Iconic Evolution & Evolution’s Icon, Part I

1

2

There are hundreds of variants of this familiar image of human evolution’s “progression” –perhaps thousands if you include parodies and satires.

And they’re wrong about evolution.

3

The implied narrative of the visualization is seductively simple, across languages and media..

4

ON THE ORIGIN OF AN ICON

The textual fossil record isincomplete but we can attempt a reconstruction.

5

Haeckel, 1876 Punch, 1882

Hawkins, 1863

The “most recent commonancestor”, a Time-Life Nature Library book, predates much of what we now know about human evolution.

6

1965, 1968, 1981

7

The full illustration is seldom seen outside of the source book. Derivatives typically use a subset of five or six figures (sometimes as few as three). The timeline bar, indicating discontinuities, is never included in derivative illustrations.

Variants include direct copies of selected figures in color or gray-scale, re-drawing, posterization, silhouettes, and abstractions.

Appropriating the ancestor

8

Extracting figures allows a simpler narrative.

READING THE ICON

9

Communicating sequence via visual design

10

There’s a strong sense of direction and movement–left to right in most variants, reversed in rare cases. This is read as progression.

11

Head

Arm

Stride

Height

Stance

The visual vectors imply orthogenesis, the discredited theory that evolution proceeds in a linear, progressive, and inevitable fashion

12

This is also known asthe hat rack theory.

In contrast, the reality of human evolution is:

• Contingent, not inevitable

• Branching, not linear

13

14

Alas, the familiar image and its many variants encourage an outdated and falsified view of human evolution.

Its utility for political commentary, humor and online memes (explored in Part II) far outstrips its usefulness as a scientific visualization.

Michael E. Holmes, Ph.D.

Presented at VisCom 26, June 2012

Midway, Utah, USA

15