Neil deGrasse Tyson puts metatarsals in mouth twice

March 13, 2016 • 9:00 am

I’m not sure why Neil deGrasse Tyson is suddenly tw**ting pronouncements about evolution, but he is. Sadly, they’re wrong.

Well, that’s wrong on several levels. First of all, sex is painful (if animals do feel pain) in many species. The one that first comes to mind, of course, is the domestic cat, in which males have barbed penises that apparently don’t feel so terrific to the female during copulation. We’ve all heard the howling of cats in flagrante delicto! And is sex pleasant for male mantids or spiders who get eaten, post copulo, by their mates?

Some arthropods, like bedbugs, have hypodermic insemination, in which males bypass the female’s genitals and inject sperm right through the body wall, with the sperm finding their way to the eggs. It’s not clear why this is done, but it’s likely that it evolved to obviate the “sperm plugs” that some males put in females after copulation to block access by subsequent males. You can get around them by injecting sperm into the hemolymph. As Wikipedia notes, this can be injurious to females—even if the females don’t feel pain:

Traumatic insemination, also known as hypodermic insemination, is the mating practice in some species of invertebrates in which the male pierces the female’s abdomen with his penis and injects his sperm through the wound into her abdominal cavity (hemocoel). The sperm diffuse through the female’s hemolymph, reaching the ovaries and resulting in fertilization. The process is detrimental to the female’s health. It creates an open wound which impairs the female until it heals, and is susceptible to infection. The injection of sperm and ejaculatory fluids into the hemocoel can also trigger an immune reaction in the female.

Other species, including worms, rotifers, and snails, do the same thing.  Why do the females put up with it? Well, maybe they can’t evolve a defense—remember that evolution isn’t perfect. And what matters is the net reproductive advantage of the genes for traumatic insemination, regardless of whether they occasionally cause injury, pain or even death. A female spider who kills and eats her mate has more eggs than one who doesn’t, for she gets that extra nutrition from the noms. If her benefit to egg number outweighs the reproductive cost to the male of giving his life—remember, genes for killing males after mating reside in both sexes, though they’re expressed only in females—then those genes will increase in frequency. The same goes for genes for traumatic insemination, whose benefit when they’re in males can outweigh the detriment of the process to females.

In fact, sex can be unpleasant or injurious to both males and females, so long as the reproductive advantage of unpleasant sex is better than not having sex at all, which it will be. Of course, natural selection will act to make sex less “unpleasant” for animals if it can—so long as there is genetic variation to improve matters. But that variation doesn’t always exist. Female cats must suffer because the male’s barbed penis, which appears to hurt her, also stimulates her ovulation.

Finally, you can fix a gene that is deleterious in both sexes without driving a species extinct. Imagine, for example, a gene that reduced the number of acorns in an oak tree by 1%. That would be deleterious, but such a maladaptive gene can rise in frequency by genetic drift alone, or if it’s tightly linked to another gene that is sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the reproductive cost of the linked acorn-reducing gene. If the population size of oaks isn’t limited by the number of acorns produced (say,  if it’s limited by the amount of habitat), the species won’t go extinct. After all, each time a species improves its gene pool when an “adaptive” gene is fixed, the species was perfectly viable before that happened. It wasn’t necessarily going extinct before its gene pool was improved.

Well, so much for that. Apparently a lot of biologists called out Tyson on Twi**er for his error, but I haven’t looked (I rarely read other people’s tw**ts.) But yesterday Tyson made yet another evolutionary gaffe, and I’m sure he’ll get grief for this one:

Umm. . . what about genes for sterility of workers in termites, bees, wasps, and naked mole rats? It is indeed possible that genes impeding reproduction can be fixed if they’re adaptive in relatives, as they presumably are in these species.  And there is no doubt that there are indeed genes that cause “workers” to become sterile under natural conditions.

I’m not sure why Tyson is making these pronouncements. Maybe he knows they’re wrong and is trying to taunt biologists, but I doubt it—that’s not like him. Readers are welcome to speculate.

117 thoughts on “Neil deGrasse Tyson puts metatarsals in mouth twice”

        1. Does what work?

          I think the point is that celibacy is effectively identical to sterility. (Assuming it is real celibacy, not the kind practiced by many clerics over time.)

      2. Actually, celibacy is weaker than sterility, since reproduction need not be voluntary.

    2. “I’m not sure that celibacy equals sterility.”

      Celibacy refers to avoiding copulation; sterility refers to inability to produce offspring despite attempts to accomplish this.

  3. One word: bedbugs.*

    Another word: praying mantises.

    Another word: the great majority of octopuses & other higher-ordered life that die after mating. Okay, that’s 14 words.

    *Actually a great example of evolution-nearly-in-our-lifetimes. Bedbugs are derived from batbugs, even today distinguishable only with a microscope. It’s thought bedbugs glommed on to humans from the days when humans lived in caves.

    1. I am a vigorous Trump opponent. And NdGT’s approach is not always the most subtle and dulcet. However, if the protestors cause such a ruckus that Trump cannot speak and/or has to cancel a rally, is that not impeding democracy? Apparently it is not enough for them to be reasonably satisfied with standing there silently with protest signs. If they did so they could stay for the whole rally, or so it reasonably seems. Reminds me of the collegiate snowflakes. (And also of the congenial protestors who commandeered the podium and shut down Bernie’s Seattle rally a few months ago.)

      Perhaps Trump should offer a couple of them the privilege of coming to the podium and having their say for 5-8 minutes. Trump might possibly convince his supporters – get a “pledge” from them, eh? – to rest their voices while these opponents spoke. (Though supporters could turn their backs to them and/or give them the “Universal [International?] Sign of Friendship” like U.S. POW’s did in a group photo taken at the “Hanoi Hilton”); wouldn’t affect their ability to be heard.)

      Having themselves been allowed to speak unimpeded, it would be a good test for protestors to see if they could rest their voices and allow the rally to proceed. Ah, but human primate nature being what it is . . . .

      1. I agree. I loathe Trump, but preventing him from speaking does impede both democracy and his right to freedom of speech. It also makes him a martyr, which is the last thing we need.

        A huge silent protest would have been better imo. There are too many of these special snowflakes who think freedom of speech only applies to speech they agree with.

        1. Yes, of course. Which is why we must also allow protests. Those of us who think Trump would not make a good president have every right to gather and make it known. Trump decided to cancel. No one forced him to cancel. His free speech was not violated.

          5. I completely agree protests should be allowed, and it was him who made the decision. It was though based on advice from the police that there would likely be violence if he went ahead, so ( and I can’t believe I’m saying this) Trump’s decision was the responsible one.

          7. Trump’d decision may have been the Responsible one, but that does not mean his free speech rights were trampled on. I’m not sure what the specific threats of violence were. Were they from the from the conservative anti-Trump camp, the liberal camp, or the pro-Trump camp? Threats of violence are wrong in any case, but who’s rights have been violated changes. It’s not clear to me where the danger was coming from. Do you have more info on that?

          8. That’s a fair comment – as far as I can work out, it’s the potential for violence amongst the Trump supporters that has the Police most concerned.

            However, that doesn’t change the fact that many of the protestors have a stated goal of stopping Trump rallies. He does have a right to speak and people have a right to hear him. I laud people who have the courage to protest at his rallies. I think, as a proponent of free speech, it would be hypocritical of me to advocate shutting down his rallies.

      2. It’s not clear to me from the reports I’ve read that the protesters were necessarily the instigators of the ruckus. It’s reported there were fistfights. Well, it takes two to tango and I haven’t seen anything that clearly indicates which side started those altercations.

        1. Black folk have been preemptively removed from Trump rallies because they were suspected of being protestors. Other times, while being removed, silent protestors were roughed up by Trump’s thugs, at his urging.

          In response, the protestors in the City of Big Shoulders have gotten a bit chesty themselves, apparently deciding to go out more Malcolm than Martin.

          2. From what I hear, the Donald’s “not much of a reader” (big surprise!).

            I wonder if he’s even read “The Art of the Deal” or any of his other books, let alone having written them.

      3. Actually, I think we’re starting to argue off-topic. Here is NdGT’s tw**t:

        “People who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters — they oppose free citizens voting for the @realDonaldTrump.

        The question is not “why shouldn’t I go to a protest and get physical”, the question is “why shouldn’t I be anti-Trump?” No one should be under any obligation to be pro-Trump.

    2. I agree with him on that. If we support free speech, we must support the right of Trump to speak.

  6. It’s my speculation that Tyson isn’t “taunting” biologists. He’s just… wrong (or, to put a more kindly spin on it, misinformed).

  7. I’m reminded of the Jacques Monod quote “…a curious aspect of the theory of evolution is everybody thinks he understands it.”.

    1. Or alternatively David Hull’s “Evolutionary theory seems so easy almost anyone can misunderstand it.”.

  8. ‘remember, genes for killing males after mating reside in both sexes, though they’re expressed only in males’

    I’m probably making a fool of myself here but shouldn’t that be females?

    1. We’re talking about qualia here. While I’m pretty sure that mammals feel pain in the same way we do, we can’t always say that reacting as if you experience pain means that you have the same “feeling” that humans do. After all, many invertebrates try to get away from painful stimuli, but it’s not clear that the experience the subjective sensation of pain in the same way we do. It could just be an evolved reflex.

      1. I’m certain of one thing: the human mind cannot remember pain (in the same sense that it was originally felt), else no woman would have more than one baby!

  10. I’m not sure I get the problem with the second one. It sounds like he’s just saying to someone who has a lot of sex that if there is a gene for celibacy he, or she didn’t inherit it. He’s not saying such a gene exists, or doesn’t exist, and he’s only talking about humans.

    1. I think he was trying to be humorously witty, but he was making exactly the (incorrect) point that a person can’t inherit a “gene for celibacy” because your parents obviously weren’t celibate.

          1. I realized my comment was probably too simplistic right after I posted it. I need to keep Darwinian Demon’s comment above in mind, and be skeptical of my own understanding. But I am trying! Currently I am slowly reading your Speciation book, after having learned basic concepts in Mohamed Noor’s course. Although it is difficult material, your book is so clearly written it is a joy to read.

      2. Konrad Rudolph
        Bioinformatics researcher in the John Marioni lab at EMBL-EBI/University of Cambridge does not find his tweet very funny. He is a prestigious evolutionary biologist who wants him to stop tweeting nonsense. Plus this is the second time Neil he tweeted this. He tweeted this in 2012 and was blasted by scientists again for this . This is very weird behavior on Neil`s part.

        1. Why is it weird for an egotistical man with a history of ignoring corrections to ignore a correction? It isn’t weird behavior, it is bad behavior.

      3. But even expressing a gene for celibacy doesn’t mean you can’t get pregnant. A woman with a ‘celibacy gene’ could decide to get pregnant by artificial insemination, or she could get pregnant as the result of being raped. In the case of artificial insemination, even the father could have the ‘celibacy gene.’

        Or a third of a god could send another third of the same god to impregnate her with the last third of itself. (Not being a Sophisticated Theologian, I’m unsure whether that would fall into the category of artificial insemination, rape, or both.)

    2. Yes, if he is only talking about humans this could be the problem, although he probably should have clarified that also.

      I wonder if he is not falling for the same problem that seems to infect many on the internet, particularly those who spend a lot of time with twitter. Certainly, he should know far better than I, that this limited communication system is far from the best place to be discussing important, scientific issues. Yet, we see other very intelligent people doing some of the same, such as Dawkins and Harris. My advice, and it’s only mine, would be to stay away from twitter, especially for persons of reputation. The result is not going to be good.

      1. “Yes, if he is only talking about humans this could be the problem, although he probably should have clarified that also.”

        I don’t twitter so I don’t know the context, so I might be wrong, but reading it standalone I assume he’s talking to humans, and is directing his comment at a specific human, and “you” refers to humans.

        1. I get it and thought I got it before. But you also see that many, including the post did not necessarily get it. And that is the bigger issue I was talking about. Attempting to discuss issues concerning evolution via Twitter is rather a waste of time. Some feel this need to talk in small bits and have the whole world listen in. I think there is another name for that.

  12. I will very much admire NDT when he is right, and not so much when he is wrong.
    On a side note, Cosmos season 2 is apparently in the works. Yeah!

  13. IMO, the phrase “gene for X” when “X” is some complex trait or behavior should rarely be used in popular writing anyway.

  14. Two thoughts, (trying to type around Titan who is stuck on my lap, protesting the rain outside)

    First – (and I have no idea if this “hurts” but it sounds like more unpleasant biology) is the mating behavior of some groups of anglerfish (or for all I know all of them) where the male bites a female and is gradually fused to her by essentially having his lips and mouth dissolved by proteolytic enzymes, so that his blood supply and nutrition become dependent on the female. His role then is to be dragged around providing sperm whenever she spawns and to die when she dies.

    Second, and perhaps more controversial, but what the hell, it’s sunday morning and the cat won’t let me move. One could consider homosexuality to be genetically equivalent to celibacy, in that genes don’t get passed on even though sexual activity occurs (and obviously there are ways for gay men to procreate, but bear with me). There are data suggesting that female relatives of gay men procreate at a higher level than controls. Suggesting (or at least, it has been suggested) that homosexuality in men might reflect expression of a gene or genes associated with androphilia. Hence functional celibacy that can be inherited.

    1. I’ve always thought of celibacy as being a lack of having sex, not a lack of producing offspring (though that would be a result).

  15. Some of us have complained about Tyson for years. He imagines himself as science educator to the world and so brilliant he never needs to check his work.

    If he is taunting anyone my guess it is those he usually taunts, socially conservative Christians, in this instance those pushing abstinence.

    1. As someone who is wrong every other day (on the authority of my wife), I overlook these foibles. Better to be right about the big things (the importance and joy of science) and wrong about little things than the other way around.

      1. No need for accuracy if your intentions are good. Gotcha.

        Some of Tyson’s goofs have been slanderous. For example his quote fabrication debacle.

        Most of the Tyson errors I list are merely dumb. But some are attacks on persons or groups. On occasion he will distort history to make a point. That’s inexcusable.

        1. The so-called fabrications are attacks on Tyson by the religious right (the Federalist) and the anti-GMO crowd. Tyson admits he may have misremembered what Bush exactly said after 2001, but he captured correctly the pompous religiosity that Bush and other politicians typically resort to after national disasters.

          1. The criticisms have come from other quarters than the Federalist. For example The Friendly Atheist and The Washington Post (you know, that fringe right wing publication that broke the Watergate story).

            Bush’s actual post-9/11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. Exactly the opposite of Tyson’s account.

            You are either addled or lying.

      2. I like Tyson. It’s no surprise that a person with his achievements would have a bit of an ego. Perhaps he sometimes strains at quips, and occasionally gets something back-assward. Everyone has feet of clay.

        That some of his detractors seem particularly vehement about it reminds me of the grief Sagan got from some other scientists for being…er, Broadway Carl, shall we say.

        1. If you’re ever hurting for something to do, you might explore Mr. Tyson’s humble statements about public school teachers.

  17. What a bizarre statement. I didn’t think there was even any question that sex was painful for some humans, let alone other animals like cats.

  18. I am profoundly grateful that legions of critics don’t pore over all the idiotic conversational crap I spew in the course of a day.

    I am equally grateful that I have the wit to avoid posting said crap in public view.

    Narcissism: bites you in the ass every time.

  19. Mallards have an infamously antagonistic sexual dynamic, full of horrifying things like gang rape and drowning by forced copulation. I believe male polar bears also have barbed penises that make copulation very unpleasant for the female.

  20. The tw**ts seem to be atheist retorts against puritanical religious nonsense and were not intended to be taken literally by evo-biologists.

  21. Jerry, did it occur to you that these might be little more than a series of jokes? They seemed that way to me; certainly had me chuckling. Jokes just don’t work if they are logical or technically correct.

    1. Perhaps Mr. Tyson will post a clarifying tweet, eh? Or put “(joke)” at the end of such tweets.

      1. If you have to explain it (or put ‘joke’ at the end) that usually kills the joke.

        cr

  23. I once had a female sea otter jump onto the bow of my kayak to avoid the attentions of a male sea otter. No wonder: males hold females by the nose while mating and her nose was torn and bleeding. Apparently she found mating so uncomfortable that she was willing to get very close to a human being to avoid it.

    1. As a postscript, I will there’s nothing like sitting trapped in a kayak two feet away from a distraught otter to give you a mighty fine impression of what big and sharp teeth they have.

  24. After Tyson’s wonderful Isaac Newton tweet on Christmas day a couple years ago I tend to give him some slack.

  26. I just removed Tyson from my Twitter feed yesterday because he rarely tweets anything of substance. Most of the tweets were attempts at humor, none particularly good. This is probably more of the same.

  27. Good grief…Does everyone have the vapors…or is it due to the lost hour of sleep because of Daylight Savings Time in the US? Whether a joke, a misstatement or a dig at religious zealots…this is truly a tempest in a teapot…
    Which end of the egg do you crack open?

    1. Thank you for telling me that I (and the readers) are wasting their time. I suggest that you stop wasting your time here, because you’re clearly superior to us all. I thought I was educating people about evolution, but now I know I have the vapors.

      And you have your walking papers.

  28. I think he may just be joking as others mentioned.

    Another theory, and it’s mine, is that once engaged on tw**ter, the user’s IQ inexplicably diminishes.

    1. Except for this one, no great truth can be compressed to 140 characters or fewer
      (Too lazy to do a character count. Sorry. Have a compulsion to fix less/fewer stumbles. Sorry. )

  31. Another example of copulation that probably hurts the female. D. E. Rosen reported, and in at least two papers, a Xiphophorus (a fish, common name Swordtail) mating that ended with a puff of blood from the female’s genital pore when the male withdrew his gonopodium. In this group of fishes the distal end of the gonopod usually has many sharp little bones, many pointing backwards.

  32. I speculate that he was attempting to use biology/evolution to support progressive human sexual mores (and be entertaining while doing so).

  33. “Other species, including worms, rotifers, and snails, do the same thing.”

    I thought worms and snails were hermaphrodites. So they’re spearing each other?

    cr

  34. Why do you say “if animals can feel pain”? I only have experience with cats and dogs, but it seems quite clear that they feel pain.

  35. Apparently there are a substantial number of postmenopausal women who experience painful sex. Pharmaceutical companies are making a lot of money selling remedies to them. (Possibly
    necessary because pharmaceutical companies are making a lot of money selling their husbands Viagra).

    1. My atheist breast cancer support group recommends coconut oil. It’s cheap and effective. Many women go into menopause early because of having their ovaries removed, taking tamoxifen (which more gives you all the fun symptoms of menopause) and having chemo.

    2. BTW, when condoms are recommended, it is rarely added that for some women (even at age 18-20), a lubricant must be applied together with the condom.

    3. I think you hit the nail on the head Rowena. He would do best to consult with a team of scientists when he strays from his field of study before tweeting.

  37. I can add banana slug Ariolimax columbiana, common in coastal forests here in Cascadia.

    Like most terrestrial gastropods these huge slugs are reciprocating hermaphrodites. Mating can be an exciting thing to watch — if you have the time. These are slugs operating on slug time. Chases often take the lovers into the Douglas-fir canopy, where pairs can be observed hanging from branches intertwined on a slimy trapeze. More often I’ve seen pairs on the ground forming a very nice yin-yang symbol in yellow and green.

    Nice and spiritual, but where’s the pain? It happens that most mature A.columbiana lack an intact penis by the end of the breeding season. There appears to be a tendency to get stuck, and ather than just rolling over, a partner who’s ready to get on will chew [radulize?] the other’s boypart.

    Taxonomists being taxonomists, a number of banana slug species, now synonyms, were described on the basis of penis length..

  39. He seems to be someone who is now addicted to the spot light. Any good press is bad press, any bad science is good press, as long as it’s getting re tweets and likes….

  40. Tyson has made a few errors when working with areas in which he was not familiar. A while back during a NASCAR race he tweeted the top speed that cars could hit around a particular bend, at a time when the cars were already exceeding that speed.

    He made a few mistakes, assuming a maximum coefficient of friction as 1.0 (not true with racing tires), as well as other things like assuming a fixed radius of travel and various power dynamic techniques to actually produce a higher speed that a static approach would allow.

Comments are closed.