-
Evolution is a Fact and Dawkins Proves it! Sep 23, 2009 (290 of 344 found this helpful)
Usually authors will start out their writing careers making a general case on behalf of something, and then later deal with the specific objections as they arise. But not Richard Dawkins. As the leading prolific evolutionary author in our generation he finally got around to writing the book that many authors would've written first, this one. Since up until now he has not set forth the evidence for evolution as a whole, he calls this book "my missing link" in his chain of books, and it's long overdue.
Taking the title from the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, Dawkins begins by asking us to imagine what it would be like to be a European history teacher who is "continually faced with belligerent demands to give equal time" in his classes to Holocaust deniers. To him that would be what it's like to teach the scientific fact of evolution around the world, especially in America, where 40% of us deny that humans evolved from other animals and who claim instead we were all created as distinct species not more than 10,000 years ago. Just like the Holocaust deniers these people are "history-deniers" too. The antidote to that kind of ignorant thinking is this present work, which presents "the positive evidence that evolution is a fact" (p.6). Many bishops and theologians embrace evolution as a fact, even if some of them accept it begrudgingly.
Who is he trying to reach? The creationist "history-deniers" themselves, but more importantly those who find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case for evolution (p. 8).
He claims: "Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips...continue the list as long as desired...It didn't have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it." (pp. 8-9).
These are very large claims he's making. Are they justified? Yes, I think so. I challenge the creationists to place this comprehensively argued book, which is illustrated by many diagrams and glossy full colored pictures, next to what a few ancient superstitious people wrote in the Bible and see which one makes the most sense. My bet is that if believers are truly interested in the facts they will see evolution is indeed a fact.
Dawkins knows how to communicate, he knows where to begin his case with dog breeding, and he knows science. It's practically all here within the pages of this book. The reason why we don't see evolutionary change is because it takes place slowly over generations, but dog breeders can do it quickly and efficiently. "Every breed of dog," Dawkins writes, "from dachshund to Dalmatian, from boxer to borzoi, from poodle to Pekinese, from Great Dane to Chihuahua, has been caved, chiseled, kneaded, moulded, not literally as flesh and bone but in its gene pool....The relevance to natural evolution is that, although the selecting agent is man and not nature, the process is otherwise the same." (p. 34).
With regard to flowers, birds and insects make these changes rather than humans, naturally, not artificially, just like the wind did before them: "Hummingbird eyes, hawk-moth eyes, butterfly eyes, hoverfly eyes, bee eyes are critically cast over wild flowers, generation after generation, shaping them, colouring them, swelling them, patterning and stippling them, in almost exactly the same way as human eyes later did with our garden varieties;
-
A good book, but didn't live up to its subtitle Sep 29, 2009 (189 of 232 found this helpful)
This book is the latest among a long list of evolutionary texts by Dawkins. By his own admission, this book differs from his previous works. While his other books assume the truth of evolution, and thus, sought to answer specific and common criticisms against evolution (often espoused by creationists), this is the first time Dawkins has attempted to lay out the actual evidence for its acceptance by the scientific community.
His book was well written, articulated in a readable style, and quite enjoyable. In fact, I found it difficult to put the book down. Dawkins provides a good general view of why scientists accept evolution and a good case for the plausbility of natural selection as the vehicle for adaptive change. However, I do have some criticisms of his book, which prevented me from giving it 5 stars, especially if I view it from the mindset of a biblical literalist (a view I once shared many decades ago... and these are the people who need the most convincing).
My number one complaint is that he did not provide much in evidence, and where he did provide evidence it was short on detail. For instance, in Chapter 2, Dawkins mentions that all dog breeds are descended from the wolf. Similarly, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and other commonly distinct vegetables today are all descendants of the wild cabbage. While this might seem evident to the scientifically literate, if you don't accept evolution, you might need some convincing to show that this is true. But he doesn't provide evidence or even an explanation of how we know that dogs descended from wolves or broccoli from cabbage. He merely asserts this as evidence and then moves on to chapter 3, which concerns natural selction.
In chapter 3, he discusses flowers and insects (and birds) and presents this as evidence for evolution (specifically by natural selection). But he doesn't provide much explanation of how we know this to be true. For instance, why should we conclude that this arrangement between pollen producing flower and pollinating insect to be the result of co-evolution? How do we know that the pollen producing flower was not always the way it is and that the pollinating insect was not always the way it is and that these two merely "found" or discovered one another, in essence, falling into and exploiting a niche that was always present? [This might seem crazy, but this was actually used in an argument by a creationist]
Another criticism. He was careful to define the distinction between a scientific theory and a mere hypothesis or conjecture. Yet through much of the first few chapters of his book, he is short on evidence and long on speculation. For instance, he mentions the Heika japonica crab, with the resemblance of a samurai warrior on the back of its shell. While Carl Sagan states that this was the result of natural selection, Dawkins states it probably was not; it was likely coincidence. But this very case has often been cited as evidence for evolution (by selection). Is this evidence of evolution or not? And if not, then why is Dawkins' mentioning this in his book. If anything it calls into question how we determine that something is the result of evolution (and therefore qualified as evidence), as opposed to coincidence or something else? From this example, it seems almost arbitrary.
His review of the fossil record is compelling but rehashes the same information presented in other books. And he doesn't explain how we know that the discovered fossils represent a history of the same clad, as opposed to distinct, unrelated organisms. This is particularly important since we are often comparing fossils from different time periods, from different geographical locations, and don't have access to the entire skeletal remains (let alone genetic information) of the organisms that we are claiming are descended from one another. For example, how do we know that we aren't merely pattern seeking when we look
-
Dawkins does it again Sep 22, 2009 (105 of 137 found this helpful)
Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty, as Richard Dawkins notes in this marvelously titled book, the latest addition to his already impressive list of books on evolution.
Do we really need yet another "evidence for evolution" book? Well, yes we do. If only because of the alarmingly large number of educated people (especially in the United States) who hold virulent anti-evolution sentiments and prefer a supernatural, "intelligent design" explanation for the key questions in biology. But will the "history-deniers" read Dawkins? Leaving creationists and ID proponents aside, many people misunderstand evolution as a long chain of events that shape simple forms into more complex ones, rather than the branching and extinction of lineages. Therefore, open-minded readers should welcome yet another popular book on evolutionary biology, particularly if it has such a breadth and is so very well written as Dawkins'. As a teacher and communicator of science, Dawkins remains unsurpassed.
The "Greatest Show on Earth" is an ambitiously large survey of evolutionary biology; more than 400 pages (plus many color photos) one long argument for why evolution is a firmly-based scientific explanation, a fact. Even for those who accept the evidence for evolution, Dawkins' book is a stimulating and refreshing read; not least because of its conversational yet authorative tone (although Dawkins can't help but to lash out at religion here and there, it certainly is not an anti-religion book like "The God Delusion"). As one reviewer noted: if Charles Darwin would want to know how his theory had fared in the 21th century, this is the book he should read. My own first recommendation, however, would be Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. The latter book is equally well written and informative, but more concise and focused. What's more, Coyne is less polemical than Dawkins (BTW, Dawkins praises Coyne's book in his first chapter).
Dawkins covers the science in a rather standard fashion. The Galápagos islands, transitional fossils, embryology, artificial breeding, anatomy, etc., it's all there. Which is fine, of course. But those who are looking for a primer on the latest insights into evolutionary biology won't find it here. I would have liked to see more emphasis on the awesome power of molecular genetics in demonstrating evolution as an established fact. After all, the evidence in molecular biology is even more compelling than the fossil record (but, admittedly, more difficult to explain to lay persons). As an accompanying book, I would therefore recommend Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, which focuses on how DNA directs the evolutionary process.
I'm puzzled why Dawkins chose not to mention the new insights into the molecular evolution of the eye. He discussed eye evolution at length in "The Blind Watchmaker" - as did Darwin in "The Origin of Species" - and it remains a favorite topic of the ID crowd. But astounding genetic findings have revolutionized the eye evolution field: the animal eye, from fruitfly to man, was "invented" only once during evolution. Darwin would have been thrilled! Dawkins could have scored a strong point here. A missed opportunity.
That being said, one can only hope that this book will convert at least some creationists and ID advocates; that the scales will fall from their religious eyes. But I have my doubts. To quote biologist Tom Tregenza: The fact that Darwin's theory makes so many predictions, none of which has ever been falsified, makes it easy to make a further prediction: it is only a matter of time before the ID proponents make it a fundamental tenet of their ideology that the pattern of life has been made that way specifically to fool biologists. In which case, evolutionists can take comfort in knowing that the creator specifically ha
-
Takes up where Darwin leaves off Sep 22, 2009 (94 of 124 found this helpful)
Evolution is a fact, and this book will prove it, so says Dawkins in his new book. He also says that evolution is not taught in public schools because schools (the government) are fearful of being called "racist" because of the growing Muslim population in not only the United States, but other countries as well.
When Darwin gave us his Orgin of Species, there was far less evidence than we have now. That's what Dawkins presents us with in his book.
Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species.
Evolution, says Dawkins, is not a theory. It's a fact. Scientists can only "disprove" things, he says. They don't prove them. Evidence supports evolution, says Dawkins.
Dawkins begins his discussion with artificial selection and moves on to natural selection. He then discusses the time it takes for evolution to take place and how that is accomplished.
We don't notice the change known as evolution for the same reason we do not notice a child that we see daily grow and change into an adult. We only see the difference if we see the person as a child and then much later as an adult. So it is with evolution. The change in a species is gradual, quite slow, over a long period of time.
This is not a rehash of Darwin, although Darwin is discussed. But much was not known in Darwin's day. DNA, for example. Genes for another thing. Dawkins discusses this and explains the part these things play in the proof of evolution.
He describes how flowers came to look as they do. For example, he tells us how insects have an effect on the design of flowers. This is natural selection, according to Dawkins.
Dawkins has an interesting discussion of natural selection and artificial selection regards genetics. He discusses, among other species, the domestic dog. To illustrate, my big dog was bred specifically to be a herder. Unfortunately, all she has to herd are my two cats. But she does an excellent job of it. She also often nudges me behind my knees with her long nose to get me to go where I need to go. This is artificial selection breeding. This is what her ancestors were bred to do. And Dawkins addresses this quite well.
The dog was artificially bred from the wolf. It was domesticated. Each breed has a purpose. Some were bred to work, others to herd and yet others to maneuver in water. In much the same way, nature breeds her creatures. An interesting point Dawkins makes is that when a creature is gifted in one way, it must pay in another. For example, if a species has especially long legs and is a great, fast runner, it must pay in being slow or inept or less than normal in another area. Moreover, the extra long legs can more easily break than shorter legs. So nature, it would seem, is a great equalizer.
Dawkins does an excellent job of giving the reader a good background in evolution. He doesn't miss anything. He even discusses bacteria and fossils. If the reader will go into the book with an open mind, he can get an excellent understanding of what evolution actually is. The myths are disspelled.
The author tells the reader that is there were indeed an intelligent design, such a designer would have perfected the back and sinuses, for example. Both of these areas give most all humans misery. The reason is the way they're made --- not at all to do the job we need done with them.
For example, humans are not evolved from monkeys. Rather they had a common ancestor. Regardless of your beliefs, you at least should want to learn what evolution really is and base your opinions on the truth and not popular, but false, beliefs
-
I can't take it any more. Oct 5, 2009 (34 of 44 found this helpful)
If the statistics are true, half of my neighbors, not to mention half of my family, are idiots. I'm still not sure how someone could read this book (or others like it) and say, "I don't know, it just doesn't seem right. I think I like the Genesis explanation better." Look, I thought the creation story was true. At some point the cognitive dissonance clicks off and you wake up. For some it's early in life. Admittedly it took me until my 30s to see how stupid I was. Please, if you're on the fence, read it again. Or even better, move on to Dawkins' earlier book "The God Delusion." This is important. We'll wait. We want you to join the rational discourse. Crossing your arms and stomping your feet (and closing your mind) only reminds us how brainwashed religious people really are.
It seems science is always enlightening our understanding of the world we see. Astronomy takes over for Astrology. Chemistry takes over for Alchemy. Philosophy takes over for Religion. Or I suppose you could say Mathematics, Biology, Botany, Zoology, Physics, Medicine and Democracy takes over for Religion.
Dawkins is brilliant here, just as always. Buy the book if you haven't. Share it if you have.