Skip to main content


Evolution doesn’t look how it’s depicted in pop culture. We often picture the famous “March of Progress” illustration where a series of apes stand in line leading to a modern human.

But evolution is not linear. It branches & divides without an intended direction or endpoint through natural selection.

Illustration by @keesey #science #history

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

… and it seems sometimes it merges back into other branches.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

And it also merges back, we have neardenthal and denisovan blood (I mean genes)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

those who think COVID is over should bear this in mind... Variants won't necessarily go off in the direction of people's hopes and prayers.

#CovidIsNotOver

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I learned the word clades from reading @cstross, and it upset the nice, neat Linnaean model I had in my head.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

@dinsvenskicyberrymden I always interpreted the straight line version as meaning that those who stray away from it would be decimated.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I like that the little dudes have different poses. The sitting drinking tea evolutionary phase. The various jumping for joy and clicking of the heels evolutionary phase. The saladfingers evolutionary phase.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

only the arrow is wrong in the first pic .... Seriously and ironically speaking at the same time 🤣
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

How come the ones that look like they're having fun all lead to the dead ends? 😉
This entry was edited (7 months ago)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

More on this image here: https://flic.kr/p/vEj6pg

Other diagrams I’ve made on evolution: https://keesey.gumroad.com/l/pocketphylogenies

A paleofiction comic book series about much earlier human ancestors: https://www.keesey-comics.com/kickstarter

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Many people who know I have an advanced degree in biology (mostly unused) ask me about phenomena they see in nature, "What's the purpose of [whatever]?" They always seem dissatisfied with my answer, "To increase the probability the critter will live long enough to reproduce."
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

@lisamelton it’s more like “The Distraction of Shiny Stuff”, watch as those who came before us chased mindlessly in what ever direction they felt like.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Anyone who enjoys this may enjoy my other accounts:

@phylopic — free silhouettes of organisms, taxonomically searchable

@keeseycomics — comic books set in prehistory

There’s a campaign ending soon to print the latest comic book, PALEOCENE #4! See here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/keesey/paleocene-4-comic-book

in reply to Mike Keesey

@Toni2167 If they mixed they by definition were not a different species. I mean are you using a different definition of species?
This entry was edited (7 months ago)
in reply to Mike Keesey

@Toni2167 it's hard to see how any other definition is particularly useful. once there's a gene pool boundary, divergent evolution is forced. that's why "species" is an interesting concept. other than that, it's just arbitrary assemblages of genes, which are the unit of selection.
in reply to Mike Keesey

@Toni2167 it really is that simple. i mean, if it isn't, show me a counterexample.
This entry was edited (7 months ago)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

hence the existence of multiple canine species, multiple feline species, multiple monkey and ape species, and variations in body shape, skin, hair, eye color in humans. Some of the early hominid species could have survived while h sapiens failed. We were just lucky.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I learned a lot from listening to this podcast recently, particularly about how early primates had a presence in places like Wyoming breaking the frame and adding complexity to the 'humans came from Africa' story we usually grow up with.

And how in many cases prior cultures didn't disappear. They moved.

https://spore.social/@presandberg/110829092392696676 -> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-indigenous-paleolithic-of-the-western-hemisphere/id1435420704?i=1000548993116

This entry was edited (7 months ago)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Lots of times, "evolutionary psychology" is not about biological selection, but a highly skewed version of social evolution with ideological intent. Here is a recent example https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/use-and-misuse-of-evolutionary-psychology-in-online-manosphere-communities-the-case-of-female-mating-strategies/19522B41CF67DFF9F66D919E1F843CCC
Another question I have is "Why are evolutionary psychologists so concerned about mating behavior? I get that you have to mate to pass on genes, but is there a lack of other trendy topics?"
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Don't forget the bottlenecks, the die-offs. How to visually represent that though?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

as well as meandering the stream of life divides and then rejoins to bring newly accumulated adaptations back into the mainstream. Plus hybridisation from other streams....
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I like that we have a couple cousins that danced. But we got to be on The Joyless Branch. 😆
This entry was edited (7 months ago)
in reply to Mike Keesey

@TheCuznEd Personally I think it’s very cool you included females in the illustration. Most related images I see are curiously all males.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

@TheCuznEd Thanks, I was trying to make it more balanced. Although it still has more males than females. Need to update it some day.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Erhem... and what in this represents 'Extinction events' ?

Actual my apologies, I see the Humans.
🤦🏼‍♂️🤣🤣

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I hate the "March of progress" images for precisely this reason.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Small pet peeve of mine is how the language of "x group evolved towards y" makes it seem Lamarckian - like "they needed it, so they grew it".

Even though we get taught genetic variability & natural selection at school, I have so many acquaintances that default or slip back into Lamarck when they should know better, and I genuinely think a big part of it is the language.

Species don't "evolve X" in any such direct way!

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

It’s pretty wild that by misunderstanding evolution, one basically ends up with a convoluted creationism with more steps.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I like to imagine that the one strolling off on a branch solo is wearing cargo shorts.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

And even this is rather simplified and severely cropped.

There also isn't really an actual "missing link."

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

the illustration is a great way to make a point.

You could also go one step further and cover the rest of the space in dead bodies..

Only half joking 😅 people seem to shy away from the fact that evolution requires a lot of death to work.

in reply to naught101

@naught101 Natural selection requires it, but not other evolutionary forces (drift, sexual selection). Anyway, these figures are almost all dead by now…
in reply to Mike Keesey

I think those processes DO require it, though maybe less directly - even drift, the new mutations need space to thrive - death is required to prevent overpopulation.
in reply to naught101

@naught101 I think, hypothetically, given limitless resources and immortal organisms you could still have drift and sexual selection. Of course, here in the real world…
in reply to Mike Keesey

@naught101 The drift would sort of be “anchored”, though, with the original variant never going away. I guess maybe doesn’t fit a strict definition … does it?
in reply to Mike Keesey

I guess so.

I guess I have a broader problem with western society's aversion to death, and evolution has become so entrenched as a concept I'm our culture (e.g. the misuse of "survival of the fittest" in capitalist economics), that it seems like a good point at which to remind people that death is an important part of life, and not just in the grieving-is-big-feels sense.

in reply to naught101

@naught101
On that note, Darwin didn’t mean “strongest” or “mightiest” when he wrote about “survival of the fittest.” That’s another misconception perpetuated in pop culture.

I’ll share more about it sometime in a future post.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

, and individual leanings/tendencies are controlled by switches in our dna ?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

https://topatoco.com/products/qc-evolution
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I tried to find myself on this graphic, using my terrible posture as a guide; I'm pretty sure I'm in the upper right, three down, two to the left.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Yes! Also, one should remember that bacteria have had just as long to evolve as we have, so they are as “evolved” as we are. Same goes for all the other animals. Humans are not the end…
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I suspect most people know how it really works but you're thinking like a scientist, not like a graphic designer. It's a meme (not the Dawkinsian type), not an explanation.

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.