This video features a discussion with Erica, a science communicator who goes by the moniker "Gutsick Gibbon," about biological anthropology, human evolution, and her doctoral work. The conversation also touches upon the distinction between skepticism and denialism, the scientific process, and the impact of funding on research, using examples like COVID-19 and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) funding.
Here is the transcription of the video:
(0:00) I know. (0:00) >> Are you finishing up on it now? (0:03) >> I didn't finish the whole thing. I (0:04) didn't know it was two and a half hours (0:05) long. (0:06) >> Really? (0:07) >> I thought it was like 45 minutes. (0:09) >> It is if you go on 2.25x. (0:12) >> Oh, I can't comprehend it if I do that. (0:15) >> I barely comprehend it as it is. (0:17) >> So, you didn't get the you haven't read (0:19) through the handbook on the attire when (0:22) we do IRL (0:23) >> better than last time. This is what I'm (0:24) in a polo. What do you want? (0:27) >> It It's business professional. We're (0:29) professional podcasters. (0:30) >> Business professional. This is what I (0:31) wore at work all day. (0:33) >> That's not business professional. (0:35) >> I don't Okay. One, I don't know how to (0:36) tie tie. So that I We're out on that. Um (0:40) I mean I can put on a buttonup if you (0:42) want. (0:44) >> Did you send the Zoom link? She says, (0:47) >> "Oh god, like six of the people I had (0:49) demos with today." (0:57) >> Boom. (1:02) Okay, just send it to her. She never (1:04) responded to the calendar invite, so (1:05) maybe she doesn't do Google. Well, she's (1:07) on Gmail. (1:09) >> H. (1:11) So, we'll see. (1:13) >> We'll see. You look nice. (1:15) >> I mean, it's [ ] podcast trying to (1:17) professionalize this thing. (1:19) >> This is This is me. This is what you (1:21) get. (1:21) >> This is This is profession. This is (1:23) business professional. Katon, well, your (1:25) name's Katon. I have a I have a button (1:27) up right here in the closet if you want (1:28) me to put it on. (1:30) >> Or I can just take this off and wear my (1:31) arite polo. (1:32) >> Can you change your your name? (1:35) >> I'm going to do Mike Pro. (1:38) >> What do you want me to do? (1:38) >> You can do Lucas Dingleberry. (1:43) >> Uh, let me see. (1:47) I don't know if I can. Hold on. (1:52) >> Got it. (1:55) info. (1:57) >> How did you change it? (1:59) >> Uh, you just go to your name in the (2:01) participants and you click on more and (2:04) then rename. (2:05) >> Oh, yep. I see. Thank you. (2:12) How'd you find this person? (2:15) >> Uh, Erica. (2:16) >> Yeah, (2:17) >> we're friends. Oh, (2:23) >> and she's here. (2:26) Hold on a sec, guys. Can you hear me? (2:28) >> We sure can. (2:29) >> Trying to figure out my video here for a (2:31) second. All right. (2:35) I'm not sure why it's trying to dump my (2:37) video somewhere else. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. (2:39) Sweet. Excellent. Hey, how are you? (2:41) >> We're great. How are you? (2:43) >> I am doing well. Happy to be here. (2:46) >> Thanks for making the time to join us. I (2:48) appreciate it. (2:49) >> Of course. My pleasure. This is like my (2:51) bread and butter. I love talking about (2:52) this kind of thing. (2:54) Love it. Well, hopefully it'll be super (2:56) bready and buttery because Rick (2:58) unfortunately couldn't join us for this (2:59) and he was the one that's like the (3:01) kermagin. But we got Lucas here (3:04) >> and he's got some nonsense thoughts too. (3:06) Not to cast dispersions this early on (3:09) into the the conversation at all. But (3:11) I'll (3:12) >> I'll tell you what, if it goes well, (3:14) right? And like we have a good time and (3:16) whatever, next time Rick is on and and (3:18) wants to, you know, have a chat or if he (3:20) like watches this and he's like, "Oh, I (3:21) have whatever additional questions, we (3:24) can work something else out." (3:26) >> Wonderful. Fantastic. Well, that being (3:28) said, all you know, obviously edit and (3:30) all that fun stuff, so nobody's like, (3:31) "What the whatever." Um, but to kind of (3:35) set the stage here, I I gave you some (3:37) background on on myself and Lucas and (3:39) all that, but Lucas doesn't have much (3:40) background on you, so it' be good for (3:42) the listener to to know a little bit of (3:44) that. (3:44) >> Yeah, sure. I'd be happy to do that. So, (3:46) um, I do science communication online (3:48) under the moniker gutsick given. Uh, I (3:50) talk a lot about biological (3:52) anthropology. So, that's just the study (3:54) of human evolution. And I talk about (3:55) that usually because, you know, um, (3:58) there's constantly new information (3:59) coming out about it and I like to keep (4:01) people up to date on it. but also (4:02) because that's what my formal education (4:04) is in. So, I'm currently a fourth year (4:05) PhD candidate uh in biological (4:07) anthropology. So, I'm hoping to have the (4:09) doctorate by December. Realistically, I (4:12) I don't know if that will happen, but I (4:14) feel like if I tell myself that it's (4:15) going to, then I'll at least get close (4:17) by December. Um, I got my BSA in (4:20) pre-professional animal science, so I (4:22) was a on the preveterinary tract. I (4:24) worked as a veterinarian for as a (4:26) veterinary assistant, I should say, for (4:28) a while. And that job is is really hard (4:30) on like your heart and soul. I realized (4:32) I I couldn't do it long term. So I (4:33) pivoted and got my masters of research (4:35) in primate biology, behavior, and (4:37) conservation because I picked up minors (4:39) in biology and anthropology during my (4:40) undergraduate career. Uh and after that, (4:43) I decided I go ahead and get my my PhD (4:45) in the subject cuz I really enjoy it. (4:47) And currently I my my doctoral work is (4:49) on sexual dimmorphism in measene apes. (4:52) So apes that lived like 23 to like 5ish (4:56) million years ago. That's my background. (4:58) Um, oh, I guess I should say I spent a (5:00) lot of time online like formally (5:02) debunking creationism because (5:04) creationism is obviously um something (5:06) that runs up against what I what I teach (5:09) to my students and also what I what I (5:10) learn through the formal education (5:13) system. So, I I tend to try to take them (5:16) at their take them at face value, take (5:18) their claims at face value and explain (5:19) from the perspective of conventional (5:20) science why they don't hold any water. (5:23) Um, I try not to be super mean or (5:25) condescending when I'm doing that. I I (5:27) want to take them seriously because I (5:29) think I think all ideas deserve to be (5:30) taken seriously until proven otherwise. (5:32) So, that's that's where I'm coming. (5:34) Wonderful. Thank you for that (5:35) background. And we'll talk about the (5:37) your most latest video on like just (5:39) destroying this argument specifically (5:41) for creationism, which we don't have the (5:43) hour and a half to like go over exactly (5:45) what happened, but I want to use that as (5:47) an analogy. And for the the purposes of (5:49) this, too. Um, like I said, we don't (5:51) have Rick here necessarily, but there's (5:53) a theme that comes up in our podcast, (5:55) especially when we're talking to the (5:56) public at large, which is a uh kind of (5:59) equating skepticism with denialism, (6:02) right? Basically, um we we want there to (6:05) be endless you should be endlessly (6:07) entertained these different ideas that (6:08) we have whether it's uh whether vaccines (6:11) cause autism uh whether there's long (6:13) effects of COVID that we're unaware of (6:15) for whatever reason right now or taking (6:17) the boosters and whatnot um that we are (6:19) just not catching or studying or or (6:21) something like that. So, I'm going to (6:23) try to ask some of my questions in (6:25) parallel. And since Lucas didn't read (6:27) the manual uh for the podcast, which (6:29) says dress business professional to show (6:31) up to live interviews, I'm not sure what (6:34) he was planning on for this. What Lucas, (6:35) what did you have? (6:38) >> Uh I I'm I am here to to play my role as (6:42) not necessarily a creationist. (6:46) >> Okay, great. (6:47) >> But uh but a a lifelong Christian. So, (6:51) um, (6:51) >> hey, (6:52) >> not not, uh, you know, digging my feet (6:56) into the ground and defending my (6:57) position, but I want to learn. (7:00) >> Well, honestly, Lucas, we'll we'll get (7:01) along really well. I, um, one thing that (7:03) I what I that I try to emphasize on my (7:05) channel as much as possible is that (7:08) faith of every variety can be copathetic (7:10) with science of every variety. There's (7:12) absolutely no reason that these two (7:14) things have to clash. Uh, some of the (7:16) mentors that I've had in the field of (7:18) human evolution are Christian. you know, (7:20) they're Catholic, they're Protestant, (7:21) they're, you know, Buddhist, um they're (7:23) they're Hindu, they're Jewish. Like, (7:24) people come from this from all sorts of (7:26) different backgrounds. And I see no (7:27) reason why these two things have to (7:29) clash up against each other. This is (7:30) something that I get in trouble with (7:32) from, you know, the atheist side of (7:33) things from like my atheist friends (7:35) because they some of them are like, "Oh, (7:37) no, you know, like evolution beats the (7:38) crow, you know, destroys religion or (7:39) whatever." I don't hold to that opinion. (7:42) Um certainly I will hold I very proudly (7:44) and I think I can support this hold to (7:46) the opinion that that it debunks young (7:48) earth creationism or you know sort of (7:50) anti-evolution sentiment or or I would (7:52) even posit intelligent design from the (7:54) perspective of like you know evolution (7:56) necessitates like this active tinker or (7:58) whatever. But as far as like accepting (8:01) all science and and you know having to (8:02) reject religion or otherwise like (8:04) accepting religion having to reject (8:06) science I don't think that that that is (8:07) I think that's a false dichotomy. Hm. (8:10) >> Speaking of which, not at all a segue, (8:12) but something you said earlier. Your (8:14) your thesis is on sexual dimmorphism of (8:16) great apes. What does that what does (8:17) that (8:18) >> I wanted to dive in on that as well. (8:20) >> Yeah. So, um, yeah. So, you got to be (8:22) careful asking these kinds of questions. (8:24) So, Mike probably knows this because (8:25) he's seen my content, but I'm very (8:26) longwinded, so you guys got to just (8:27) interrupt me when I talk for too long. (8:29) >> We're good. (8:30) >> Yeah. So, I I study sexual dimmorphism. (8:32) So the the differences between males and (8:34) females in the apes that lived directly (8:37) prior to the split between the lineage (8:39) that eventually leads to humans and the (8:41) lineage that leads to chimpanzees and (8:43) bonobos. And the reason why this is an (8:45) interesting subject to me is because you (8:47) know one of the ways that we tell if an (8:49) ancient ape is on the human line of (8:50) things or on the chimpanzeee line of (8:52) things is on the size of the canine (8:54) teeth. So, you guys probably know this, (8:55) but like when a chimpanzeee yawns or a (8:57) gorilla yawns or like a a monkey really (8:59) of any kind like opens their mouth and (9:01) you can see their canines, their canines (9:02) are huge. I mean, they're like these (9:03) wickedly tall saber-like canine teeth. (9:06) And in in some species, but certainly (9:08) not all of them, they tend to be larger (9:09) in males because the males are using (9:11) them to beat the crap out of each other (9:12) for access to females. So, (9:14) >> with their teeth. (9:15) >> Yeah, with their teeth. (9:16) >> Yeah, they they rip at each other with (9:18) their teeth. I'll figure out this is (9:20) what the skull wall is for. Um, in the (9:23) case of like this (9:25) vervet monkey here, right, you can see (9:27) they've got these really impressive (9:28) canines here in the front that they use (9:30) to like bite the crap out of each other. (9:33) And they they're actually quite cool cuz (9:34) they're preolar, which is u this first (9:37) um preolar right behind the canine on (9:39) the bottom on the the mandibular third (9:41) preolar. It actually acts to keep that (9:45) upper canine sharp when they open and (9:47) close their mouths. So as they grow (9:48) through life, they can keep that weapon (9:50) handy in case they need to beat anybody (9:52) up. (9:53) >> When was the split, Erica? (9:55) >> About seven million years ago. (9:58) >> That's based off of looking at the (9:59) fossil record and looking at the (10:01) molecular clock, which basically looks (10:03) at the rate at which mutations (10:04) accumulate in the genome in two (10:06) different critters and estimates how (10:08) many mutations would have had to happen (10:09) before they converge on one another. You (10:11) can do this like with humans too to (10:13) recreate a pedigree or like a family (10:15) tree. (10:17) But anyways, (10:18) >> it's it's 7 million years ago. And let (10:21) me put on my hat. Was it always 7 (10:22) million years ago or did it revise over (10:25) time as we learn more? And doesn't that (10:26) disprove science? (10:28) >> Yeah. Yeah. That's so that's the thing (10:30) that drives me crazy as like a science (10:31) communicator because, you know, science (10:33) gets it wrong sometimes and that's (10:35) something that, you know, from the from (10:36) the science side of things, people need (10:38) to be willing to admit. Uh and I think (10:39) generally people do a pretty good job of (10:41) being like, "All right, you know, we we (10:42) we whiffed this one. We were wrong on (10:44) it." But at the same time, I think the (10:46) general public often times interprets (10:48) science as like this this rock solid (10:51) belief system, for lack of a better (10:53) word, that that doesn't change, that's (10:54) like immutable. That's not the case. In (10:57) fact, I argue from a perspective of (11:00) like, you know, when I teach my students (11:01) this because I teach like an intro bio (11:03) class. So, it's like it's sort of like (11:05) you can take my class as a core science (11:07) and then check it off your list. No (11:08) matter if you're getting a business (11:09) degree or communications or or, you (11:12) know, be your premed, it doesn't matter. (11:13) But like the the fact that science (11:16) changes when new information comes to (11:17) light is its greatest strength. That's (11:20) what makes it such a wonderful tool for (11:22) humans because it's capable of it's it (11:24) stands as this institution that's (11:26) capable of changing once we figure new (11:27) things out and we can go, "Oh, duh." You (11:29) know, we we didn't know this at the (11:31) time, but now we do. Um so I I find that (11:34) to be, you know, not a bug, but a (11:35) feature of of science as sort of um as a (11:36) way of knowing. But yeah, um, great (11:39) question about human when this split (11:41) occurred. For a while, it was it was a (11:43) range, right? So, the idea was it was (11:45) somewhere in between like seven and 13 (11:47) million years ago. That was based off of (11:50) the the looking at the fossil record and (11:52) trying to take things back, looking at (11:54) geological periods of really geological (11:55) epics of time. But when this really (11:58) changed is in like the 1970s when (12:00) genetics started really coming into its (12:02) own and we started being able to (12:04) sequence DNA at all um at the protein (12:05) level and then moving up to to full (12:08) sequences of genomes. And when the first (12:10) chimpanzeee sort of set of proteins and (12:12) the first human set of proteins were (12:14) were sequenced and laid side by side, (12:16) they're ridiculously similar, right? (12:19) Like they're they're way too similar to (12:21) be 13 million years apart to have 13 (12:22) million years of divergence. And as (12:24) we've continued to apply these mutation (12:26) rates to more and more sequences of the (12:28) genome and then eventually full genomes (12:30) and then eventually full genomes of (12:32) different individuals of different (12:34) species, we've realized that when you (12:35) take that molecular clock back in time, (12:37) that mutation rate, it lands right (12:39) around that 7 million year mark. So it (12:41) has it's I wouldn't I would say it's (12:44) changed, but not in the sense that it's (12:45) like it used to be this one thing and (12:47) now it's this completely different (12:48) thing. It used to be a range of dates (12:49) and now it's a much tighter range of (12:51) dates and that's probably going to (12:52) continue to tighten up even more as we (12:54) seek genomes more and more and also dig (12:56) up more fossils. (13:01) Gotcha. So, how would how would (13:03) institutional science react if there's (13:05) some new discovery which says actually (13:07) it's 6, you know, four million years ago (13:10) and we can date it to this specific (13:12) whatever. (13:13) >> Oh man, they'll fight about it. They'll (13:15) they'll fight like they'll fight like (13:16) crazy. The people who have been saying (13:18) one thing for so long will say no what (13:19) we couldn't have gotten it wrong this (13:20) whole time and the people who are saying (13:22) no our new thing is right will say ah (13:23) but you have to consider you know this (13:25) new methodology that we've applied and (13:26) these new fossils and you know this new (13:28) gene region that we're focusing on or (13:29) whatever and then eventually the dust (13:31) will settle and the people who are wrong (13:32) will go okay well maybe maybe we we (13:35) missed this one that's that's okay now (13:37) now we're a step closer to being right (13:38) than we were in the past um (13:41) >> that sounds like humans if I ever known (13:43) him (13:43) >> oh yeah oh yeah and it's like there's (13:46) there'scept ceptions to the rule, right? (13:47) I mean, we I see this all the time in in (13:50) my field where you've got people who (13:52) they just, you know, science will (13:53) advance one funeral at a time in some of (13:55) these specific areas cuz one guy, you (13:57) know, he's got like a pet hypothesis (13:59) that he's had his whole career and he (14:00) refuses to give it up. But usually (14:02) that's at the individual level. Science (14:05) sort of as a as an institution, whether (14:07) you like it or not, you know, what the (14:09) idea that's creating that's making (14:11) accurate predictions that come to (14:12) fruition is going to be the one that (14:13) becomes the consensus. uh that's going (14:15) to come to light sooner or later because (14:17) if there's one thing that'll get you (14:19) published easier than anything else, (14:21) it's disproving somebody else's idea. (14:25) >> So, when it comes to like let let me (14:27) give you an example of something that's (14:28) come up on the podcast that we've like, (14:29) oh this this is some evidence for how we (14:31) should be implicitly trustful of what (14:34) our scientist friends say. And like this (14:36) is in the context too of like it's let's (14:38) let's call it postcoid more or less but (14:40) like a lot of [ ] went bad and there's (14:43) genu genuine honest reasons why you (14:46) should be skeptical to to some degree (14:48) and I think we should differentiate (14:50) denialism and skepticism but that's for (14:52) a different day. Uh there's a there's a (14:55) John something or another John the (14:58) scientist right this is in the 1970s he (15:00) had this hypothesis like you're talking (15:01) about the hypothesis was sugar is the (15:04) underlying cause of all of these (15:06) ailments that we see people having and (15:09) we had uh in in industry and science (15:13) mixed together doing all of these (15:15) studies and and basically coming out and (15:17) saying sugar is the greatest thing that (15:19) you could have every meal of the of the (15:20) day right and we all know how that ends (15:23) right, is eventually John was proved (15:25) right and all these other, you know, (15:27) industry shills were proven wrong. So, (15:29) how do you differentiate when how do you (15:31) differentiate between those two things (15:32) of like there's there's a legitimate (15:34) reason to believe and be skeptical of (15:36) this thing versus this is a profit (15:39) driven uh you know, industry driven type (15:42) of science methodology behind it. Does (15:44) that make sense? (15:44) >> Yeah. Oh, completely. Yeah. And that's a (15:46) super important question, right? I mean, (15:47) step number one, if there's any profit (15:49) incentive behind it, you know, you're (15:51) going to put on your I'm going to take a (15:53) closer look glasses, right? Like (15:54) immediately, I think skepticism is more (15:56) First, I'll say this first. Skepticism (15:58) is always appropriate and skepticism is (16:00) always welcome in science, right? Like (16:01) you should always be skeptical when a (16:04) new idea comes to light until you've (16:05) gotten the chance to take a look at it (16:07) until other people who are, you know, (16:09) also experts in their given fields have (16:10) gotten a chance to get a look at it and (16:12) try to debunk it too. That's that's a (16:14) good thing. And I would say that more, (16:16) you know, more or less that's encouraged (16:17) in science. It's certainly encouraged in (16:18) my field. Um, but if you see a profit (16:22) motive there, that's for me at least, (16:24) that's really going to start checking (16:25) boxes in my mind where I'm like, okay, (16:27) so now now we need to see larger data (16:30) sets. We need to see specific hypotheses (16:33) like do some hypothesis testing, which (16:34) is basically when you say here's my idea (16:35) ahead of time. And then you run a bunch (16:37) of tests to see if your idea is (16:38) supported or denied. You look at the (16:40) funding, who's funding these these (16:42) specific discoveries. to look at (16:43) independent funding and make sure that (16:44) other people are also from these (16:46) independent agencies coming to the same (16:48) conclusion. Um, you know, we you (16:50) mentioned CO earlier and that's a (16:51
