Great story about making sure museums depict evolution correctly, led by Florida Museum of Natural History’s Bruce MacFadden: Evolution: A Changing Definition.
Based on their original research, Darwin, Marsh and Huxley all believed that the evolution of Equus teeth was evidence for orthogenetic –– or straight line –– evolution of the horse. In other words, they believed that one species would evolve into another, and then go extinct resulting in almost no overlap between species. “This is a really convenient way to look at it,†MacFadden said. “But it is simply untrue. It has been disproven.â€
In 1906, a paleontologist named J.W. Gidley discovered that there is in fact overlap between species, and that horse evolution is actually an example of branched tree evolution. His research was later confirmed by George Gaylord Simpson in 1950, and the current view on the evolution of horses has not changed significantly since then. “The question then becomes: if modern science tells us that horses are an example of branched evolution, why are some of the best and most popular museums in the United States still depicting them as orthogenetic in their exhibits?†MacFadden said. According to MacFadden, people spend only 10 percent of their lives recieving formal education, and the remainder of their lives amassing informal education, which includes visits to museums. “Over 50 million people visit the U.S. History Museum [in Washington D.C.] every year. These people trust museums to give them accurate, up to date information, and many museums just aren’t doing that,†he said.
