Breaking news: precision matters.

I keep telling myself not to expect much from how science is covered in commercial media.  They are beholden to sponsors, who pay attention to only one thing; how many people partake.  So if media can get more sponsors (= more money) by sensationalizing scientific news, that's what they do, however it misleads the gullible and undermines the reputation of science as a whole.

I guess I just thought that National Geographic would be above that kind of thing.

Yes, National Geographic, that venerable institution that sends out the monthly glossy, yellow-edged magazine that from its density appears to be printed on sheets of lead.  That wonderful source of information and photographs from exotic locales that teenage boys the world over peruse in the hopes of seeing a topless native woman.  Yes, National Geographic.  Even they have succumbed.

I came to this realization when I was perusing the News section of the online National Geographic, and I saw the headline, "New Sea Monster Found, Rewrites Evolution?"  It happens that this particular turn of phrase is one that really grinds my gears -- it seems like every time some paleontologist finds a new fossil, the media shrieks that it's going to "rewrite everything we know about evolution!"  And, of course, it never does.  Given that what we have from the fossil record represents a tiny percentage of the living things the Earth has seen during it's three-odd-billion-year hosting of life, it's only to be expected that we'll find new and amazing things in fossil beds, more often than not.  And surprisingly, astonishingly, the evolutionary model has survived, intact, despite all that "rewriting."

Now, to be fair, this discovery was pretty cool -- a new species of ichthyosaur, Malawania anachronus, so named because it dates to 66 million years after its nearest cousins were supposedly extinct.  But like I said: this is interesting, but hardly earthshattering.  A group of seagoing prehistoric carnivores were still around more recently than scientists thought.  No "rewriting of evolution" necessary.

Also, must they always call them "sea monsters?"

Now, you may well think I'm overreacting, here.  But cut me some slack; given that I'm a biologist, it's to be expected that precision in speech on this particular topic is something I value.  But seriously, you may be saying; does anyone take that "rewriting evolution" thing as more than hyperbole?

You have only to look at the comments section on the article in question to see that the answer is "yes."

"As most scientists now know who are brave enough to admit it, the entire 'theory' of evolution needs to be rewritten," said one commenter.  "As long as we try to cover up its many problems, we are the problem."

"Evolved animals 'appear' in the Jurassic or whatever period...I guess out of nowhere," wrote another.  "As if by magic without numerous specimens leading to the found fossil.  You would think that life on earth after 3 billion years of evolution would look like the 'Island of Doctor Moreau' of blended animals."

One person, at least, tried to bring some sense into the discussion.  "Oh come on, National Geographic, pul-eezzze stop using the word 'monster' in your headlines to suck in readership," he wrote.  "That's tabloid journalism, and National Geographic should know better.  A ten-foot long aquatic reptile is not a 'monster' in any sense of the word.  This animal was a sleek, efficient predator of fish and has many characteristics of already-discovered fossils of similar animals.  And while it may ADD valuable information to our understanding of how evolution has worked, it will NOT 'rewrite evolution' as the headline further claims.  That would seem to shred Charles Darwin's masterpiece of science, and is plainly not what's happening here. "

Unfortunately,  he was immediately shouted down.  "Stop whining," one person responded.  " If you don't like the headlines here, go elsewhere and complain."  Another said, "So, you are complaining about how they try to suck in readers with the word monster, yet you were here, reading this article. Think ahead before you comment mouse brain."

Herein lies the problem, and it's not just an issue of civil discourse.  Precision matters, especially when writing about topics that are, by their very nature, controversial.  I'm guessing that the author of the piece, Christine Dell'Amore, had no intention of giving fuel to the fire of the creationists -- but what are the anti-evolution crowd supposed to think, when every other week there's an article with the headline, "Evolution Has To Be Rewritten?"  However much I lambast them for their anti-science, anti-rational stance, you have to admit that anyone would begin to wonder about a scientific model that has to be "rewritten" every time some tiny new piece of evidence is found.

Okay, I'm ranting.  But really, it's National Geographic.  I expect better from them.  I've completely written off the Discovery network, for example, which has just announced that ANIMAL PLANET'S MONSTER WEEK BEGINS TODAY.  (Capitalization theirs.)  And despite the fact that to a biologist, the word "animal" means "a type of real, live creature, i.e. not fictional," they are going to kick off the week with a special about...

... mermaids.

Just 'scuse me while I go pound my forehead on the desk.

Mermaid evolution

There should be a law that if a news story has a title that is a question, the article that follows must read, in its entirety, "No."  For example:

"IS THE YELLOWSTONE SUPERVOLCANO ABOUT TO ERUPT?"

No.

"DID A PSYCHIC OCTOPUS PREDICT THE OUTCOME OF THE WORLD CUP?"

No.

"DOES THE MAYAN CALENDAR SAY THE WORLD WILL END IN DECEMBER?"

No.

I ran into an especially good example of that yesterday, an article entitled, "DO MERMAIDS EXIST?"  Unfortunately, however, the article that followed consisted of more than one word, because the aforementioned law has yet to be passed in the Senate, and also because it was written by noted wingnut and Skeptophilia frequent flyer Dirk Vander Ploeg.

Apparently, the question of whether mermaids really exist is the subject of a recent show on Animal Planet.  Myself, I have to question this choice of topics.  Given that there's no way they can have already featured each of the ten million species of real animals, there's no reason to move on to the fictional ones quite yet.  Be that as it may, they did an entire episode during "Monster Week" on the subject of mermaids, and this just thrills Dirk Vander Ploeg to pieces.

Vander Ploeg is always good for inadvertent humor, and he doesn't fail us here, starting with the first paragraph:

The new documentary, which aired on Sunday night as part of Animal Planet’s “Monster Week,” pieces together a few interesting facts to come to the improbable conclusion that mermaids, like bigfoot, the chupacabra, and vampires, may exist.

Yup.  Mermaids exist just like Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and vampires do.  Exactly that way, in fact.

So, where's the evidence?  Vander Ploeg doesn't shy away from this question, and he blames the dearth of evidence for mermaids on the entity that is responsible for so many of the world's problems -- the US government:

In fact, “Mermaids: The Body Found,” claims that several scientists have proven the existence of mermaids. But thanks to the shady government, the evidence has been hidden or destroyed.  One of the whistle-blowing scientists said, “The feeling was like something out of Orwell. This was Big Brother. They were rewriting history. Basically writing this creature out of existence.”

Oh, okay, that's plausible.  I can just see the Joint Chiefs of Staff coming together and saying, "Enough with this nonsense of addressing the economy, international trade policy, and terrorism.  We have a much more pressing problem -- how do we cover up the evidence for mermaids?"

Vander Ploeg then goes on to address the origins of mermaids, and here he quotes Charlie Foley, who directed the "Mermaids" episode on Animal Planet:

Charlie Foley, who wrote and directed the film, bases his theory largely on the amount of mermaid references in old sea-tales.  "The seafaring Greeks described (Mermaids). As did the Vikings, as did the Chinese during their greatest period of maritime exploration. They are recorded in medieval manuscripts, and even into the 19th century."

Because obviously, things recorded in old Greek, Viking, and Chinese manuscripts have to be real.  Like the Cyclops, Midgard's Serpent, and the Celestial Dragon.  But wait -- there's the scientific angle to the whole thing.  We don't just have to rely on mythology, Foley says:

The fact is there are animals that have moved from the land into the sea. Could it have happened to humans? And with aquatic ape theory, if there’s anything to it, what is the logical extension of it if we continued going in that direction. The idea is that people pulled back and we stopped evolving into a marine animal, into an aquatic animal. But what if we kept going? And that to me, knowing that it’s happened before knowing that it’s real science with other animals. Could it have happened with one branch of the human family tree?

I'll simply invoke my proposed law here:  "No."

Vander Ploeg, of course, can't resist adding his own two cents' worth regarding the origins of mermaids:

I have come to believe that Mermaids and Mermen do exist or at least did exist. I believe that they were created by the Annunaki to mine gold below the waves, perhaps in the deep oceans of the world. If gods did create us, as I believe, then it makes sense, in fact its seems probable that ancient astronaut scientists altered various species' DNA to create creatures: perhaps 50 per cent human and 50 per cent fish. If this hypothesis is correct that perhaps the minotaur and other alleged fabled creatures also existed.

Ah, it's all becoming clear.  A race of aliens that doesn't exist created a species of humanoid that also doesn't exist by splicing together human and fish DNA.  I get it now.  I only have one more thing to say, and the more sensitive members of the studio audience might want to plug their ears:

WILL YOU NIMRODS STOP BLATHERING ON ABOUT SCIENCE AS IF YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD IT?  BECAUSE YOU'RE PISSING OFF THOSE OF US WHO ACTUALLY DO.  THANK YOU.