Right, I suppose I’d better do a Darwin post

Posted on February 12, 2009 by Cath@VWXYNot?


I am was an evolutionary biologist, after all.
Many happy returns, Chuckie D!
I wish that you only could see
The advances we’ve made
With genomics and spade,
And the state of our family tree.
Darwin’s original phylogenetic tree:

The current state of affairs:

(Both images are available in t-shirt form.)
Seriously though – how cool would it be to take Darwin through all the research that’s been done since his death?

About Cath@VWXYNot?

"one of the sillier science bloggers [...] I thought I should give a warning to the more staid members of the community." - Bob O'Hara, December 2010
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Right, I suppose I’d better do a Darwin post

  1. Kyrsten Jensen says:
    February 12, 2009 at 11:40 pm

    Did I mention that I jumped up and down on Charles Darwin’s grave in Westminster Abbey when I was there? Yes. I am horrid, but I thought, if nothing else:
    1) The image of anyone jumping on someone’s grave in as solemn a place as Westminster Abbey would be amusing until I’m old and gray
    2) Whose grave would be better? I’d like to think Charles Darwin would think it was funny and rebellious.
    Either way, I was pretty awestruck that I was that close to Darwin. We’d better not tell Alfred Russel Wallace that I didn’t get a chance to visit his grave. I would have happily jumped on it too.

  2. Cath Ennis says:
    February 12, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    Um, no, you actually didn’t mention that. Mind you we haven’t have much time to talk about your trip, being more preoccupied with cancer stem cells and other matters…

  3. Richard Wintle says:
    February 13, 2009 at 5:12 am

    how cool would it be to take Darwin through all the research that’s been done since his death?
    Agreed… although I suggest the reverse too – how cool would it be if Darwin were trained up on modern phylogenetic tools and let loose on the world of science today?
    Oh, I said that already. Sorry.
    [standard disclaimers about shameless plugging of self-blog-posty-thing are in full force]

  4. Bob O'Hara says:
    February 13, 2009 at 6:33 am

    Another reason to have a ScienceBlogging09 meeting! We can all join Kyrsten in a trip to the beach in Dorset, and watch her jump up and down on the graves of famous scientists.
    Just think of the fun we could have if M@ were to organize a tour of burial places of famous London scientists.

  5. Cath Ennis says:
    February 13, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    Richard, I’m not sure how well Darwin would have navigated the modern grants system. Most funding bodies are not all that keen on five year fishing expeditions hypothesis-generating research.
    Bob, that is a quite hilarious image. I’ll make sure I accompany Kyrsten on her next trip to the UK.

  6. Cristian Bodo says:
    February 13, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Most funding bodies are not all that keen on five year hypothesis-generating research.
    Not to mention 23-years spans between the end of the experimental phase and the actual publication of the results (and that, only when there is imminent danger of being scooped)

  7. Cath Ennis says:
    February 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Very true. Although he would have had lots to write about under “impact” and “future directions”.

  8. Richard Wintle says:
    February 13, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    Oh, I don’t know – some funding agencies are very fond of reports running to hundreds of pages in length. Darwin was a pro at those. And all his publications were single-authored, too!

  9. Cristian Bodo says:
    February 13, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Plus, he could end it with something like “The present results would lead to a radical re-evaluation of our view of life on Earth and provide a theoretical framework for research in the biological sciences during the next few centuries” , and STILL get away easily with it.

  10. Eva Amsen says:
    February 13, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    But not peer-reviewed. Well, not in the currently conventional way, at least. I guess the Wilberforce/Huxley debate was a kind of peer review.

  11. Cath Ennis says:
    February 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    I always wanted to use the words “paradigm shift” in reference to my own research (not bloody likely, obviously). It’s a rare publication that would get away with that achievement, which I think trumps peer review any day of the week.

  12. Kyrsten Jensen says:
    February 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    ooooh! I could YouTube myself jumping on graves of famous scientists like that guy who visited all those countries doing his “special dance” – so “special” it appeared on the news.
    As much as I would have loved to jump on Wallace’s grave, it appears there is a fossilized TREE on it which unfortunately looks rather like it could hurt me…

  13. Cath Ennis says:
    February 13, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    My camera does video. Are there scientists’ graves in Vancouver to get us started?
    You could do a modified pole dance when we get to Wallace.
    BTW is YouTube officially a verb now? 😉

Comments are closed.