?”
Click to enlarge. If you dare.

It also shows the difference between art and science. Or, at least, between art and bad science.

Evolution is one of the most misunderstood sciences of all, and you can blame it all on France as well. Specifically one Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a biologist who predated Charles Darwin, and who believed in something called "soft inheritance" — that organisms could pass on acquired traits to their offspring. The classic example of this is the (seemingly-logical) theory that giraffes grew such long necks because they kept reaching up for higher leaves.

Evolution, however, does not work that way. It happens through millions of random genetic mutations, most of which get weeded out by natural and sexual selection. Those that make it through typically (but not always) seem, in hindsight, to be designed for their environmental niche. In reality, their mutant ancestors just happened to do a little better there.

The Lamarkian fallacy seems to come naturally to human beings. Evolved, ourselves, to guess the motives of other self-aware humans, we mistakenly infer intelligence and will in things and processes that have none.

Nobody is immune. How often do you hear phrases like "my computer hates me" or "my car just won't cooperate"? We may be half-joking when we say these things, but superstition is current and real, even among otherwise skeptical people.

That's why most people misunderstand evolution. A friend of mine recently posted, jokingly, on Facebook a comment about whether current grooming preferences against pubic hair would eventually lead to hairless humans. This ad says essentially the same thing — that whatever changes technology is introducing into our lifestyle now will change our physical being.

Don't worry. It won't. Although a few technologies have changed us. The invention of shoes, between 26,000 and 40,000 years ago, changed the shape of our feet. Domesticating and milking cows lead to lactose tolerance, independently, in two different Eurasian and African populations.

But these were artificial changes to the human environment that were long-term and consistent, allowing blind old evolution to eventually stumble its way into the niches they created. At today's pace of technological change, how could we possibly adapt — over scores of generations — to something as fleeting as an iPad or a 3D TV?

Stick with the art, CHRONIC'ART. There are enough people talking shit about science already. You are not helping.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, but I play one on social media.

Science Rules!

Google's doodle today celebrates Thomas Edison's 164th birthday birthday.

(Go to the homepage. It moves.)

But this is not a great time for science in the United States. Tomorrow is Charles Darwin's birthday. The "father of evolution" is a key figure in our understanding of ourselves as a species and as ourselves. And yet he is still a controversial figure down south.

In an interview with beloved TV science educator Bill Nye "The Science Guy", Popular Mechanics confronted him with the following:

In a recent survey of 926 public high school biology teachers across the nation, only 28 percent of teachers taught evolution as a well-supported fundamental idea of science. Meanwhile, 13 percent openly supported "intelligent design" in the classroom, and 60 percent fell somewhere in-between. This majority presented evolution cautiously—by including non-scientific viewpoints, by limiting discussion to genetics, or by saying that students only needed to learn the material to pass exams.

Bill's response was "it's horrible."

"Science is the key to our future, and if you don't believe in science, then you're holding everybody back. And it's fine if you as an adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don't believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don't believe in science, that's a recipe for disaster. We talk about the Internet. That comes from science. Weather forecasting. That comes from science. The main idea in all of biology is evolution. To not teach it to our young people is wrong."

So what went wrong? There are many who will blame fundamentalist religion for the anti-science movement, but as a humanist I can't give religion any more credit than any other man-made form of persuasion — including politics, fashion and advertising.

People aren't stupid. They are allowing themselves to believe that the universe was designed, and is being ruled, by an anthropomorphic, omnipotent king. But there are many others who believe in other unknowable things, too. faith and superstition seem to come along with the human mental package.

No, I think that the reason people turn away from scientific explanations is because they are overwhelmed by the cold complexity of it all.

Which do you prefer?

You are a beloved child of God, put on this planet to serve Him. Submit to His will, and whatever happens to you here, you will have eternal bliss in heaven with everyone good who has ever died.

Versus

You are a product of random genetic mutation, shaped by environmental conditions, that just happens to be self-aware. However, many of your thoughts and actions are probably due to heredity. You live on a tiny, fragile planet in a vast nothingness, and the entire existence of your species is an insignificant blip in time. When you cease to function, your thoughts and experiences will terminate and the only purpose of your life will be the genes and memes that you have propagated.

But there is another way. Faith does not preclude science.

Pretty much every religious person is of the "salad bar" variety, picking and choosing what tenets to follow. (If you don't believe me, read this.)

And the entirely rational human being does not exist either. We are all affected by superstition and magical thinking. (If you don't believe me, read this.)

It is not a one-thing-or-another game. Scientific education just makes people more appreciative of the world they live in. In me, and also in my young son, science opens a world of wonder and discovery. Every day, some new secret is unlocked that helps us understand who we are, why we are, and what we can do to make a difference.

The problem for me is education. And it's not the teachers' fault either.

Bill Nye said, "They're doing their job but they're under tremendous pressure. The 60 percent who are cautious—those are the people who are really up against it. They want to keep their job, and they love teaching science, and their children are really excited about it, and yet they've got some people insisting they can't teach the most fundamental idea in all of biology."

But there's more to it than that. And Canadians are not immune. Education has become commoditized. Instead of celebrating teachers who invent creative ways to inspire students about science, we are concerned about standardization and "accountability". These are political solutions, not educational ones.

If we can't fix the curriculum, I think its up to science champions to bring science education to the mainstream media. Behemoths like BBC, National Geographic and Discovery help, but those serve a niche market. Teaching kids about science should be embedded into everyday media experiences. It should be interesting and accessible. It needs to be a Schoolhouse Rock or Hinterland Who's Who for this generation.

Who's with me? I know of a few local museums that could certainly champion this cause. Call me.

Survival of the hippest

I don't want to sound like I'm bashing anyone's faith, but I really feel bad for people who won't accept the theory of evolution. Not only is it the best tool we have for understanding human nature; you can also apply Darwin, Wallace & Co.'s thinking to almost any human endeavour.

My four-year-old son already understands the basic idea of evolving. That's because we're both huge fans of BBC's "Walking with..." series of shows on prehistoric life: Walking With Dinosaurs, Walking With Prehistoric Beasts, Walking With Monsters, and Walking With Cavemen. Cool shows, and even the 10-year-old CG animation holds up pretty well on high def TVs.

My son's love of these shows is part of his love affair with all things natural. But I'm also happy about what it's instilling in him for his adult life in any kind of business venture. It is helping him understand what "survival of the fittest" really means.

To many people, "the fittest" conjures up visions of the schoolyard bully, an unthinking brute who pushes aside all the girly men to impress the female folk. But that's not what it means at all. Evolution is all about flexibility, adaptation, and exploiting the opportunities of chance disaster.

There are two examples from the BBC series that give a more accurate object lesson in dealing with change:


Rise of the Mammals — Mammals have been dominating the world for more than 50,000,000 years, but it has not always been so. Prior to the great extinction event of 65,000,000 years ago, they were tiny creatures living at the fringes of the dinosaurs' world. The dinos in general were bigger, meaner, and way more successful at exploiting the relatively stable climates of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. But when the world was hurled into a nuclear winter by a cosmic collision, they didn't survive. Nothing big did. Only the smallest, most adaptable species survived. Among them were our furry ancestors, opportunistic living fossils like crocodiles, and the tiny, warm-blooded, feathered dinosaurs we now call birds.

Might did not make right, and the mammals outpaced even the remaining dinosaurs by adapting to, and dominating, almost every ecosystem in the planet. The mammals' penchant for adapting to change in novel ways is what lead to us. But there's another stop along the way.

Hominidmania — Over two million years ago, our ancestors were not the only hominids (humanoid apes) on the planet. Several different species rose and fell as the climate continued to change. Among them was Australopithecus boisei, a gorillalike brute that ate roots and lived in harems. They had a pretty easy life, browsing the available vegetation, but they were overspecialized. When the vegetation changed, they were outcompeted by other apemen with more curious natures and omnivorous appetites, such as our forebears.

In the current economy, large and traditional businesses can seem like dinosaurs, while the agile upstarts and shrewd early adopters may yet get through the fallout to grow into a new generation of leaders. Overspecialized and inflexible companies may find their food source dries up, while those with imagination and courage might just find new ways to survive.

The "fittest" are those most suited to adapt through, and take advantage of, change. Evolution may happen through random chance, but "intelligently designed" organizations can still learn from nature's lessons in hindsight.

My advice of the day? Executives should spend more time watching dinosaur movies.