One of the first survivors of the disaster to return to Britain, nurse Debbie Bates, told the Daily Record (December 28, 2004), “'I saw a palmist the day before [in Sri Lanka]. He said, 'Stay out of the sea, big wave coming.' At the time, I thought it was a joke-now I just think it is freaky.” Unfortunately, we don't know how many thousands of people may have received that same warning for days on which nothing unusual happened. Indeed, given the popular custom of visiting fortune-tellers in Thailand and other Asian countries, it seems remarkable that there was anyone left unwarned, unless the prognosticators themselves were equally in the dark. Meanwhile, a prominent Thai fortune teller blamed the tsunami on the “bad luck” of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Pinyo Pongcharoen, president of the International Astrology Association, said that Thailand’s astrological sign was already under the adverse influence of four ill-omened stars and, worse yet, one of the stars was further aggravated by malicious influence from Thaksin’s astrological sign (The Nation, Bangkok, December 28).

People from a nearby camp for the displaced bathe in a river January 26, 2005, in the tsunami-ravaged town of Meulaboh, Indonesia. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Once the tizzy over the mostly clueless fortune-tellers died down, media outlets were rushing to report how animals seemed to have a “sixth sense” causing most of them to avoid the coming tsunami. H.D. Ratnayake, deputy director of Sri Lanka’s Wildlife Department, told Reuters, “No elephants are dead, not even a dead hare or rabbit. I think animals can sense disaster. They have a sixth sense. They know when things are happening.” Even the National Geographic News was reporting (January 4) anecdotes of how “elephants screamed and ran for higher ground” and “Dogs refused to go outdoors.” What is usually not mentioned is that the tsunami was preceded by an extremely powerful earthquake, capable of alarming both man and beast. Furthermore, it does not appear to be the case that wild animals cluster along the ocean’s open shore in the same manner that humans do-they usually prefer to remain hidden in the relative safety of the forest.

Lynette Hart, an animal researcher at the University of California-Davis, explained to the Sacramento Bee (January 14) that many animals are exquisitely sensitive to sounds and to vibrations in the ground. “It may only take one antelope becoming frightened by sensory changes to communicate, 'Let’s get out of here,' and they all go.” Andy Michael, a geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey, told National Geographic, “What we're faced with is a lot of anecdotes. Animals react to so many things-being hungry, defending their territories, mating, predators-so it’s hard to have a controlled study to get that advanced warning signal.”

Next, just as predictably, the conspiracy theories began to emerge (these usually don't surface immediately, as it takes a while to cook them up). The Egyptian Nationalist weekly Al-Usbu published an investigative report by Mahmoud Bakri on January 1. In it he suggests that the earthquake and tsunami were a consequence of secret nuclear testing by the U.S., Israel, and India: “The three most recent tests appeared to be genuine American and Israeli preparations to act together with India to test a way to liquidate humanity. In the[ir] most recent test, they began destroying entire cities over extensive areas. Although the nuclear explosions were carried out in desert lands, tens of thousands of kilometers away from populated areas, they had a direct effect on these areas.” These alleged nuclear tests “destabilized the tectonic plates,” leading to disaster. A (possibly fictitious) American scientist was quoted saying “the center of an earthquake that took place some forty kilometers under the ocean floor could not have caused such destruction unless nuclear testing had been conducted close to the tectonic plates in these countries, or unless several days previously there had been [nuclear] activity that caused these plates to shift and collide.” A Saudi professor attributed the tragedy to divine retribution for homosexuality and fornication, while various religious leaders warned that it was caused by corruption, the presence of infidels, and other sins (see here).

Abd Al-Baset Al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Center said in an interview on Al-Majd TV on January 16 that NASA had discovered that Earth is emitting short-wave radiation. “When they discovered this radiation, they started to zoom in, and they found that it emanates from Mecca-and, to be precise, from the Ka'ba” (see here). What’s more, they found that the radiation was “infinite.” NASA found that the radiation extends well past Mars, apparently extending to “the celestial Ka'ba,” effectively connecting heaven and earth. NASA, says Al-Sayyed, had this information on their Web site for twenty-one days, but then took it down, apparently as part of yet another cover-up of amazing findings in outer space.

Speaking of NASA, the recent, highly successful Cassini mission to Saturn has returned a wealth of scientific data, especially the Huygens probe that landed on Saturn’s moon Titan, the first such landing on a planetary satellite other than our own Moon. However, NASA conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland, the chief promoter of the “Face on Mars,” claims he has made dramatic discoveries from its photos, not of Titan, but instead of Saturn’s moon Iapetus, an unusual body having one relatively dark hemisphere and one lighter:

In our opinion, Cassini’s discovery of “the Great Wall of Iapetus” now forces serious reconsideration of a range of staggering possibilities . . . that some will most certainly find upsetting: it could really be a “wall” . . . a vast, planet spanning, artificial construct!! . . . There is no viable geological model to explain a sixty thousand-foot-high, sixty thousand-foot-wide, four million-foot-long “wall” . . . spanning an entire planetary hemisphere-let alone, located in the precise plane of its equator! (See here.)

Hoagland has further discovered that some of Iapetus’s craters appear to be somewhat “square,” and are allegedly lined up along north-south, east-west lines: “Clearly these are not random, 'square craters'-but remarkable, highly ordered evidence of sophisticated, aligned, repeating architectural relief! . . . The impression of a vast set of extremely ancient ruins-most now without roofs, but with ample surviving walls-covered both by 'snow' . . . and whatever the 'brown stuff' is . . . is unavoidable.”

Stressing the near-impossibility of these structures being built by living creatures on the surface of a cold, airless, waterless world, Hoagland leaps to a conclusion that presupposes an even greater engineering impossibility: “what if Iapetus is not a natural satellite at all . . . but a 900-mile wide spacecraft-an artificial 'moon?!'.” He suggests that Iapetus was assembled millions of years ago by some alien intelligence using the principles of Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic domes, and that many of the craters are in fact “deformed hexagons,” where the moon’s surface is collapsing from eons of meteoritic erosion, revealing the underlying hexagonal supports. My brief summary cannot possibly do justice to the zaniness of Hoagland’s “hollow Iapetus” theory-you need to read the original on his Web site.

It is telling that Hoagland does not discuss the problem that his “hollow Iapetus” theory poses in accounting for that moon’s measured mean density of about 1.21 grams per cubic centimeter, less than our own moon’s but greater than that of Saturn. This is perplexing, since he begins the piece arguing that Iapetus’s relatively low density and slow rotation means that the centrifugal force at the equator would be extremely small. It’s too bad that Hoagland didn't follow through and give us any calculations designed to show how it would be possible for an essentially hollow sphere to have a mean density greater than that of water. He must have realized the fatal flaw this calculation would pose for his wild assertion, which is why he avoids the subject.

A NASA Web site notes: “Cassini’s next close encounter with Iapetus will occur in September 2007. The resolution of images from that flyby should be 100 times better than the ones currently being analyzed. The hope is that the increased detail may shed light on Iapetus’s amazing features and the question of whether it has been volcanically active in the past” (see here). Until then, we can only wonder what Hoagland’s amazing “artificial structures"-which, like all allegedly anomalous objects photographed, are near the limit of resolution of the cameras-will look like with one hundred times finer detail revealed.

Last December 8 The Telegraph of London carried an item written by Uri Geller, the noted Israeli-born spoon bender, about an “alien egg” allegedly given to him by the late John Lennon. According to Geller, he, Lennon, and Lennon’s wife Yoko Ono were having dinner in a New York restaurant one evening when Lennon surprised him with the following account:

About six months ago, I was asleep in my bed, with Yoko, at home, in the Dakota Building. And suddenly, I wasn't asleep. Because there was this blazing light round the door. It was shining through the cracks and the keyhole, like someone was out there with searchlights, or the apartment was on fire. . . . There were these four people out there. . . . They were, like, little. Bug-like. Big bug eyes and little bug mouths and they were scuttling at me like roaches . . . I tried to throw them out, but, when I took a step towards them, they kind of pushed me back. I mean, they didn't touch me. It was like they just willed me. Pushed me with willpower and telepathy. (See here.)

Today, “insectoid” aliens play a significant role in many stories of UFO abductions, which was not the case when Lennon allegedly related this account. So either John Lennon was a pioneering “experiencer” of a now-common alien encounter, or else Geller made up this story long after Lennon’s death.

The next thing that Lennon could reportedly remember, he was back in bed with Yoko, left holding a smooth, metallic egg-like object he subsequently gave to Geller in the hopes that Uri could figure it out. Says Geller, “I have a strong sensation that John knew more about this object than he told me. Maybe it didn't come with an instruction manual, but I think John knew what it was for. And whatever that purpose was-communication? Healing? A first-class intergalactic ticket?-it scared him.” Yet despite all the hype, Geller seems to have made no attempt to initiate any serious scientific analysis of his potentially miraculous “egg.”

One hundred ten years ago, German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen announced the discovery of an invisible form of radiation that could make photographs of bones and organs inside a living human body. At first, many scientists called the discovery of mysterious "X-rays” a hoax, but when the skeptics put Roentgen’s claims to the test, they were quickly convinced about one of the greatest discoveries in science and medicine. Indeed, just six years after his discovery, Roentgen was awarded the first Nobel Prize in physics.

Now comes a teenage girl from Saransk, Russia, who claims to have X-ray-like vision that lets her see inside hum- an bodies. And she uses this vision to make medical diagnoses that, she claims, are often more accurate than those of doctors. Widely hailed in Russia as “the girl with X-ray eyes,” seventeen-year-old Natasha Demkina has a growing number of patients, doctors, journalists, and others who are convinced her powers are real. [1,2] That following is proving lucrative for Natasha and her family. The young psychic reportedly charged about $13 per reading and provided about ten readings each weekday night. That income, about $2,600 a month, is more than forty times the average monthly income of government workers in Saransk.

In March 2004, Monica Garnsey, the producer-director of a Discovery Channel documentary on Natasha, asked the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) to scientifically test the young woman’s claims for the program. Because Natasha’s paranormal claims involved medical diagnoses, I was asked to join CSICOP fellows Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman in designing an appropriate preliminary test, to see if the medical psychic’s abilities warranted further study. (Hyman’s accompanying article, “Testing Natasha,” is the report of those tests.)

Examining the claims of medical psychics like Natasha Demkina presents unique difficulties beyond the usual problems involved in testing dowsers, mind readers, and most other paranormal claimants. For example, we needed to consider the logistical, legal, and ethical concerns regarding the privacy of subjects’ medical information. Barrie Cassileth, chief of Integrative Medicine Service and the Laurance S. Rockefeller Chair in Integrative Medicine at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, was willing to help us recruit volunteer subjects through the Center. However, the Center declined involvement in the documentary, so Cassileth could only assist us unofficially by recruiting four of the seven volunteers we needed from her personal acquaintances.

We wanted a test that would prevent Natasha from making diagnoses that could not be disproved, as is her usual practice. So we settled on a simple test design that required Natasha to find already established medical abnormalities in the test subjects. This not only eliminated the problem of her giving us a long list of health problems that cannot be disproved, it eliminated the problem of subjects trying to force Natasha’s vague comments to fit their existing problems. And it prevented the potential harm that could result from subjects being frightened into undergoing unnecessary and invasive medical tests to rule out diseases that Natasha claims to see.

Such a calamity happened to Dr. Christopher Steele, the host of a medical television show in the United Kingdom, who in 2004 invited Natasha on his show to provide “medical readings.” When she read Steele, she said she saw something wrong with his gall bladder and that he had kidney stones and an enlarged liver and pancreas. The physician rushed off to have a battery of expensive and invasive clinical tests-which found nothing wrong with him. [3] In addition to being exposed to unnecessary diagnostic radiation, he had a colonoscopy, which is not without risks. Studies have found that .2 percent (two tenths of one percent) or more of patients who undergo colonoscopic screening suffer a bowel perforation, which can lead to life-threatening infection and the need for surgery. [4,5]

We wanted to conduct a blinded test. Natasha claims to see through people’s clothing, yet she says she cannot see through a fabric screen, which we wanted to use to prevent her from seeing the test subjects. We found this unexplained contradiction curious-and frustrating: Any test she would agree to would have to allow her to study the test subjects using her normal senses. As Hyman points out, this study flaw alone could provide an astute person powerful clues about a person’s health problems. It would be less of a problem if we were able to recruit subjects who were physically and demographically similar. Unfortunately, we had great difficulty recruiting subjects for the test and had to settle for several people with characteristics that suggested their target conditions.

Natasha claims she can see everything inside of people’s bodies down to the cellular level, and her mother says her readings are 100 percent accurate. So the test-which required her to match at least five of the target medical conditions to the correct subjects-should have been very easy compared with her normal readings. She didn't have to scan entire bodies looking for unknown conditions. She was told exactly what to look for and exactly where to look. Yet it took her more than four hours to complete the test and, inexplicably, she took an hour to examine the seven subjects before deciding which one was missing a large part of her left lung! She guessed that one correctly, but why would anyone who claims to be able to see “every cell” inside a person take an hour to decide which person was missing a large portion of one lung?

Natasha matched only four of the conditions correctly-a score that everyone prior to the test had agreed would not justify further testing. Natasha’s most dramatic misdiagnosis was her failure to see a large metal plate covering a missing section of skull in a man who had a large brain tumor removed. Instead, she indicated that she “saw” a metal plate and missing skull section in a man who had his appendix removed but a normal skull.

There was an error in our test protocol, which could have been much more embarrassing for us, had Natasha had the power to see it. Although our test design [6] required no more than one subject to have any of the target medical conditions, we discovered after the test was over that the man who had a metal plate in his head also had undergone an appendectomy. He had forgotten to mention this when he was recruited but brought it up after the test because a missing appendix had been one of the test target conditions. This mistake gave Natasha twice the chance of correctly guessing which subject was missing his or her appendix. Despite having twice the odds of being correct, she still chose a subject with an intact appendix.

This is one of the six test cards that were used to assess Natasha’s ability to see abnormalities within the subject’s bodies. In English and in Russian, the card directed Natasha to identify the number of the subject who doesn't have an appendix. Natasha answered subject number 2 -- a woman who still has her appendix. Natasha protested during the test that appendixes can grow back after an appendectomy. When told this isn't possible, she insisted that they do grow back in Russia. Photo credit: Andrew A. Skolnick.

After the test, Natasha asked if she could give me a medical reading in the hope of convincing me that her powers are real. With CSICOP’s Senior Research Fellow Joe Nickell taking notes, I agreed. Her reading, in which she scanned me from head to toes while describing the abnormalities she saw, took about ten minutes. Few of my organs passed the inspection: My neck vertebrae were too tight, too close. The bronchial tubes of my lungs had phlegm causing me to cough. The muscle on the left side of my heart is a bit weak and the valve closes late. The mucosa of my stomach is abnormal. A segment of my liver was enlarged and I was suffering poor bile circulation. The head of my pancreas is increased and abnormally dark (although not seriously). My duodenum has a little scar. My prostate gland has a nodule and is inflamed. My right kidney has “sand,” while my left kidney’s urethra is enlarged. In other words, I should forget about ever again signing an organ donor card.

Neither my physician nor I are aware of any of these problems. Nevertheless, Natasha and her supporters claim she sees what doctors and their tests often miss. The only way I could prove her wrong would be to submit to an autopsy-which I'm not quite ready to do.

I believe Natasha may have been making some bad guesses based on non-paranormal observations. While the test was ongoing, I swallowed some water down my wind pipe, which triggered a loud fit of coughing. It was so loud that someone had to close the briefing room door. Natasha apparently misjudged the cause of my coughing. My shoulders and neck were sore and tired from lugging around my luggage and a heavy camera bag. She apparently misread my drooping posture as a sign of a spinal problem. And earlier, I had complained to the Russian translator that I had a headache (from stress and lack of sleep). I suspect that information may have been passed on to Natasha, who wrongly attributed the problem to narrowed blood vessels in my neck. Even more telling was what Natasha didn't “see.” She failed to point out any of my confirmed health problems, which include hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, recent colon surgery, nasal polyps, a very narrow pharynx, and sleep apnea. She also didn't see the calcified plaque in two of my coronary arteries that was documented by spiral CT scan.

Natasha Demkina supporters widely site this “diagnostic” drawing of a “sarcoidosis granuloma” as evidence of her remarkable X-ray vision. Yale Rosen, M.D., a leading expert on sarcoidosis granuloma, however, disagrees. Frame from the Discovery Channel program The Girl with X-ray Eyes. Copyright 2004 Discovery Channel.

The Discovery Channel program, The Girl with X-ray Eyes, has already been broadcast several times over the past six months in Europe and Asia, [7] but has not been broadcast in North America. The program highlights one of Natasha’s most impressive diagnoses, involving a man who says he had been treated for tuberculosis for a year yet hadn't gotten any better. In desperation, he turned to Natasha for help. Unable to describe what she saw in the man’s lungs, she drew a picture. With the help of Natasha’s drawing, the man got a referral to a doctor in Moscow, who claimed to see the same thing through her microscope and that the drawing is indicative of an inflammatory disease lesion called sarcoidosis granuloma. That’s a remarkable confirmation of the young psychic’s powers-at least for viewers who don't have a clue what sarcoidosis granulomas look like.

It didn't look like any pathological finding I've seen, so I sent an image of the drawing to Yale Rosen, M.D., Professor of Pathology at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, a leading expert on sarcoidosis granuloma, whose Atlas of Granulomatous Diseases is widely used in the training of pathologists. [8] Here is Dr. Rosen’s opinion of Demkina’s drawing:

Try as I might I can see no resemblance whatsoever of this drawing to a granuloma or to any other microscopic pathologic finding that I know of. If I were presented with this drawing and no background history I would guess that it was made by a 4-6 year old child who was trying to depict a human-like head with four appendages (? arms and legs) attached. If Ms. Demkina is claiming that a physician made a diagnosis of sarcoidosis based upon this drawing I would say that that’s simply unbelievable.

We've asked the producer/director several times when the documentary may be broadcast in the United States. We have not received an answer. I am afraid that Discovery Channel may consider the program too skeptical for the American audience. I hope I will be proven wrong.

Notes

1. Moniche, Igor. 2004. X-ray girl sees right through Sun man. The Sun. Available at www.satori-5.co.uk/ word_articles/misc/ xray_eyes.html.
2. Hagan, Lucy. 2004. Girl “sees” broken bones. The Sun. Available at http://groups.msn.com/Mindtalk/itspossible.msnw.
3. TV doctor in health scare after meeting “X-ray vision” girl. 2004. Ananova. Available at www.ananova.com/ news/story/ sm_860742.html? menu=news.scienceanddiscovery.
4. Kavic, S.M. and M.D. Brasson. 2001. Complications of endoscopy. American Journal of Surgery. April; 181(4):319-32.
5. Anderson, M.L. et al. 2000. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. American Journal of Gastroenterology December; 95(12):3418-22.
6. Test Design and Procedures for Preliminary Study of Natasha Demkina. 2004. CSICOP and CSMMH. Available at www.demkina/ demkina. protocols.doc.
7. The Girl with X-ray Eyes. 2004. The Human Files series, Discovery Channel. Program description available at www.discoverychannel.co.uk / humanfiles/feature2.shtml.
8. Rosen, Yale. Atlas of Granulomatous Diseases. Available at www. granuloma.homestead.com.

Our assignment might seem straightforward. A seventeen-year-old Russian girl, Natasha Demkina, says she can look at people and “see” the status of their internal organs. The Discovery Channel asked Richard Wiseman, Andrew Skolnick, and me to test her claim for their television program, The Girl with X-ray Eyes. You might think that testing Natasha’s claims would be routine. The test of a psychic claim, however, is rarely cut-and-dried. Most such claims do have much in common. Each also offers unique challenges. We had to conduct the test of Natasha’s claim to fit the constraints of a television program. We had only a month to devise a protocol that would be acceptable to all parties. After everyone agreed to the procedure, we had less than a week to locate a testing site in New York City and to find seven willing and suitable test subjects. [1]

The Claim and Its Support

Monica Garnsey, director and producer of the program, told us how Natasha operates and what she claimed to do. Many news sources and reports on the Internet described her accomplishments. (This information was consistent with what we observed when Natasha diagnosed volunteers at the Open Center in New York City the day before the test.) Garnsey e-mailed us the following information from Russia, where she was taping material for the television program:

I double-checked a few things with her last night. Since the age of ten, a few days after having a religious dream, and also having had an operation to have her appendix removed that went wrong, swabs were left in her and she had to have another operation, Natasha has claimed to be able to see into people. . . . Natasha can see through clothing, but not see what someone is holding behind their back. She cannot see inside people if she shuts her eyes. Daylight is better. She does not need to talk to them to diagnose. She can also diagnose from a photograph. She usually scans people all over first, by making them stand up fully clothed and looking them up and down; delivers a general diagnosis; and then goes into more detail when the patients have discussed their concerns with her. She says she can certainly see ribs, heart, lungs, initially in general “like in an anatomy book,” but can see right down to the cell level if she concentrates. She says that she can examine the whole body, but it can give her a bad headache if she does too much. The idea of restricting the test to the chest area appeals [to her], though her claims extend further than that.

Natasha’s story is like thousands of other accounts. Alleged psychics and their supporters make claims that, if true, defy the physical limitations and laws of modern science. The proponents support the reality of these claims with testimonials of outstanding successes. They argue for the reality of the claim passionately and unreservedly. Although some proponents have had scientific training, none of the supporting evidence comes from well-controlled scientific studies.

In the long history of psychical research, not one of these claims has produced convincing scientific evidence for the existence of paranormal ability (see Joe Nickell’s column in this issue, p. 18). A few researchers have claimed that they did have scientific proof for a paranormal claim. Scrutiny by other scientists, however, showed that the “scientific proof” had serious flaws. Furthermore, none of these claims could be independently replicated.

Natasha Demkina poses for photographs after being tested by CSICOP and CSMMH for the Discovery Channel program The Girl with X-ray Eyes. Her friend, Svetlana Skarbo, who acted as her translator, holds a cell phone over which they had sent and received text messages from unknown parties during the test (in violation of test protocols.) On the left is Barrie Cassileth, Ph.D., Chief of Integrative Medicine Services at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who helped to recruit subjects for this preliminary study. Photo credit: Andrew A. Skolnick.

The evidence supporting Natasha’s abilities comes from selected anecdotes of reactions to her readings. No matter how subjectively compelling, the context of such readings makes it impossible to separate how much of the apparent success is due to such possibilities as: guessing; external clues from the client’s physical appearance and observable behavior; feedback from the client’s spoken and bodily reactions; or actual paranormal powers. A meaningful test would allow Natasha to show her powers and, simultaneously, control for guessing and the use of normal sensory clues.

Problems With Testimonial Support of Natasha’s Claims

The stories told by Natasha’s proponents are consistent with her having X-ray vision. This does not show that she does have X-ray vision because the same stories are consistent with many other alternatives. Two possibilities are the following: 1) her statements have no connection with the client’s condition but appear to do so because of luck, selective reporting, and/or other reasons that I will discuss; or 2) her statements accurately reflect the subject’s condition, but this information comes through normal means such as the subject’s appearance and behavior. Consider, first, the ways that her statements can falsely appear to describe the patient’s condition.

For Discovery Channel publicity photos following CSICOP-CSMMH’s test, Natasha Demkina examines the seven volunteer test subjects. The subjects are wearing opaque glasses to prevent communication through eye movement. The head test proctor, Ray Hyman, is sitting in the bottom right corner. Photo credit: Andrew A. Skolnick.

She Might Have No Knowledge About the Client’s Condition But Get Credit Anyway

Natasha has been giving readings to a steady flow of clients for more than six years. By now the number of such readings is huge. Her supporters naturally emphasize the most striking examples of apparent hits. The number of diseases and internal parts that could be defective is limited. Some conditions, such as cancer and heart problems, are more common than others. We should expect that her supporters will find some examples of “correct” diagnoses. With so many diagnoses, a certain number will match the client’s condition just by chance.

To evaluate a diagnostic procedure properly we need to clearly decide what is a “hit” and what is a “miss.” Most important, we should set the criteria before we know the outcome. In Natasha’s readings, no clear and objective standards were ever established. This allows for her generally vague utterances to be retrofitted to what the client or observer knows to be true. An example of such retrofitting occurred when Natasha was doing a reading in London. Dr. Chris Steele, described by The Daily Mail (January 29, 2004) as one of her champions, was observing. The newspaper quotes him as saying, “Natasha doesn't know any medical terms at the moment. With one person this week she was trying to describe a kidney stone, and her translator came up with the words, 'sand' and 'gravel' before I suggested stones. When kidney stones start off, they do look like sand.” Dr. Steele gives her credit for correctly diagnosing kidney stones. Yet we have no idea what Natasha was “seeing” or what she had in mind. Dr. Steele made the medical diagnosis, not Natasha.

Other features of Natasha’s readings foster the illusion of accuracy. When she tells clients something that agrees with previous medical diagnoses, they credit her with a hit.

Similarly, when she tells the clients something that disagrees with previous medical diagnoses, they still credit her with a hit; the clients and her supporters argue that she picked up on something that the medical professionals missed. We witnessed some examples of this when we watched her giving readings to volunteers at the Open Center in New York. She told one volunteer that she saw a problem with his right shoulder. After the reading, this volunteer told Monica that he had not previously realized something was wrong with his shoulder. Neither his previous medical examinations nor anything in his experience suggested something was wrong with his shoulder. I thought, as a result, he might be skeptical about Natasha’s claim. Instead, he was impressed. He decided she had detected a problem that neither he nor his doctors had noticed.

Natasha Demkina stands between her friend Svetlana Skarbo (who served as her translator instead of the one hired by Discovery Channel) and Richard Wiseman, who helped to design and conduct the CSICOP-CSMMH test. Photo credit: Andrew A. Skolnick.

Possibilities of Natasha Picking Up Clues by Non-paranormal Means

I have described just some ways that testimonials can appear to support Natasha’s claim even if she is picking up no information about her clients. Those possibilities would suffice to make such testimonials useless as evidence for her ability. The testimonials become even more suspect when we realize how the circumstances of her readings allow her to pick up information about her client without having X-ray vision. Natasha is looking directly at her client when she does her diagnosis. This means that we cannot rule out the possibility that she is picking up clues from subtle (and not-so-subtle) client reactions. To make matters worse, the clients begin a session by asking Natasha questions about their concerns. This provides obvious clues about their condition. I watched one reading where the client began asking Natasha about her back. This narrows considerably the number of possibilities that Natasha needs to consider. Natasha can also gain considerable information from verbal exchanges with the client.

Another source of clues is how the clients react, both verbally and nonverbally, to her statements. Some of her clients say that they find it unsettling when Natasha is staring at them. This could enhance the tendency for individuals to react to her statements with subtle, unwitting bodily movements, breathing changes, pupil dilations, and other signs of emotional and cognitive states. Although psychological research has documented how humans frequently provide unconscious clues to their current thoughts and emotions, most people seem unaware of this possibility. The research also shows that subtle clues can influence us without our consciously realizing it.

One classic case involved the German horse Clever Hans. [2] In the early twentieth century, Hans became a celebrity in Germany and throughout the world. People could ask him questions about addition, the identity of musical pieces, about foreign words, spelling, and many other topics. Hans would answer by tapping his hoof or by nudging an alphabet board with his nose. He usually was correct. Prominent educators certified that he had the intelligence and competence of a thirteen- or fourteen-year-old German student. Oskar Pfungst, a German psychologist, investigated Hans with exemplary thoroughness. He eventually discovered that Hans was clever only in having “horse sense.” Typically, a questioner would focus on the horse’s right hoof, which Hans used to tap out the answer. When questioners focused on the hoof, they would almost imperceptibly lean forward and become tense as they watched the horse tap out the answer. This slight leaning and tensing were Hans’s cues to begin tapping. When Hans had tapped the appropriate number of times, the questioner would unconsciously relax and move his or her head upwards very slightly. Often this movement was one millimeter or less. This was Hans’s clue to stop tapping.

Pfungst then carried out experiments to confirm this finding. He played the role of Hans. He would invite people to stand beside him and think of a number. Pfungst would then begin tapping with his right hand. He would stop when he thought he detected a very slight bodily movement-usually a very slight displacement of the subject’s head. These movements were extremely subtle, rarely more than a millimeter in extent. Pfungst amazed his volunteers, stopping his tapping at the number they had in mind.

Pfungst tried this experiment with twenty-five persons ranging in age from five years to adult. He succeeded in picking up cues from all but two of them. They insisted they were unaware of giving him any information. Pfungst used the same method to divine other kinds of thoughts the subjects had in mind. The subjects again denied that they had provided any clues about what they were thinking. Other psychological experiments have confirmed these results. Some skilled performers have made careers out of pretending to read minds when, in fact, they were relying upon subtle and unwitting clues provided by their volunteers.

Some reports supporting Natasha’s claim describe outcomes consistent with the possibility that she is picking up such clues. For example, a Russian reporter says that he became a convert to Natasha’s cause when she found the exact spot on his arm where he had fractured his wrist many years before. In another case, a reporter from a British tabloid validated Natasha’s ability when Natasha succeeded in identifying the location of the fractures she had received in an accident. Both cases seem ideal for picking up the sorts of clues that Pfungst found that most people provide without realizing they are doing so.

What I have just written does not show that Natasha lacks X-ray vision. We do not know from the evidence offered by her proponents whether she does or does not have a paranorm-al capacity to see into people’s bodies. What we do know is that the accounts that seem to support Natasha’s claim are consistent with both normal and paranormal possibilities. We also know that nonparanormal mechanisms can and do operate in the real world. We do not know that paranormal ability, such as that claimed for Natasha, exists. So far, no one has displayed such ability with scientific credibility. Given these two possible explanations for Natasha’s apparent successes, rationality tells us to bet on the nonparanormal one. We should demand convincing evidence that is scientifically acceptable before we give credence to the paranormal claim.

The Test Protocol

With input from Richard and me, Andrew wrote the test protocol, titled “Test Design and Procedures for Preliminary Study of Natasha Demkina.” The goal was to make every aspect of the test explicit. The protocol stated how we would conduct the test and how we would interpret the results. We wanted all parties to be clear about what would and would not be considered a “successful” outcome. What makes a scientific experiment or a test meaningful is just such an explicit commitment to the interpretation of the outcome before we observe the data. This is a critical distinction between the post hoc interpretation of testimonial evidence and the prior commitment to specified outcomes of a meaningful test. Natasha’s defenders apparently fail to grasp this essential point.

The written protocol protects the interests of all parties. Natasha and her supporters had the opportunity to study the document, to suggest modifications, and finally to agree or disagree with its provisions. The protocol also protects the investigators against a variety of false accusations about how we conducted the test.

We made sure to include in the protocol the statement that the “test is not in any way a definitive test. Deciding the truth of Natasha’s claims with comfortable certainty is too simple and brief. It can only help to decide whether further studies of Natasha’s claimed abilities are warranted.” This statement is worth elaborating. Understanding what the test can and cannot do is essential. Even under ideal circumstances this test could not clearly decide if Natasha does or does not have X-ray vision. Any scientific hypothesis-especially a paranormal one-cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by one test or one experiment. Scientific investigation requires a series of experiments. Each new experiment builds on the results of previous ones. The more we learn from the early experiments, the better we can understand what we need to control and what we can safely ignore. If the hypothesis is implausible and/or controversial-as Natasha’s claim certainly is-then the original investigators must replicate their findings. In addition, independent investigators must also replicate the findings before they gain scientific credibility.

We knew that our test could not distinguish between two possibilities: (1) she can make correct matches using external clues; or (2) she can make correct matches using paranormal X-ray vision. The alternatives we could control or reduce were that she gets correct matches just by luck or that her correct matches are due to those factors that make vague statements seem like hits.

We were also aware that our test could only detect a large effect. Natasha’s claim can be considered in several contexts. The testimonials imply that she is highly accurate. This has practical consequences. If clients are depending upon her for medical diagnoses, Natasha’s readings should be reliable. Otherwise, she can do much harm. Of course, Natasha could possess paranormal powers, but they could be weak and erratic. Such unreliable and weak ability would be useless for medical diagnosis, but would still be of theoretical interest. We lacked the resources and time to try to detect such a weak effect. We used all our resources to obtain seven subjects. If we had been trying to test for a moderate or weak effect, we would have had to use many more subjects. Given the constraints of our task, this was impossible. Our test, then, was aimed at detecting a large effect. We reasoned that if she possessed the reliability of diagnosis that her proponents claimed, our test would reveal this. Such an effect would encourage us to investigate her abilities in more detail.

The outcome of the test could be from zero to seven correct matches. We set the criterion for success at five correct matches. We clearly stated this criterion in the test protocol and all parties agreed to this in advance. Although Natasha’s mother says that her daughter never makes a mistake, we did not want to demand that Natasha perform perfectly. We wanted to give her some margin for error. Keep in mind that if she got five or more correct this would be consistent with her having the X-ray power that she claims. Yet it would also be consistent with the possibility that she was matching the target condition by normal means such as the appearance and behavior of the subjects.

The Test

Richard Wiseman, Andrew Skolnick, and I collaborated in designing the test. We arrived at a mutually satisfactory plan after exchanging several e-mails. The task of finding appropriate subjects, and coordinating the many details was left to Andrew. He had less than one week to accomplish all this. He had to do this from Amherst, more than 350 miles from New York City.

Austin Dacey, executive director of the Center for Inquiry-MetroNY, obtained an excellent set of rooms for the test at the City College of New York and helped recruit several subjects. Dr. Barrie Casselith, Chief of Integrative Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, helped us with the daunting task of assembling seven appropriate and willing subjects. On the morning of the day of the test we learned that two of the subjects had withdrawn. Again, Andrew and Austin saved the day by finding two replacements at the last moment. (Andrew’s separate article about certain aspects of the tests follows mine.)

During the test, we seated the seven subjects in a semicircle facing the chair where Natasha sat. Each volunteer had an internal condition that should be easy to detect if Natasha’s claim is correct. The target conditions were as follows: One patient had metal surgical staples in his chest from open heart surgery; one had a section of her esophagus surgically removed; one had a large section of one lung removed; one had an artificial hip replacement; one had a missing appendix (we discovered afterwards that another subject also had a missing appendix, which he didn't mention when we recruited him. Natasha chose neither of these two as the one with the missing appendix); one had a large brain tumor removed and now has a large hole in his skull covered by a metal plate; and the final subject had none of these target conditions.

During the test, when Natasha was looking at the subjects, the subjects wore sunglasses whose lenses were covered with opaque tape. This prevented the subjects from knowing when Natasha was looking at them. This also prevented Natasha from picking up clues from their eye movements or pupillary dilations (which are a sign of emotional reaction). Before the test, I instructed and rehearsed the subjects on how to behave. They were to sit as still as possible when Natasha was in the room. If Natasha needed to observe them in a standing position, I would tell Natasha to turn her back while they stood up and when they sat again. We used similar precautions if Natasha needed to look at them in profile. These precautions reduced the possibility of reactions by the subjects from knowing which target condition Natasha was currently studying. We also wanted to reduce external movements (for example, the subject with a hip replacement might give herself away from her efforts to stand or to change the position of her body). [3]

The test room was large and had chairs for our seven subjects, for Natasha and two interpreters. One interpreter was Natasha’s friend Sveta Skarbo. We allowed her in the test room to make Natasha feel comfortable. The other interpreter was supplied by the Discovery Channel. Ideally, only I, as the head proctor, Richard Wiseman as my co-investigator, Natasha and the two interpreters, and the seven subjects should have been present during the test. The realities of television production and the requests of Natasha’s companions forced us to compromise here, and in some matters of protocol. The test room also included a television crew of three persons from the production company (Shine, Ltd.); Austin Dacey, who was videotaping the proceedings for CSICOP; Joe Nickell as an observer; a still photographer from the Discovery Channel; and Will Stewart, a British journalist living in Russia who was acting as a representative for Natasha. Except for the subjects (and Austin Dacey), everyone in the test room, including myself, was blind to the condition of each subject.

A small room, attached to rear of the test room, was used for briefing Natasha. We could retreat to this room when we wanted to discuss matters out of sight and hearing of the subjects. Because Andrew was in charge of recruiting the subjects and was not completely blind to their conditions, he stayed out of the testing room. He remained in the briefing room during the entire test (which lasted more than four hours). We used this room to brief Natasha before each of the six required matches (once she had made six matches, the seventh was determined by default). Before each trial Andrew gave her a clear description, along with images and diagrams, of the target condition that she was to match to a subject. We also discussed any of Natasha’s questions or concerns in this room.

Andrew and I met with Natasha in this room before the test to review the procedure and to remind her about the details of the protocol. She had agreed to this protocol, which Monica had shown her five days previously. We reviewed each condition that we would ask her to detect. She expressed concerns about the removed appendix and the resected esophagus. She was worried that if the appendix had been removed long enough ago it might have grown back. Andrew assured her that appendices do not grow back. Her concern about the resected esophagus was that individuals might normally differ in the length of their esophagus and this could mislead her. Andrew told her that instead of the length she should look for the scar that completely encircled the place where the two ends of the resected esophagus had been surgically joined.

The test consisted of six trials. On each trial Andrew gave Natasha a test card that clearly described, in Russian and English, the condition she was to match to a subject. The card contained an illustration of the target organ or condition. Andrew also showed her relevant illustrations from an anatomy text. When she was satisfied, I accompanied Natasha to the test room, where she sat between the two interpreters and equidistant from each subject. After Natasha had studied the subjects for the given condition, she chose the subject she believed had the specified condition. She would circle the subject’s number on the test card and both of us would sign the card. We then returned to the back room to prepare for the next condition and trial.

We wanted to make the test as comfortable and nonstressful for Natasha as possible. I made sure not to rush or pressure her in any way. I gave her all the time she wanted to make each match. She took one hour to make the first match-which was to find the subject who had a large section of the top of her left lung surgically removed. She required more than four hours to complete the matches of conditions to the seven subjects. Throughout this process I repeatedly asked her if she was comfortable and if we could do anything to make the process more agreeable to her. She could ask for a break in the proceedings whenever she wished. Her mother had decided to remain outside both the test and briefing rooms because she wanted to be with Natasha’s younger sister. Midway through the proceedings, Natasha told us she would feel better if her mother could be in the briefing room. I immediately agreed to her request. [4]

The Outcome

Natasha succeeded in correctly matching four target conditions out of a possible seven. Our protocol required that Natasha get five or more correct matches to “pass” our test.

Understandably, Natasha’s supporters were disappointed. They expressed their misgivings about the test on the television documentary, in media interviews, on Web sites, and through e-mails. They accused the testers of bias and of deliberately manipulating the procedure to prevent Natasha from succeeding. Natasha has complained that if she had gotten five correct she would have been a success. Isn't four close enough?

Our answer is that five was the minimum score that everyone agreed upon. It was also the minimum score that would convince us of a possible ability to diagnose subjects with sufficient reliability to be useful. We designed our test to detect a large effect. We were looking for something that would distinguish Natasha’s claims from many similar ones. We wanted a good reason to justify using the additional time and resources to investigate her ability further.

Although Natasha’s score did not meet our criterion for “success,” it is possible that she can pick up information about the subject’s condition. Some of her choices might show some accuracy on her part, although of a low level. If this is true, her correct matches could be the result of three possibilities:

1. She gathered some information paranormally. That is, she can see into people’s bodies, but imperfectly.
2. She gathered information by deliberately exploiting available clues such as outward appearances and behavior of the subjects.
3. She obtained information unconsciously from available clues. To me, this is the most likely explanation, other than chance or in addition to chance. Much recent work in psychology demonstrates implicit learning: how people unconsciously learn to exploit a variety of clues, often subtle ones.

Both inherent and unforeseen limitations of our test provided possible clues to the target conditions for some subjects. I already discussed the daunting task of finding seven appropriate subjects. We had to settle for a less than optimal set of subjects. These subjects differed sufficiently in outward appearance to provide possible clues about their conditions. Another problem occurred through two violations of the test protocol. Together these problems created the possibility for identifying the target conditions-by external, normal means-for the following four subjects:

1. The “control” subject, the one who had no internal medical condition, was obviously the youngest of the group. He also looked in good physical condition and appeared much healthier. He was a good candidate for the person with no defects.
2. The subject with the staples in his chest (because of major heart surgery) was male, the oldest of the group and looked the least healthy. He was an obvious choice for the person with the staples in his chest.
3. A breach of protocol occurred on the first trial. Natasha posed a question and her interpreter translated it aloud in front of the subjects. The question, contrary to our protocol, allowed the subjects to know that Natasha was looking for the subject with part of her lung removed. Here it was possible that, knowing which condition Natasha was looking for, the subject with the missing lung might have given herself away through bodily reaction.
4. After the test was over, I learned that Natasha and her companions, because of an apparent misunderstanding, had arrived at the test site before we had expected them. They waited outside the test building where they reportedly observed at least two of the test subjects climb the long flight of stairs and enter the test building. This breach of protocol may have provided them clues about which subjects did or did not have the artificial hip.

We do not know if Natasha took advantage of the clues I've described in the previous four paragraphs. However, it is suggestive that these were just the four subjects for whom Natasha achieved her correct matches. The probability that she was relying upon nonparanomal clues increases when we consider her misses. She wrongly picked the subject who was wearing a baseball cap as the one who had the metal plate in his head. Conceivably, she picked this subject because one might assume (falsely in this case) that the subject was trying to cover a scar on his head. We should also emphasize that her failure to correctly match the subject with the metal plate in his head further argues against any fledgling paranormal powers. If she truly can see into bodies, she should have easily detected the large area of missing skull along with the metal plate covering the hole.

Our test included five subjects for whom external clues were available concerning their internal condition. The clues correctly pointed to the true target condition for four subjects. The external clue for the fifth subject falsely pointed to the hole in the skull. In each of these five cases Natasha made her choice consistent with how the external clue was pointing.

Because a single test, even one done under ideal conditions, cannot settle a paranormal claim, we conceived our test as the first stage of a potential series. The first stage would not necessarily rule out nonparanormal alternatives. If Natasha could pass the first stage, this would justify continuing onto the next stage. If she passed that stage, then we would continue studying her claim. On the other hand, if she failed at any of the early stages, this would end our interest in her claim.

Keep in mind that the burden of proof belongs to the parties making an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Our test had its limitations. None of these limitations, however, worked against Natasha’s claim. If anything, they may have artificially enhanced her score. Our task was not to prove that Natasha does not have X-ray vision. Rather, Natasha and her supporters had the responsibility to show us that she could perform well enough to deserve further scientific investigation. This they failed to do.

Acknowledgments

Notes

1. We debated about how to refer to the seven volunteers who had conditions which Natasha had to detect. Each of the candidate terms such as volunteer, participant, patient, or client seemed ambiguous or not quite correct. Although not completely satisfactory, we decided to refer to these individuals as subjects.
2. Pfungst, O. 1911. Clever Hans. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Also see Vogt, E.Z., and Hyman, R. 2000. Water Witching U.S.A. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Here is another compromise we had to make in the test. Ideally, everyone in the test situation should be blind as to the true target condition for each subject. In our case, the subjects were not blind to their own conditions. Because the subjects had to be in the test room and Natasha had to study them visually, the test lacked this blindness. The use of the opaque sunglasses hopefully kept the subjects blind as to which target condition Natasha was looking for on a given trial, but this is not completely satisfactory.
4. At the start of the test some initial confusion existed as to who would be allowed into the test and briefing rooms. This was quickly corrected and Natasha’s mother and Will Stewart were given the option of staying in one of these rooms.

Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species, the theory of evolution is still widely misunderstood by the general public. Evolution isn't a fringe theory, and it’s not difficult to understand, yet recent surveys reveal that roughly half of Americans believe that humans were created in their present form 10,000 years ago (Brooks 2001, CBS 2004). The same number reject the concept that humans developed from earlier species of animals (National Science Board 2000).

But the evidence is clear that no species, including humans, simply “popped up.” Each life form has an evolutionary history, and those histories are intricately intertwined. If we don't understand that complex evolution, we will make poor decisions about our future and that of other species. Should we genetically modify humans? How about our food crops? What effects will global warming have on human biology? None of these questions, nor many others of immediate concern to humanity, can be usefully addressed unless we understand the evolutionary process.

In examining how evolution is portrayed in the mass media, we found many problems; chief among them was the use of inaccurate expressions. In this article we examine the commonly-used phrases “evolution is only a theory,” “the ladder of progress,” “missing links,” and “only the strong survive.”

These expressions are misleading at best, and simply wrong at worst. Most of these phrases have ancient roots, describing biology as it was understood centuries ago. They lead to a distorted picture of what evolution is and how it works.

Evolution Is Only a Theory

Have you ever heard people challenge evolution by claiming that “it’s only a theory?” The Cobb County School District in Georgia did just that when it sought to put stickers on high school biology textbooks stating that, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origins of living things.” [1] The problem with this claim rests with two different uses of the word theory. In popular usage the word refers to an unsubstantiated guess or assumption, as when someone theorizes that a light moving across the night sky must be an alien spaceship. When scientists use the word theory, however, they're referring to a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts. [2] In this sense the theory of evolution is as well supported as the theory of gravitation or other explanatory models in fields such as chemistry or physics. While it’s true that much of the evidence for evolution is not obtained by laboratory experiments, as in chemistry and physics, the same can also be said for geology and cosmology.

A geologist cannot travel back in time to observe first hand the formation of Earth’s crust, and a cosmologist cannot witness the collapsing of a star into a black hole, but this doesn't mean that scientific theories about the nature of these phenomena are simply unsubstantiated guesses. Some scientific theories do a better job of accounting for the facts than others, and in biology there is no competing scientific theory with more explanatory power than evolution. Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky put it best when he said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Many people confuse evolutionary theory with Lamarckism, named for the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). In one sense Lamarck was an evolutionist in that he favored the view that new species had evolved from ancestral species, but he was mistaken about the mechanism by which species change, and about the time required for these changes. Lamarck thought that the mechanism for biological change was the transmission to the next generation of characteristics acquired during the life span of an individual. His most famous example is that of the giraffe. According to Lamarck, the giraffe’s ancestors had shorter necks, and they would stretch their necks to reach higher foliage in trees. Their descendants then inherited longer necks because the characteristics of these newly stretched necks of the parents were passed down to their offspring. Moreover, Lamarck thought that the evolution of a new species could occur within a few generations or even one. His position was reasonable for its time, yet it happens to be incorrect.

But acquired characteristics are not passed on. [3] If you lose your arm in an accident, your offspring will not be born with a missing arm. If you lift weights to gain muscle mass, you will not transmit larger muscles to your offspring. Jews have been practicing circumcision for hundreds of generations, yet there is no evidence that this acquired feature is biologically inherited.

The position of modern evolutionary theory (Neo-Darwinism [4]) is that some ancestors of giraffes acquired slightly longer necks through random mutation. These animals could eat food that was a little out of reach of others of their species, and so they tended to be healthier, to live longer, and have a better chance than their fellows at mating and passing on to the next generation their genes for longer necks. Many such incremental changes over a long period of time are required for a new species-or a neck as long as a giraffe’s-to arise.

The evolution of giraffes or other life forms should not be thought of as a singular process. There are at least three independent processes that, when taken together, form our idea of evolution. These are replication, variation, and selection. Replication is essentially reproduction. Variation refers to the random changes-typically mutations-arising in offspring, making them different from their parents. Selection refers to the process whereby those individuals best adapted to their environment tend to be the ones that survive, passing on their genes. These three processes occur every day in nature, and it is their cumulative effect that we call evolution.

If an entirely new scientific theory with more explanatory power is formulated, then Neo-Darwinism will have to be swept aside just as Lamarckism was. Creationism and Intelligent Design don't qualify as competing scientific theories because they're not scientific. They don't offer natural explanations for biological phenomena, but rather supernatural explanations which cannot be tested scientifically. Neo-Darwinism offers a natural explanation to account for the facts of evolution, and rejects supernatural explanations.

When discussing the theory of evolution it’s important to realize why it’s misleading to say that evolution is only a theory. Evolution is indeed a theory, but it’s a theory with a lot of evidence on its side, and with more explanatory power than any competing theory in biology.

The Ladder of Progress

The word evolution is sometimes used to mean progress. People speak of moral evolution when discussing certain cultural changes that have been for the better, such as the increased recognition of the rights of women. Or they speak of technological evolution when comparing present-day technology with that of ancient hunter-gatherers. This sense of the word evolution implies a progressive development toward better or more advanced stages. It is this non-biological sense of evolution that influences people to think of biological evolution as involving ladder-like progress from lower to higher stages.

The idea of an evolutionary ladder of progress has its roots in Classical Greek and Medieval European concepts about the nature of the universe. The most common manifestation is known as the Great Chain of Being, which was most influential in Europe from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries. The basic idea of the Great Chain of Being is that God and his creation form a hierarchy which is ordered from the least perfect things or beings at the bottom of the chain to the most perfect at the top, namely, God himself. Simply put, the ranking from bottom to top is as follows: rocks or minerals, plants, animals, man, angels, God.

The Great Chain of Being scheme wasn't designed with evolution in mind since the prevailing idea of the time was that God made all existing species, in their modern forms, long ago. The Great Chain of Being is best described as a method of classification. This idea began to lose support before the Darwinian revolution, but Darwin’s ideas and their refinement ultimately broke the links of the Great Chain of Being.

The modern biological understanding of evolution does not involve progress in the sense of a natural upward goal toward which life is striving. [5] Genetic mutations arise randomly.

A study of the DNA of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands (Petren et al. 1999) provides a good example of why the idea of progress makes no sense in evolution. The study’s findings suggest that the first finches to arrive on the islands were the Warbler finches (Certhidea olivacea), whose pointy beaks made them good insect eaters. A number of other finches evolved later from the Warbler finches. One of these is the Geospiza ground finch, whose broad beak is good for crushing seeds, and another is the Camarhynchus tree finch with its blunt beak which is well adapted for tearing vegetation.

Even though the seed-eating and vegetation-eating finches evolved from insect-eating finches, the former are not “more evolved” than the latter, or “higher” on some evolutionary ladder. Since finch evolution on the Galapagos Islands was driven primarily by diet, the ground finches simply became better adapted at making a living on seeds, the tree finches on vegetation, and the Warbler finches on insects.

If seeds were to become scarce on the Galapagos Islands, it’s conceivable that the seed-eating finches-which are a more recent species-could become extinct, while the insect-eating finches-which have been around much longer-would continue to thrive. The concepts of “higher” and “lower” do not apply to the Galapagos finches or anywhere else in evolution. It is fitness or adaptability relative to the environment that matters. Species cannot foretell the future in order to adapt themselves deliberately to environmental changes, and if the environment changes drastically, those adaptations that were once favorable may turn out to be unfavorable.

Even though biologists reject the Great Chain of Being or any similar ladder-of-progress explanation of evolution, the idea still persists in popular culture. A more accurate analogy would be that of a bush that branches in many directions. If we think of evolution over time in this way, we're less likely to be confused by notions of progress because the branches of a bush can grow in various directions in three dimensions, and new branches can sprout off of older branches without implying that those farther from the trunk are better or more advanced than those closer to the trunk. A more recent branch that has split off from an earlier branch-like a species that has evolved from an ancestral species-does not indicate greater progress or advancement. Rather, it is simply a new and different growth on the bush, or more specifically, a new species that is sufficiently adapted to its environment to survive.

The Missing Link

“Fossils May be Humans’ Missing Link” reported the Washington Post on April 22, 1999. The story states that fossils discovered in Ethiopia “. . . may well be the long-sought immediate predecessor of human beings.” But almost fifty years earlier, paleontologist Robert Broom published Finding the Missing Link (1950), about his discovery of fossil “ape men” in South African caves. And since 1950, reports of the discovery of “missing links” have been continuous. What’s going on? How is it that the “missing link” has been discovered repeatedly?

The problem lies in a false metaphor. When we say “missing link,” we invoke a metaphorical chain, a set of links that stretch far back in time. Each link represents a single species, a single variety of life. Because each link is connected to two other links, each is intimately connected to past and future forms. Break one link, and the pieces of the chain can be separated, and relationships lost. But find a lost link, and you can rebuild the chain, reconnect separated lengths. One potent reason for the attractiveness of this metaphor is that it allows for the drama of the quest, the search for that elusive missing link.

But the metaphor is as misleading as it is attractive. The concept that each species is a link in a great chain of life forms was largely developed in the typological age of biology, when species “fixity” (the idea that species were unchanging) was the dominant paradigm. Both John Ray (1627-1705) and Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1797), the architects of biological classification (neither of whom believed in evolution), were concerned with describing the order of living species, an order they each believed was laid out by God (Ray suggested that the divinely specified function of biting insects was to plague the wicked). But while the links of a chain are discrete, unchanging, and easily defined, groups of life forms are not. [6] We generally define a species as some interbreeding group that cannot, or does not, productively breed with another group. But since species are not fixed (they change through time), it can be difficult to be sure where one species ends and another begins. For these reasons, many modern biologists prefer a continuum metaphor, in which shades of one life form grade into another. [7] Life is not arranged as links, but as shades. The metaphorical chain is far less substantial than it sounds.

Thus the chain metaphor is wrong. It doesn't accurately represent biology as we know it today, but as it was understood over four centuries ago. The myth persists because of convenience; it is easier to think of species as types, with discrete qualities, than as grades between one species and another. In school, we learn the specific characteristics of plants and animals; this alone is not a problem, except that we are not often exposed to the main ramification of evolution: that those characteristics will change through time.

Clearly, both the Post article and Broom’s book describe the discovery of australopithecenes, African hominids [8] that lived well over three million years ago. Australopithecenes walked upright, like modern humans, but they had large, chimp-like teeth, and smallish, chimp-like brains. Australopithecenes made rudimentary stone tools that are more complex than any chimpanzee’s termite-mound probe stick, but far less complex than the symmetrical tools made by early members of our genus, Homo. In terms of anatomy and behavior, some australopithecenes really do appear to be “half human.” Additionally, it’s widely believed that early Homo descended from some variety of late australopithecene. Broom was right after all, but so was the Post; a “missing link” has indeed been found. It is Australopithecus. But there were many varieties of Australopithecus, as well as Homo, and there is no obvious place to draw a discrete line separating a shade of late Australopithecus from an early grade of Homo. Therefore, it’s more accurate to say that we have found some “grade” or “shade,” rather than “the missing link.” [9]

We can curb the false metaphor by changing our wording. In classes, in textbooks, in discussions with our students, and in press releases (the critical connection between academia and the general public), we have to start saying that we're looking for a missing link, rather than the missing link. Better yet, we should replace the “missing link” stock phrase with something more accurate.

Only the Strong Survive

Around a million years ago, an ape so large that it’s now known as Gigantopithecus roamed the bamboo forests of South Asia. Standing nine feet tall, weighing from 600 to 1,000 pounds, and with a bamboo-crushing jaw the size of a mailbox, this was a truly strong creature. But today, all that remains of Gigantopithecus are a few fossil teeth and jawbones, quietly resting in museum vaults.

If only the strong survive, how did early Homo-protohuman bipeds that were in the same area at the same time, and were less than half the size of Gigantopithecus-survive? Wouldn't any clash between these creatures result in the strapping Über-ape annihilating the competition?

Yesterday’s giants can be today’s museum specimens. If only the strong survive, though, how is this possible? Indeed, how is it that humans are now ascendant on Earth, but, when stripped of tools and culture, we are among the most helpless of animals?

The answer, of course, is that strength can be measured in many ways. Brawn is one measure; brain is another. But this distinction is often lost in popular culture. When we say “the strong,” or even “the fittest,” most people immediately think of competition between individuals. These individuals, we imagine, are pitted against one another in some evolutionary arena, where they fight for survival and mates. The strongest survive, pass on their genes, and propagate their lineage. The loser, and its entire lineage, goes extinct.

But this notion of single combat in a single arena of competition is too simple. In reality, there are dozens of arenas, dozens of problems any organism must face in life. Perhaps direct competition with other individuals is one, but every day individuals are kicked from one arena to the next. If the river dries up, you're now in the Arena of Water Conservation. If the temperature suddenly drops, you're pushed into the Arena of Heat Conservation. If the properties of the vegetation you eat begin to change, you're now in the Arena of Metabolic Versatility.

In short, survival is much more complex than is implied by the single-arena concept of combat between individuals. Life forms struggle against a wide array of factors, and often against more than one factor at a time. In biology, these factors are known as selective pressures.

Selective pressures also change. A certain selective pressure can be particularly hard-pressing for a period, shaping the course of evolution, but later that pressure may ease, and another concern becomes primary. And since the environment is always changing, no species can ever be sure what selective pressures it will have to cope with tomorrow. Indeed, such conscious anticipation of the future is precluded for most species (could deer have anticipated the invention of guns?), and evolution is entirely reactive, shaping species according to past and present environments, but never “looking” into the future. [10]

We humans, and all life forms, exist and struggle not in any single arena, but in an immense web of selective pressures that is incomprehensibly complex and ever-changing. Survival is much more involved than simply beating down your immediate peers.

Why does the single-combatant, evolutionary arena myth persist? The answer is probably deeply intertwined with renaissance values of individualism too complex to examine here [11] but it is clearly related to nineteenth-century Social Darwinism. Social Darwinists grafted Darwin’s basic ideas about biological evolution to human society and economy. To them, progress could only be made by eliminating imperfections from humanity, and this was best done by competition. That competition, neatly summarized by Herbert Spencer’s term “survival of the fittest,” was taken to mean the competition between individuals. It is significant that today’s reality-TV programs are steeped in this metaphor, in which the concept of survival via ruthless individual competition is paramount.

The best way to curb this myth is to teach that brute strength does not guarantee long-term success. In fact, no single characteristic does. More importantly, we need to describe why there is no single key to long-term success, because we never know how our selective environment is going to change. For humanity, then, the only hope for success, for survival, is in remaining flexible and adaptive. Real strength is in adaptability, which comes from genetic and cognitive variation.

Conclusion

A picture of evolution based on the common myths we've outlined is a mosaic of confusion. It’s very important to remedy this confusion, because how we think of ourselves, and every other species on Earth, is directly related to how we understand evolution. We can either see ourselves as separated from a natural world that simply serves as a theater for our evolution,12 or as one of many coevolving species of life on Earth. The former view is more likely to persist if we continue to describe evolution using obsolete or faulty expressions. The latter view, which is accurate, will be promoted by a better use of language, and by acknowledging what we have learned about biology in the past 150 years. [13]

Solutions for conveying this accurate view must include more careful use of language and metaphor to explain exactly what evolution is, and how it happens.

Notes

1. The entire disclaimer reads: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” This led to a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County School District. On January 13, 2005, a federal judge found this policy unconstitutional.
2. See, for example, “What’s Wrong with 'Theory not Fact' Resolutions.” National Center for Science Education. 7 December 2000. Available here.
3. However, a recent study on fruitflies suggests that some genetic instructions that are not encoded in the DNA may be passed on to offspring by way of material encompassing the DNA (Lin et al. 2004).
4. Developed in the 1930s, Neo-Darwinism (also called the Modern Synthesis) integrates Darwin’s theory of natural selection with the theory of genetic inheritance first proposed by Gregor Mendel and subsequently refined by later biologists.
5. Biologists disagree about whether there is an evolutionary tendency toward complexity, primarily because there is no consensus on how complexity should be defined and measured.
6. The species concept is introduced in Strickberger (1985:747-756), but also see Mallet (1995) for the need to review how we define species.
7. Lions and tigers once coexisted naturally in India, and although they are outwardly very different, they can mate to create tigons or ligers. Since such hybrids were never found in nature, however, it is known that lion and tiger did not interbreed naturally. Thus, genetically, lion and tiger can be classified as one species, but behaviorally, they differed enough to be considered separate species by biologists, and in nature this difference was maintained by the animals themselves (Wilson 1977:7).
8. Hominids are large primates that walk upright. Those of the genus Australopithecus (which predate the human lineage Homo) are referred to as australopithecenes. They appear over 4 million years ago. Many hominid varieties have existed, but Homo sapiens sapiens is the only living hominid.
9. The link metaphor also suggests that any given species is represented by only one chain, as when we see a diagram of hominids, first knuckle-walking, then hunched over in a half-stand, then upright as modern man. This depiction does not show several other bipedal hominid varieties to which we are related, such as the robust australopithecenes (appearing over 4 million years ago, disappearing about 1 million years ago) or the Neanderthals (who appear around 300,000 years ago and are extinct by c.30,000 years ago). The depiction suggests that there was one, unbroken chain, from quadruped to biped, but actually there have been bipeds that have gone extinct (as well as quadrupeds that exist today).
10. Humanity, of course, is uniquely proactive. We can imagine the future, and we prepare for it by controlling our evolution with all sorts of social and biological methods. Social methods include complex kinship and marriage rules that ensure gene flow among different populations. Biological methods include mass vaccination programs against polio and smallpox.
11. See for example Shanahan (2004), an interesting comment in Commager (1965:82-83), and Butterfield (1965:222-246).
12. We suggest that this view of humanity contributes to wasteful use of resources; for example, humanity has chronically overfished nearly every fishery ever discovered; see Jackson et al. (2001).
13. It’s not sufficient to constantly explain away old, inaccurate expressions: we must develop new ones. What is the use in keeping old metaphors or phrases that do not point to reality? For example, we may say “The Bush of Evolution” or “The Labyrinth of Evolution,' rather than 'The Ladder of Evolution.” A good way to find such new metaphors may be to create a Web site where anyone could suggest them, and, after a time, select new ones to start incorporating into our common speech. Perhaps poets, being familiar with the power of image and metaphor, could be helpful.

References

• Brooks, D.J. 2001. Substantial numbers of Americans continue to doubt evolution as explanation for origins of humans. The Gallup Organization. Available online here.
• Broom, R. 1950. Finding the Missing Link. London: Watts & Co.
• Butterfield, H. 1965. The Origins of Modern Science. New York: MacMillan.
• CBS News Polls. 2004. Creationism trumps evolution. CBSNEWS.com. Available online here.
• Commager, H.S. 1965. The Nature and Study of History. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books.
• Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1973. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher 35:125-129.
• Jackson, J., M. Kirby, W. Berger, K. Bjorndal, L. Botsford, et al. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 297:629-637.
• Lin, Q., Q. Chen, L. Lin, and J. Zhou. 2004. The Promoter Targeting Sequence mediates epigenetically heritable transcription memory. Genes & Development 18: 2639-2651.
• Mallet, J. 1995. A species definition for the modern synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:294-299.
• National Science Board. 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington, D.C. US Government Printing Office. Available online here.
• Petren, K., B.R. Grant, and P.R. Grant. 1999. A phylogeny of Darwin’s finches based on microsatellite DNA length variation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B266: 321-329.
• Shanahan, T. 2004. The Evolution of Darwinism: Selection, Adaptation and Progress in Evolutionary Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Strickberger, M.W. 1985. Genetics. New York: Macmillan.
• Suplee, C. 1999. Fossil find may be that of humans’ immediate predecessor. The Washington Post, April 23. pp. A3, A11.
• Wilson, E.O. 1977. Sociobiology. Harvard, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.