Skip to content
NatureHQ

147 claims taken apart

Is that actually true?

A headline, a documentary, a post from a friend. These pages take a popular claim apart and show what the evidence really supports — including when the honest answer is that researchers do not agree.

Why so many corrections?

Because of what we choose to look at. A claim earns a page here when it is uncertain, exaggerated, endlessly repeated, or commonly misunderstood — nobody needs us to confirm that otters eat fish. So this collection is a set of claims picked for being wobbly, not a sample of everything people say about nature, and the mix of verdicts below says nothing about how often ordinary claims are right.

It holds up · 3

Things that turn out to be true

Some of the strangest things people repeat about nature are simply correct. These are the ones where the popular version and the evidence agree — occasionally with the research being the stranger of the two.

Nearly · 43

True, and then stretched

The biggest category, and the most useful one to understand. Something real sits underneath each of these and the retelling has pushed it past what was shown — usually by dropping the species it was found in, or the word "some".

Mostly supported

Did mitochondria used to be bacteria?

The ancestry is right and among the best-evidenced historical claims in biology. The present tense is not: most of the ancestral genes now sit in your nucleus, and a mitochondrion cannot live independently of the cell.

Where you may have met it: popular science writing and biology teachingRead on

Not settled · 11

Where the evidence has not landed yet

Early results, and live disagreements between specialists. Neither is a failure to answer: an honest "we do not know yet" is a destination, and rounding it up to something tidier is how confident nonsense gets made.

Early evidence

Do the barnacles on a whale do it any harm?

Nobody really knows, and the confidence of the textbook answer is the problem. Barnacles add drag and mass, and whether that costs a whale anything measurable has not been established for most species — "commensal" here means no effect has been looked for.

Where you may have met it: school biology and revision guidesRead on

It does not hold up · 90

Widely repeated, and wrong

Claims with no good evidence behind them, and claims whose words are defensible while the impression they leave is not. Several of these have been in circulation for a century.

Misleading

Are apex predators keystone species?

Sometimes, and it has to be shown rather than assumed. Keystone means an effect out of proportion to abundance — so a top predator that matters exactly as much as its numbers suggest is not one, and being at the top does not settle it.

Where you may have met it: conservation campaign materialRead on

What our verdicts mean

A verdict is a reading aid, not a score. “Disputed” and “early evidence” are legitimate destinations — we do not round a nuanced result up to something tidier.

Supported
Good evidence backs this, and specialists broadly agree.
Mostly supported
The core is right; the usual phrasing overstates part of it.
Early evidence
Real findings exist, but too few or too new to settle the question.
Disputed
Specialists actively disagree, and the disagreement is substantive.
Exaggerated
Something true sits underneath, stretched well past what was shown.
Misleading
The words are defensible; the impression they create is not.
Not supported
No good evidence supports this, or the evidence points the other way.