The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution Reviews

• Evolution is a Fact and Dawkins Proves it!

  
  By A17D8RDGKBZ5TX on 2009-09-23
  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; and with dogs, cows, cabbages and corn." (p. 52). And he asks us: "If so much evolutionary change can be achieved in just a few centuries or even decades, just think what might be achieved in ten or a hundred million years?" (p. 37).
  
  To believers who object that the earth isn't old enough Dawkins marshals overwhelming evidence that it is billions of years old, along with evidence piled upon still more evidence to show evolutionary development of life on earth is indeed the greatest show on earth, and he is clearly in awe of it.
  
  There are a few great books on evolution but this is a superior book long overdue by today's leading communicator of science. You should get it and think through it, especially if you're a "history-denier." Face the evidence and then change your beliefs. It's the intellectually honest thing to do. Then you too will thank Dawkins like so many of us have for his writing in these areas.
  
  ----------
  
  I'm the author of "Why I Became an Atheist," and the forthcoming edited book, "The Christian Delusion."
  
  

• Not quite the book I expected

  
  By ADK7VC7CROJVC on 2009-10-13
  As a biologist (and evolutionist), I am one of those who did not need to be convinced by this book. I am already there. So, I was at somewhat of a disadvantage in trying to estimate how this book might affect the average creationist and IDer. One problem is that creationists come in several stripes----and I don't mean the usual division of creationists into young-Earth vs old-Earth etc. I mean the professional creationists such as some clergy (including TV evangelists) and foundation employees etc with a financial or power stake in maintaining creationism vs some people who have an ignorant, but honest, attachment to creationism for what might be called religious reasons (in spite of Dawkins and everything else) vs the hard-core religionists who care not a whit about evidence and who think that "faith" is faith, no matter what the evidence against it. Dawkins probably will not reach the first and third of these groups. Whether he is able to reach the second remains to be seen. Those people with an ignorant but honest attachment to creationism are largely unlikely to read (much less buy) a book such as this. I am at somewhat of a loss to know who this book targets. The Hell-fire and Damnation preachers will just ignore it and go on preaching---they have too much of a good thing in power and money flow to give it up by becoming honest. Dawkins needs to target the mainline Christian clergy. But then, who goes to church to listen to sermons on evolution?
  As for the book itself, it took me a while to get used to the chatty style, mostly in first person, that characterizes Dawkin's later books. What Dawkins presents is only PART of "The Evidence for Evolution". He mentions once or twice that he had to jettison discussion on some point or another that would have added to the discussion (and to the length of the book). But if there is a lot of evidence, why not present all of it? He leaves out, for example, the embryologic evidence for skeletal homologies. Basically he only presents pictures of several skeletons and expects hard-core creationists to accept that bone X in a bat is homologous to bone X in a whale, etc. The creationist would say they these bones only appear to be homologous because are used in similar ways. Show the embryologic homologies and even the DNA evidence and the case is unassailable (to an honest mind). But Dawkins does not do this. Also, he does not present a detailed discussion of branchial arch homologies in fish and higher vertebrates. It may be mentioned (I don't recall), but a full discussion would have been unanswerable. Ditto for jaw and earbone homologies. Dawkins did not discuss retroviruses and missed a big opportunity there. Perhaps he thought that at some point he had reached overkill. I think the book is approximately a 90% effort, with too much good stuff left out.
  
  

• A good book, but didn't live up to its subtitle

  
  By A3ITYXVQ4YHU5J on 2009-09-29
  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 at Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Basilosaurus? Or Australopithecus and Homo? Moreover, he spends most of the chapter on human evolution explaining why paleontologists feud over the specific genus (or species) of particular fossils and why such arguments would be predicted under evolution precisely because they represent intermediates. But his explanation could've been condensed into 1 paragraph. It would've been far better if he spent the time to present more evidence among the mountains of evidence that are claimed to exist.
  
  His chapter, "You did it yourself in nine months", was spent explaining by analogy that matter is capable of self assembly from the bottom-up, rather than a top-down approach as espoused by creationists. He presents his hypothesis that this is possible via "local rules" and uses the analogies of the starling and origami as examples, but this is not evidence. In fact, while analogy can clarify and improve understanding, it does not constitute evidence. Dawkins forgets that the "local rules" are functioning from a template coded in our genome. Thus, can we truly say that it is the "local rules" that create the appearance of design when a recipe is necessary for determining these "local rules"? He needs to show that the genome is capable of self assembly by local rules and that a complex organism can be created from this base. While he implies that possibility during his discussion of viruses, he does not provide much detail. Thus, the reader is left unconvinced and with more questions. Thus, if you get to this point, you will have read 50% of the book and realize that much of the book has been devoted to explanation, speculation, hypotheses, and very few presentation of actual evidence. He uses computer models to illustrate or make his points. But once again, while these models may help explain concepts, they do not constitute evidence.
  
  The last few chapters of the book are better (beginning around page 285), but by this time he's likely to have lost most of his readers, that is, those who have not already accepted evolution prior to reading this book.
  
  My final criticism is in regard to his reference section. Most good books concerning scientific topics contain plenty of references to primary articles. But there are very few primary articles listed in this book. In fact, you'll find more scientific literature referenced in a pop diet book than here. And I am not joking! Go to a bookstore and look at the "Notes" section of Dawkins' book yourself. He does include a bibliography, but most of the entries represent secondary or tertiary sources. This doesn't mean the information is inaccurate, but it would've been nice to have citations to primary sources for those wanting to do further research.
  
  There are some experiments mentioned in the book (rather clever ones too), but given the fact that evolutionists are always touting the volumes of evidence (and not just from fossils) for the fact of evolution, I was disappointed to find that only a handful are mentioned in the book. As mentioned earlier, most of the book is either providing background information (about rudimentary chemistry or biology), providing explanation, or tearing down common creationist arguments or criticisms against evolution, rather than focusing on positive evidence favoring evolution. Moreover, Dawkins practically ignores the evidence from molecular biology and glosses over genetics.
  
  In short, Dawkins writes his book as if he is talking to a fellow evolutionist (preaching to the choir). But such a person does not need convincing or evidence of evolution. You can merely point or mention the "obvious" and expect the person to understand. You don't need to go into detail or explain much. On the other hand, if you do not accept evolution or require convincing, then you will likely find that Dawkins assumes too much and does not provide sufficient data or detail as to why evolution is the best explanation for the observations under discussion.
  
  Needless to say, I was disappointed with the book since it failed to live up to its subtitle - "The Evidence for Evolution". A more apt title would've been "The Plausbility of Evolution". He makes a good case for the reasonableness of evolution but does not provide much compelling evidence. If you are a creationist contemplating whether there is sufficient evidence for evolution, you will not be convinced by reading this book. Two far superior books (that provide better and more compelling evidence) can be found in "Why Evolution is True" and "Making of the Fittest". It isn't that Dawkins' book is bad; it provides sufficient information (on a high level) to be useful and entertaining, but don't expect it to arm you for a debate with a creationist or use it as a reference. And don't expect your creationist friend to read it and walk away a convert.
  
  
  

• I THOUGHT I didn't need another book on evolution, but was WRONG!

  
  By A27UE9HJRZ22YI on 2009-11-30
  About 20 years ago I started reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay collections. Then I discovered the work of Carl Zimmer and Neil Shubin and other evolutionary biologists. When this book came out I didn't intend to buy it as I have so many books on evolution and keep up with biology news. I went ahead and ordered it thinking that if there was nothing new in it I could always give it to a friend.
  
  What a surprise! This book is a great overview of the subject - including very recent fossil discoveries in China as well as the standard subjects - radioactive dating, fossils, DNA evidence, etc. Somewhere along the way I had forgotten how the radioactive dating clock starts and Dawkins gives a very lucid explanation that will stay with me now. He also references other good books such as Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" and Coyne's "Why Evolution is True."
  
  If you aren't teaching biology or natural history, this is a good refresher that will doubtless have some new info that you will find intriguing. If you don't know much about evolution and natural selection this book is the best one out there for an overview.
  
  I'll be keeping this book.
  
  

• Great tutorial on evolution, however there are superior arguments

  
  By AI9ZL7F6SS3KO on 2009-11-19
  Given the plethora of evolution books published recently, I argue it's imperative to consider this book's worthiness against these other recent publications.
  
  Richard Dawkins' objective with TGSOE is to present his ". . . personal summary of the evidence that the `theory' of evolution is actually a fact - as incontrovertible a fact as any in science." [1st pg. of the Preface]. This appears to make this book an argument for evolution, especially considering the subtitle, "The Evidence for Evolution". This framing also matches exactly to the explicit motivation expressed by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne in his book, Why Evolution Is True.
  
  Having read both I'd recommend Coyne's book if one is looking for an optimal argument on why Science considers evolution a fact and why there are no remaining hypotheses able to challenge evolution as an explanatory model for the evidence or discredit the findings supportive of evolution. It's much more concise, sticks more closely to peer-accepted findings, is more transparent about hedging on explanations where confidence is not yet overwhelming, and presents its findings in a manner easier to understand to someone not well educated in biology.
  
  However, given that I think even the Coyne book falls short on its argument I also recommend molecular biologist Daniel Fairbanks' Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA to provide additional evidence contained within all of life's DNA that evolution is both true and convincingly falsifies all prior arguments made by creationists and intelligent design creationists. Coyne makes an arguable assertion on why he didn't include a specific chapter on the evidence in our DNA though he weaves it into other chapters; I think that missing chapter is why Coyne's book is not a masterpiece. I'll post the link to his argument in the comments section of this review.
  
  What I like about TGSOE and why I still recommend purchasing it is Dawkins' skill as a teacher. I quickly left by the wayside that this book was an argument and instead treated it as a tutorial. What I especially liked about Dawkins' book which makes for a poor argument but a great tutorial is his use of analogies and thinking exercises. Dawkins provides examples not merely because they provide devastating arguments for evolution, but instead because they are teachable moments. His reporting on the guppy and the Lenski experiments were as effective as any of Coyne's examples as arguments. However, Dawkins' distinguishes himself in providing examples that allow the stories and principles to resonate well after having read them. He asks questions, and guides us to how the evidence answers those questions. This makes for a lengthier book than Coyne's, but also helps reinforce the topical matter. The numerous photographs in the book also helped reinforce his examples and were an unexpected surprise.
  
  An example of a powerful teaching moment was that Dawkins starts with how hominids acted as an agent to evolve wolves into an astonishingly broad collection of domestic dog breeds in the blink of evolutionary time. At first I thought this was too simplistic; I was wrong. Dawkins' builds on that reportage by then showing how plants and animals' dependent on those plants each act as agents causing the other to evolve. This eases the beginner (which I'm not though I'm also not an expert) into better appreciating how natural selection works. This initial primer on natural selection is not where it ends, instead Dawkins' excels at teaching natural selection from several aspects in a manner that optimizes retention of the principles discovered and the evidence falsifies other proposed mechanisms. Given the fact this makes for a bigger book than Coyne's, Dawkins' book is superior at taking on topics at a more advanced level. Dawkins begins at an even more elementary level than Coyne does, but then uses chapter after chapter to build upon what was learned in the previous chapter to flesh-out our understanding of evolutionary topics, particularly natural selection, how the variation in our DNA provides a map to our ancestral heritage, and how an intelligent designer is a ludicrous notion once we've understand all the evidence collected to date which not only validates evolution but frequently falsifies the idea of a designer - where the score is an uncountable number of observations for Science to zero for design advocates (which is a primary reason they don't publish in relevant peer-reviewed journals).
  
  Where Dawkins' book suffers is related to his own personal musings. As a tutorial these musings are often but not always instructive. Science is significantly about what to research next given we certainly don't know everything. Dawkins' allows us a peek into where the research is heading. In fact, if you enjoy the chapter about evolutionary development, than I highly recommend adding to your knowledge in this area given it too provides overwhelming evidence for evolution while falsifying creationist/IDC notions, the classic is still biologist Sean B. Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. In addition, scientists as creative thinkers are often thought of as contradictory attributes when in fact it's a necessary element of framing your hypotheses or trying to create reasons to explain surprising data discoveries and then go off and attempt to validate these new notions. Science as a process actually yields more creativity than nearly all other thinking disciplines and Dawkins infers such in many of his musings.
  
  One weakness I found is that Dawkins speculates in areas where the science is already being conducted, e.g., group selection, and the math regarding the number of planets where life could exist. So why waste pages speculating with zero data when he could have instead reported where the efforts were to date and extrapolated from there? In addition Mr. Dawkins can be a somewhat sloppy writer if this were treated like an argument rather than a teacher teaching; opening up opportunities for creationists to dishonestly quote-mine him where he is a preferred target of theirs, e.g., "the fact of our own existence is almost too surprising to bear" on pg. 425 and his other extraordinary reflections not shared by many of his peers.
  
  Such rhetoric is sloppy because creationists often disingenuously attribute something one scientist states as personal opinion as that believed by all scientists. In a perfect world such intellectual dishonesty wouldn't occur and we wouldn't have to worry about how a great teacher's occasionally sloppy rhetoric is twisted to argue the opposite of what both the teacher and his discipline's adherents understand. So if you are a creationist looking to test your faith against what Science understands, the Coyne and Fairbanks' books are far sterner tests and provide less opportunities to avoid confronting the evidence that destroys that faith or at least requires modification if one is honest with oneself. If you want to actually learn and optimize the quality of the teaching where you forgive Dr. Dawkins occasionally lapsing into tangential topics, this book will resonate long after you've finished it and serve as a handy reference guide after your initial read.
  
  I gave the book four rather than five stars primarily because I think he needs to use more research assistants to better footnote his book to more of the evidence he's reporting. While I've encountered nearly all his examples prior to my reading his book and know he's accurate in his reporting (with the exception of his possibly extending the findings in the Lenski experiment), books on controversial subjects should go over-board in citations. He also should have provided more examples from other scientists than his own musings, coupled to his musings not adding much, e.g., I found his zeal for computer programs extraneous to a book serving as a general review of the state of evolution. This adds up to the fact he needs a sterner editor. Given his success in selling prior books, it's not a surprise he was given so much latitude - to a fault I think.
  
  If after the purchase of this book you remain excited about the topic and want to learn more, I recommend at least considering (I haven't read it yet but it's in my queue) getting Carl Zimmer's new book, The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. Mr. Zimmer is one of our most trusted and respected science writers and is a brilliant communicator of evolution both in his prior books, periodical articles, and his blog. Tangled Bank is a text book focusing strictly on teaching evolution.
  
  
  
• Dawkins does it again
  By A3KCE9GAXMZZ22 on 2009-09-22
  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 had THEM in mind at every step of the process.
  
  
  
  
  
• Another Excellent Explanation by Richard Dawkins
  By A3NZT07FZMVGRZ on 2009-09-26
  
  Many non-scientists, like me, have wondered, why do 99% of all scientists believe in evolution? Isn't it just a Theory? an opinion? How can the vote be so unanimous? 99% is a huge number.
  
  I have been told that there is no evidence for evolution, it is a theory just made up by people who are angry at God and that it is stupid that people came from monkeys.
  
  If you are like me and really want to understand the evidence for evolution honestly, and objectively, this is an excellent book.
  
  Richard Dawkins's ability to lucidly explain complicated scientific information to anyone willing to take the time to listen and understand is impressive.
  
  Once I started reading this book, I couldn't put it down.
  
  Based on the mountain of evidence presented in this book, I now understand that the people telling me that evolution is stupid must be completely unaware of the evidence. I am thinking of giving this book as a Christmas gift for the members of my family that believe that there is no evidence for evolution.
  
  
• Takes up where Darwin leaves off
  By ADVLRJS633OTD on 2009-09-22
  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.
  
  Highly recommended.
  
  - Susanna K. Hutcheson
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• I can't take it any more.
  By A3C2C92WT34CYI on 2009-10-05
  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.
  
  
• Make this one of your top five to read this year.
  By A3F5NFPJ5XTT2Q on 2009-11-24
  It is very sad that another book has to be written about such a subject, and yet I plan to read Jerry Coyne's book by the title "Why Evolution Is True," not just for the praise Dawkins gives it in this book, but because Coyne gets at least as much, if not more, praise for his effort on the same front. It is a tragedy that it is still difficult to convince people of the power of evolution by natural selection, but it is only so because so many people never bother to understand what is being propounded.
  
  I know...I was once one of the fundamentalist Christians that rejected it. All I had to go on was the canned anti-intellectual responses of the religious right. I see many of my former compatriots giving one-star reviews to this book without even reading it, but that is the way it is with that group. I realize that most people that accept it do so without understanding it, as well. That was something I could not do, so I did read "On the Origin of Species" by Darwin, and many other books and articles on the subject since then. The real tragedy is that most people, accepting the science or not, never even care to try to understand the amazing way we developed into so many species out of likely only one.
  
  Aside from having one of the most beautiful jackets I have ever seen, and some extraordinary color picture sections added for clarity, this book contains the following sections:
  
  1. Only a theory?
  2. Dogs, cows, and cabbages
  3. The primrose path to macro-evolution
  4. Silence and slow time
  5. Before our very eyes
  6. Missing link? What do you mean, 'missing'?
  7. Missing persons? Missing no longer
  8. You did it yourself in nine months
  9. The ark of the continents
  10. The tree of cousinship
  11. History written all over us
  12. Arms races and 'evolutionary theodicy'
  13. There is grandeur in this view of life
  
  Appendix: The history-deniers
  
  The appendix could be read before or after the book, and is a general overview of polls that have been taken in the U.S. and Europe regarding the beliefs of the general population with regard to evolution and creationism. Needless to say, it is depressing, but what do you expect when you're talking about polls of the general population? As he points out, about 20% of the general population think the earth goes around the sun in a month, clearly having no idea what a year is. I'm sure a percentage would still think the earth was flat if the question was put forward.
  
  I think most of the chapter headings speak for themselves. Chapter one discusses the nature of scientific theory, hypothesis, etc, because of the claim of so many that evolution is only a theory, forgetting all about little things such as gravitational theory, germ theory, etc. Chapter two and three slowly take us into the world of evolutionary change with examples we cannot deny. Chapter four discusses how we measure the age of the earth, strata, and fossils by means of geological clocks. Chapter five gives examples we can see in our lifetime, rather than just depending on the fossils of ages. Chapter six discusses the logical fallacy of missing links, while chapter seven goes specifically into transitional fossils within the human species. Chapter eight goes into the crucial subject of embryology, where most of the evolutionary changes to genes have the greatest effect. Chapter nine explains plate tectonics, formerly known as continental drift, and its importance to the spread of various early forms. Chapter ten discusses the common ancestry of all species, with many examples given of homologous structures. Chapter eleven covers the traces of historical evolutionary steps that can be seen in the modern forms that exist, such as vestigial organs. Chapter twelve talks about the pain and suffering inherent in the evolutionary view, and the problem that presents for many. Chapter thirteen goes deeply into Charles Darwin's famous quote at the end of "On the Origin of Species" and discusses it at length, breaking it up line by line.
  
  Here is that quote, which is one of the most beautiful quotes concerning life:
  
  "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
  
  There is another quote I would like to put down in this review, from the book being reviewed.
  
  "Information on how to handle the present so as to survive into the future is necessarily gleaned from the past." -- Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009, pg 406.
  
  I think this book should have been more carefully argued, and in much more detail, which is why I still think "On the Origin of Species," first edition, is one of the best books one can read, since Darwin was such a careful and precise thinker -- but for a modern perspective, one cannot do much better than combining Darwin's work with Dawkins' work.
  
  
• "The Evidence for Evolution"
  By A211GMNT1HY28Q on 2009-12-21
  I got interested in evolution because of my study of 19th century British intellectual history, which led me to Charles Darwin and the ramifications of his "Origin." Although my focus is the 19th century, I am always on the lookout for good books on evolutionary theory (and have reviewed several on Amazon), written for the non-scientist, and this is a very good and useful one. The author has engaged extensively in the "intelligent design" wars, but one thing I liked about this book is its more positive tone: what is the evidence for evolution? Not to say that Dawkins does not, from time to time, point out a fallacy in ID arguments, but that is not the primary goal of the book. In one 450 page treatment, the author covers about every conceivable point relating to evolution. Another bonus of the book is that Dawkins writes very well for the layman when discussing scientific terms, approaches, and studies. There was only one chapter (that dealing with how the human body develops from single cells) where I got a bit lost in his discussion.
  
  Darwins develops his evidence for evolution in an interesting fashion. First he talks about what a scientific "theory" is, since this is a frequent point of contention with those who dispute evolution. Next, he focuses on dogs and cows, and other domestic animals, to argue that the multiplicity of canine breeds (all derived from the wolf) demonstrates how man has employed evolution--the so-called "artificial evolution." Natural evolution takes place without human intervention, in nature, and is not controlled by anyone or anything. An interesting chapter is devoted to methods of dating rocks and embedded fossils. Moreover, the author contends there are such things as "living fossils (e.g., guppies).
  
  Dawkins rejects any suggestions that the fossil record is incomplete. In fact, he says we don't even need fossils to verify evolution; in any regard, more are being discoved all the time. Nor is there a human "missing" link, as he discusses the extensive human fossil record--quite a thorough but compact discussion with superb illustrations. The importance of tectonic plates and isolation is the subject of another chapter. Two later chapters I found particularly interesting: one on the vestiges of prior evolutionary stages left in animal and human bodies; the second on what Dawkins refers to as the "arms race"--how animals are in competition to survive and develop biologic weapons as part of the "survival of the fittest." The book includes extensive illustrations, including 32 pages of helpful full color illustrations: 6 pages of notes; and a 7-page bibliography (some of which sources are discussed in the text). An extremely helpful discussion of the topic by one of the best informed scientific students of evolution.
  
  
• An excellent book on evolution
  By A3CTYNRJ3M4FCY on 2009-12-21
  Richard Dawkins asks creationists, why are there no flatworm fossils? None at all if creationism is true. He asks, would they state that flatworms just popped up into existence today? No, of course they know that flatworms have existed (at least to them) for at least thousands of years. His point of this question, is that some species we know have existed for more then a day or a week don't make good fossils (such as flatworms) and so we don't have any or few fossils of them. That is why before the Cambrian era we see less fossils because the species that were alive then, because they were harder to fossilize then more modern animals. At most there are a few traces in the earth that suggest a flatworm.
  
  Dr. Dawkins mentions also that between any species such as homo erectus and homo sapien there is a flow of evolutionary rate. An anaology is that when is a man old and not middle age? Does he wake up one day old and last night was middle age? No, of course not, it is a contimum where you get older and older until the point is that you can't identify as middle age anymore. One day is too arbitary to make such a designation and there is virtually no change physically in age from one day to another. The same thing with species, there is evolution even within a species. Homo erectus evolved to a different gene pool over tens of thousands of years even while still homo erectus. We are evolving right now, in terms that the collective human genome pool is changing. It is just at a rate that isn't much noticeable to our eyes. So in reality, every species is a transitional form because no species is static in its' collective DNA.
  
  Dr. Dawkins explains radioactive dating and how radioactive dates are set such as when a crystal forms, by measuring its' half life. For example one can measure the ratio of potassium-40 vs. argon-40 and find the age of granite or basalt by the fact that it takes 1.26 billion years for 1/2 of potassium-40 to change into argon-40. Then another 1.26 billion years to change the remaining half of potassium-40 into argon-40. So on and so on onto no remaining potassium-40 is left. When the crystal formed there was no argon-40 so it is a very accurate clock.
  
  Dr. Dawkins also explains how the continents have moved and how the fact that this has dramatically effected the species that exist and where they exist, around the world today. For example, only in Madagascar are lemur primates native. Now, if evolution isn't true why would they only be found there? If they got off a big boat 5000 years ago, called Noah's Ark, wouldn't they be random througout the world? Did he tell them to all go to this island off the coast of Africa? How did they get to that island anyway? Africa would still be seperate from Madagascar even after the supposed flood. Did they build a raft? Did the kangaroos of Australia build a raft to Australia and go nowhere else? The fact that continents and big islands like Madagascar have moved show that species become seperate when these movements occur and that they lead to a group isolated from closely related species evolving. An analogy would be English settlers coming to America and the evolution of the American type accents from the British over the course of a few centuries. After isolation or relative isolation then accents and so species evolve or change to some degree from they come from.
  
  Dr. Dawkins writes about how if you take a rubber sheet and draw a chimpanzee skull or a baboon skull on it that it can be stretched or retracted to show a modern human skull. Or, take a human skull and make a chimpanzee skull. Or take a lobster and make a much different species of lobster. The point is, that the physical features of different species are only a matter of degree. One species might have a bigger forehead, or wider nose and that those differences built up over time and change in DNA between the species lead to our physical differences. Dr. Dawkins also asks why are there no feather on any non-birds? Why would a deity or designer limit himself in that way? Or, why don't any reptiles produce milk like mammals? Why would a deity limit himself in such a way? The answer of course is that only mammals produce milk is because mammals have a common mammalian ancestor that developed the ability to give milk to its' young. The reason only birds have feathers is that there was a common bird ancestor that had feathers. Both these features increased the odds of survival for individuals that had these traits, or natural selection in action.
  
  Dawkins asks why does the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe does not go straight to the larynx but make a weird circular route around the heart of the giraffe. In fact, it is not just giraffes that this happens but in all mammals. Why would a deity create such an inefficent design? The reason of course, is that just like many of the "unintelligently designed" physical features of not only humans but other animals, they were a product of non-planned traits that have evolved.
  
  Dr. Dawkins covers the 2nd law of thermodynamics (he is a jack of all sciences and just not biology) which to sum it up in layman's terms states that an external energy source is needed or organization breaks down. For example without an energy source life couldn't develop. Creationists say this creates the need of a deity. The problem with this, is that it seems they have never noticed that big round yellow ball in the sky that we call the sun. The earth isn't a closed system because we have the external energy source of the sun which supplies energy for plants to grow which animals then eat.
  
  Lastly, if evolution isn't true then why are there no homo erectus found with dinosaur bones? Why no 500 million year old amphibilians found with mammoths? The reason is because the fossil record is laid down when those species existed so it is expected they won't be random.
  
  I don't expect this book to convince hard core creationists. A deity himself coming down and telling them evolution isn't true wouldn't convince them, but I believe for those on the fence or not sure of evolution it will convince them that yes, evolution is true and it isn't the work of "evil atheist" scientists.
  
  
• More essential reading for people sceptical about evolution
  By A1IC683USUWHJR on 2009-12-20
  There were already 100 5-star reviews posted when I started writing this, and there seems little point in repeating the many valuable points they make. The most obvious comparison is with Jerry Coyne's book on the same theme, Why Evolution is True, which was published earlier in the year. Both books are excellent, and both need to be read by anyone interested in the subject. The ideal thing would be for them to be carefully read by people who doubt the reality of evolution but are genuinely interested in knowing the truth, if any such people exist. Rather to my surprise, I like Jerry Coyne's book the better of the two, primarily because he sticks more to the topic and doesn't wander off into side issues so readily as Dawkins. Still, read both!
  
  There are two points that both books make that are worth repeating even though others have already done so: the story of Tiktaalik (which I knew about already) and Richard Lenski's experiments breeding bacteria (which I didn't). Tiktaalik is important as an example of how evolutionary theory tells you where to look to find something no one has ever found before, but which ought to exist. Lenski's experiments are important as an illustration of how fast divergent evolution can proceed, even with cultures that are initially identical and are treated identically.
  
  Now I shall follow the same plan as I did with Coyne's book, looking through the 1- and 2-star reviews to see if they say anything worth discussing. Again, unfortunately, the answer is no, and anyone who thought the negative reviews of Coyne were inane should take a look at these. They only good thing about them is that they stimulated some very good comments, so if you read these reviews read the comments as well.
  
  One thing that appears to have particularly upset some of them is the idea that the evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, as they seem to think that this makes Dawkins a Holocaust-denier. Others seem to think they are reviewing The God Delusion, as they attack a position that is barely present at all in The Greatest Show on Earth: "This man claiming there is no God is crazy to me. First of all in order to come to a conclusion like that you would have to search out the universe". When challenged as to whether she had actually read the book, the reviewer admitted that her "review" was a review of the title: "I read the title of the book. I would give it a 0 stars but there is none. I never said I read the whole book anyways Christians are not perfect." I'm not sure what she found atheistic about the title. Probably someone told her about The God Delusion (which she probably didn't read either) and she got the two books confused. There are, of course, authors who always write the same book (Dan Brown springs to mind), but Richard Dawkins is not one of them.
  
  In fairness to her, she wasn't the only one to think the book was an atheist tract. We also have "His primary objective is to disprove the existence of God", "There is a special place reserved in Hell for Richard Dawkins. He does more to harm to obvious God created world than anyone since Darwin," as well as others who quite explicitly say "First, let me say I haven't read this book BUT ", or who think they are reviewing Amazon's efficiency for delivering books "I didn't receive the book until today, december 12, 2009, at 09:47 A.M. I have been waiting."
  
  I also looked through the 5-star reviews to see if I can find any evidence that Dawkins had reached his target audience, the sort of readers who don't believe in evolution but are willing to examine the evidence in an honest way. Unfortunately there is little suggestion of that. Apart from one strange review posted a week ago that seems to be intended as a parody, all of them were written by people who already accepted the reality that Dawkins was trying to demonstrate.
  
  
• Fills in all the gaps
  By A1SABOBSZNTTI6 on 2009-10-21
  The best part about this book was it answered any question I have ever though of about how evolution works and how we know what we know. I have been reading science/evolution books for over a year and was getting bored of reading the same things. This book is completely different, by not assuming the reader accepts the methods used to prove evolution, Dawkins goes through and explains just how we know what we know. I have never doubted the evidence for evolution, but I never looked into answers on the little questions about dating and DNA comparison.
  
  Aside from the context of the book the way in which it is written makes it an easy read. Dawkins interest and excitment over the topic is clear and makes it a joy to read. I would recommend this book to people who don't think evolution happened to those who accept it and just want to expand on that knowledge.
  
  
• The Best of the Best
  By A2PVY0WQQI1VAG on 2009-09-23
  Wow! Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution is awesome! Dawkins presents a well-organized and compelling case for the fact of physical, biological, and cultural evolution, and he writes for the general public in clear, understandable language. I predict this book will quickly become a classic. The last two paragraphs on page 426 brought me to tears.
  
  Religious leaders should pay special attention to pages 7 and 8 and thus heed Dawkins' warning:
  
  "All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely 'symbolic' meaning, perhaps something to do with 'originial sin', or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposedly to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody can be forgiven for feeling confused. ...
  
  "Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that's waiting to happen - one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn't you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? [my emphasis] Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn't you be going out of the way to counter the already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers?"
  
  As I shared in a recent podcast on my Great Story website: :"The New Atheists: Modern-Day Prophets", I see Richard paradoxically playing the role of a traditional prophet -- speaking boldly on behalf of what's real and what is emerging, and warning us that there are consequences if we continue to ignore (or fail to come into alignment with) reality.
  
  Bottom line: buy three copies of this book - one for yourself and two giveaway or loaner copies. You'll be glad you did, and the body of life will benefit accordingly.
  
  
• Excellent synopsis that should not have been needed
  By APIMA9AO6TV4S on 2009-11-08
  There have been a number of excellent reviews of the undeniable (but heavily denied) freight of evidence for evolution in recent years, so the question that may spring to mind is, "Why read this one?" Well, it cannot be denied (but will be) that the mere fact that Richard Dawkins himself wrote it will predispose many to read it. I do not want to discourage you from this as Dawkins is undeniably (but not according to some) the greatest populariser of evolutionary science alive today, perhaps of science per se. His writing merits attention. However, this book sells itself on its considerable merits.
  
  Before I seek to enumerate them, did anyone notice a theme of deniability running through that first paragraph? Well, it is not a coincidence, as this book owes a great deal to the incoming tide of science-denial that sadly made it necessary to write it. Dawkins opens and closes the book with passages on the prevalence of the denial of evolution, likening his position as an educator to a history teacher coping with persistent heckling by a minority who disrupt classes on antiquity to deny that the Romans existed, or classes on the Second World War with denial of the holocaust. I can only sympathise, as the thread of science denial is all too obvious today and increasingly makes it impossible to discuss science productively, whether evolution, fertility control and prophylaxis or anthropogenic warming. The willingness of a section of society to deny evolution is particularly damning as the weight of evidence which Dawkins sketches is truly prodigious, and in the age of cheap DNA sequencing is becoming a deluge. The position of Young Earth Creationism - frighteningly prevalent and becoming more so - is even more untenable as it seeks to impose a chronology that would require overturning almost all of the physical sciences.
  
  Dawkins wrote this book to fill a lacuna that he thought still to be open in his writing. He has written of gene selfishness and the mathematical basis for the neo-Darwinian synthesis, he has written a biography of our entire evolutionary history, he has written of the wonder of science and the blunder of theistic religion and creationism. He had not, to date, written a book reviewing the reasons why evolution is true, simply treating it as a priori fact. This book serves to correct that perceived deficiency and presents Dawkins' account of the evidence.
  
  The evidence comes from a range of lines of inquiry which Dawkins examines in turn. Taking a cue from Darwin, he devotes a chapter to sketching out the effects of artificial selection and the astonishing rapidity with which domestic animals have been squirted along developmental pathways in a few generations or tens of generations to yield results barely recognisable as the original species. He then addresses the notion of "Deep Time" and the dating methods and inferences which leave no question but that the time available for natural selection is not mere millennia but millions of millennia. (This evidence is crucial to the debate on young-Earth creationism, because to insist on a biblical timescale is not to reject evolution but to reject geology, cosmology, the physics of nuclear radiation and virtually all of the physical sciences.)
  
  He proceeds to examples of evolution happening "Before Our Eyes", of which there are now many, many documented examples. Particularly topical is the Lenski team's disciplined and inspired study over 20 years of cultures of E. coli bacteria, in which an audit trail of the population genetics was fixed every single day and evolution observed in vitro with a detailed record of its course. Many other field studies have demonstrated evolution outside the lab, and Dawkins enumerates some of these, including a study of a Podarcis lizard population in which changes in jaw and skull shape and the emergence of new structures in the intestines tracked a change to a more vegetarian diet.
  
  He then explodes the myth of the "missing" link, following up with a study of the specific links available in the recent lineage of our own species. There are now hundreds of hominin fossils and a rather continuous series of intermediates is known. Sufficiently so, in fact, that taxonomists are sometimes evenly split on which species to assign a specific subject to. Dawkins efficiently dispatches a number of misunderstandings about species and "gaps". Firstly, the record is in any case often far more contiguous than a creationist might wish. For many lineages, including our own, there is a tight series of intermediates documenting a transition. Secondly, gaps in the fossil record are in any case not a problem. The evidence for evolution is found in biogeography, phyletic mappings, homologies, atavisms and the endless flood of DNA sequences. In a criminal case with this much evidence, the emergence of a CCTV record of the crime in which the suspect happened to walk behind a wall a couple of times would not break the case. A complete fossil record is not to be expected - fossilisation is rare. They are just nice to have - and never, ever materially undermine the case for evolution by turning up in the wrong order. The fossils for the human lineage now form a series so continuous that taxonomists are split on whether to assign a specimen to H. sapiens or another hominin - just as you would expect from evolution. It is true that they always have a fully-formed species name, but that is not because of their characteristics but of those of human taxonomists with boxes to put things in. There is no such thing as a "fully-formed" species! Only fully-formed names. A complete fossil record would in fact be a huge headache as it would be one continuous series of intermediates and assigning species would be impossible. Taxonomy is only possible because of the gaps.
  
  Dawkins then deals with embryology, possibly the most interesting and productive area of biological research outside gene sequencing. Embryology imposes strong constraints and some direction on evolution which explain much of what we see. He moves on to the phenomenon of continental drift and the light it sheds on both biogeography and Deep Time. The slow march of tectonics has left its footprints not only on the strata of the continents but on their inhabitants, and the times of separation of the land masses make strong predictions about the relatedness of the lineages divided at that time. He then addresses phyletics and the various ways to quantify relatedness which independently generate consistent family trees for all of life. Then come the marks of the evolutionary chisel on the stone of life's edifice - the signs of an evolutionary history. Gill arches in the human embryo, the drunkard's walk of the vas deferens and facial and recurrent laryngeal nerves, the back-to-front design of the vertebrate eye with its botched curves and frequent downstream corrective factors - the marks of our past are all over us like Shubin's inner fish. Finally, Dawkins looks at arms races and the inefficient workings of ecosystems, condemned to waste by natural selection working without foresight.
  
  It is a tragedy that this book was necessary, but Dawkins states the case clearly. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, yet increasing numbers of the public remain distinctly whelmed. Like Dawkins, I attribute this to an organised effort to indoctrinate anti-science by churches and, in other fields such as anthropogenic warming, by well-funded ideologically pro-market advocacy groups. Dawkins confines himself to evolution in this book and he knows whereof he eloquently speaks. He sounds worried and frustrated and I don't blame him. The cacophony of science-denial is becoming deafening and I admire Dawkins for his reason and restraint shown in this book.
  
  The are several excellent works on the evidence for evolution currently available. Prothero's beautiful and magisterial survey of the same evidence covered here; Shubin's account of his discovery of Tiktaalik, Coyne's allegedly excellent survey - a little further down my list! None speak as clearly and engagingly as Dawkins to the layperson, who is the current master of explaining science to the non-scientist. For this reason I would encourage any lay reader interested in the case for evolution to read all these works, but to start here.
  
  
• An excellent, if overly polemical, explanation of the logic of evolutionary theory
  By A16QODENBJVUI1 on 2009-09-23
  I found this book somewhat frustrating. On the one hand, it is a brilliant and clear explanation of evolution and why it takes a huge failure in logic to deny its reality. (I write, by the way as a Christian. Like a huge number of religious individuals, as Dawkins notes, I see no necessary conflict between evolution and Christianity.) Dawkins frequently does a great job of explaining the logic of evolutionary theory and gives a good idea of the overwhelming amount of evidence -- on a number of different planes -- for its truth. On the other hand, Dawkins is a polemicist. It seems to be hardwired in his personality and he always chooses to write not only for the benefit of being understood but also to be in debate with someone. This combativeness does not mitigate the truth or accuracy of anything he writes, but it does give the book a certain tone that some might find off putting.
  
  At his best Dawkins does an extraordinary job of explaining clearly and eloquently. And I learned a great deal from his recounting. For instance, I was not really aware that the fossil record is not really important and played no role in the development of the theory of evolution. Neither Darwin nor Wallace based their theory on the fossil record nor have subsequent scientists. Dawkins brings this up in discussing those evolution deniers who point to a supposed gap in the fossil record as evidence against evolution. But Dawkins points out that since evolution was never based on the fossil record, this is no point against it; on the other hand, all of the fossil evidence as it currently exists provides overwhelming support to the theory. He also does a marvelous job of both explaining the logic of many ideas such as the rather silly "missing link" as well as what it means to say that panthers and rabbits both have predecessor species in common.
  
  As I said, a great deal of the book is polemical, but while I find the combative tone somewhat exasperating, it also provides a great deal of understanding. For instance, he points out that so many things in animal physiology do not point towards any kind of intelligent design; much design is quite unintelligent. The inefficiency of the human spine makes no sense from the standpoint of intelligent design, but makes a great deal of sense if you assume the reality of evolution. In other words, evolution can explain a host of vagaries in animals where intelligent design fails.
  
  I loved about 90% of this book but I was flabbergasted by one absolutely absurd assumption that Dawkins makes throughout. He repeatedly states that 40% of all Americans deny evolution and believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I know that there are many, many people who deny evolution, perhaps even the 40% that Dawkins cites. But it is simply and outrageously absurd to state that 40% believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It is a preposterous assumption. I grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas, raised in a Southern Baptist church. I grew up surrounded by fundamentalists and in fact could have been considered a fundamentalist myself until college. That college was a Southern Baptist college and I later spent a year in a Southern Baptist Seminary before pursuing graduate studies elsewhere. I served as a music director or a youth director in several Southern Baptist churches, though I later left the SBC after numerous gestures of utter stupidity by the denomination (such as declaring that women were to be subservient to men). In other words, I've known a host of fundamentalists and evangelicals, many of whom deny the reality of evolution. But in that entire time I've known only one person who believed that the earth was only six thousand years old. It is simply ridiculous to believe that 40% of all Americans believe the earth is that young and are therefore the "history deniers" that Dawkins writes so vociferously against.
  
  How did such an intelligent man as Dawkins get this so wrong? I'm not completely sure, but he does state a false modus ponens: either you believe in evolution or you deny it and also believe the world is only 6,000 years old. I am quite confident that his 40% figure as regards people who do not believe in evolution is correct, but I am implacably certain that assuming that the same 40% believe the earth is only a few thousand years old it complete bunk. How a man as smart as Dawkins could believe such an absurdity is beyond my capacity to explain. It is like believing in unicorns or centaurs. Now, I can grant that it may not be logical to believe in an old earth and to deny evolution, but I believe that this is nonetheless the situation with most evangelicals who deny evolution. Their position may not ultimately make sense, but it doesn't mean that they willingly embrace a larger absurdity. I'm sure more people believe that the earth is only 6,000 year old than believe that the earth is flat, but I am pretty confident that the number of people who so believe is closer to the number of flat-earthers than the 40% Dawkins cites. Evangelicals really don't believe in huge numbers in a young earth, even if many do deny evolution.
  
  All in all, I heartily recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand contemporary science more fully. It also does a good job of exposing - as if it needed further exposure - the baselessness of intelligent design. I do, in fact, unlike Dawkins, believe in God as creator of the universe. But that isn't what "intelligent design" holds. It is a name for a competing view of the fact of animals species that is intended as a competitor for evolution. The problem is that it really isn't a scientific theory. Evolution looks at the scientific data and draws conclusions from it. Intelligent design starts off with what it wants to conclude and then goes off looking for evidence. That simply is not the way science works. And as a Christian who believes that science makes sense because God created the universe with logical principles that we, as created in the image of god, can discover, I want to see my fellow Christians give up well-intended but ultimately un-Christian theories. God does not love untruth and Intelligent Design is no true. Dawkins would not agree with anything in this paragraph, but he does cite Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, and Pope Benedict as two people who would agree with what I've just written.
  
  On a side note, I bought my copy of this book in a Borders on a shelf that also displayed an audiobook version of the book. I was interested to see that it was read by both Dawkins and his wife Laila Ward. Fans of DOCTOR WHO may remember Laila Ward as Romana, the companion of the Fourth Doctor, played by Tom Baker, to whom she was briefly married (obviously, before she was married to Richard Dawkins).
  
  
• Everyone should read this!
  By A2T6BL6BILR9Z6 on 2009-10-21
  This book has such a great way of explaining the complex process of evolution in a easy to understand format. Dawkins is smart, but he keeps the language down to earth. Everyone should read this book, especially those who are still uncertain of evolution, but still have open minds. (Hardcore non-believers will not like it, and will therefore never except facts, no matter how obvious and proven they are!)
  
  
• Convincing and readable
  By AYPLYPLSK4A21 on 2010-02-09
  Famous evolutionary biologist and popular science writer Richard Dawkins FRS, FRSL has written this book as the crown upon his work. It finishes his work as Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a position he is now retiring from. All of Dawkins' books are known for their accessible style and engaging tone while at the same time maintaining a remarkably high level of scientific detail and precision, which is a feat not to be underestimated.
  
  This book, "The Greatest Show on Earth", is no exception to that rule. In it, Dawkins sets out to show the scientific evidence for evolution by means of natural selection, in as thorough and engaging a manner as possible. This might seem redundant based on his earlier works, but as he points out, this is not actually the case. In his prior publications, he had pointed to the effects of evolution on other modes of thought, the processes by which it works, and philosophized on its implications. He had however not yet made the case for evolution as such, and he does so now, convincingly and with vigor. Setting out the case, he goes into all the necessary detail about domestication, artificial selection, geological evidence, radiation clocks, DNA and RNA, the tree of life, isolation and speciation, nonadaptive evolution and so forth. Much of this is handled in perhaps more detail than the average person, even if of open mind and good will, can be expected to process in a short time. Nonetheless, the overall effect is clear and unmistakable: evolution by means of natural selection is one of the best proven and documented theories in natural science, and even the pedantic wrangling about the exact meaning of 'theory' and its analogy in gravity etc. is dealt with by Dawkins.
  
  As usual with Dawkins' books, the content is unimpeachable - scientific, precise, sufficiently well written, intuitive and accessible. It must be noted that over time his publications show increasing traces of pedantry and Oxford donnishness: he occasionally adds footnotes when he uses 'unusual' words to pre-emptively alert the reader to their meaning, and he bloviates about uninteresting and unrelated topics such as his preference for 'Peking' over 'Beijing'. But this does not seriously obstruct the reading of the book, and on the other side of the coin, this book has been lavishly illustrated with beautiful color pictures enabling one to engage with the beauty of scientific biology even better. Equally as always with Dawkins, one does wonder what sort of person is likely to be wholly against evolution being true, yet at the same time open-minded, intellectually honest and intelligent enough buy the book and follow to the end the often fairly complicated scientific results and statistical reasonings.
  
  Notwithstanding that problem, something Dawkins can't do anything about anyway, it is excellent that there be some clear and readable books for the intelligent layman that show once and for all how and why evolution by means of natural selection is simply as true as the fact of the earth revolving around the sun. "The Greatest Show on Earth" was written to do this, and it fulfills that purpose admirably.
  
  
• Arm Yourself With Living Evidence
  By ARIS31M1F1KO1 on 2009-10-21
  If you find yourself in the position of having to confront people who simply refuse to "believe" in evolution, Richard Dawkins' latest book is a must-read. It is a remarkable recital of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection. After you read the book, you will have mountains of evidence to use in your next discussion of the subject.
  
  Now, chances are good that your evolution-denier is also deeply religious. And Dawkins' science writing was clearly eclipsed by the fame resulting from "The God Delusion," which makes his name lightning to invoke in a discussion with a religious person. But be aware that this book covers entirely different ground than "God Delusion." While Dawkins does not back off or deny his anti-theistic stance, it is very much a side note here. "A different T-shirt," as he describes it.
  
  He makes the audacious claim that if there had never been a single fossil ever discovered anywhere, we would still be overwhelmed by the evidence of evolution surrounding us. Which is not to say he does not address fossils. He also addresses molecular and radioactive dating, geological strata and plate tectonics, DNA sequencing, Darwin's voyages and observations, geographic isolation of animals and plants, and the remarkable Lenski experiments with bacterial evolution demonstrating evolution taking place literally before our very eyes. He also prepares you for responses to common canards about evolution like the idea that Darwinism leads to Nazism, which is of course nonsense on stilts -- but if you've never heard the argument before, it can be useful to have a critical response back to it.
  
  Dawkins is a clear, persuasive, and readily-understood author. If you have average intelligence, you should have no trouble understanding every concept of the book, including daunting subjects like genetic science. At the same time, he doesn't "dumb down" his material -- he trusts that you will be able to understand him and if not, that you can take the time to read over a passage more than once. He is also quite funny at times. If I have any complaint about the book at all, it is that Dawkins uses a lot of footnotes, which while typically very charming, can tend to make one lose the thread of his lucid prose. I have the Kindle version of the book, which is good for working through the text and skipping the footnotes. But I've also seen my friend's hard copy of the book, and it contains plentiful color plates which obviously will enrich the reading experience.
  
  What are you waiting for. Get what is surely destined to become the definitive book on evolution.
  
  
• Of crocoducks and fronkeys, doggypotamuses and kangarabbits
  By AK4K88ONSL2AW on 2009-09-22
  'This book is necessary', booms the authorial auto-proclamation in the Appendix, and those of us who have followed to the end the various phases of Richard Dawkins lucid and colourful exposition of the evidence for evolution are unlikely to disagree. How necessary it is can be seen from the worrying results of Gallup poll questionnaires discussed in the same Appendix, and at several stages throughout this excellent addition to the Dawkins canon the baneful effect of the `history deniers' is highlighted. A chapter on the origin of our own species includes the transcript of a less than profitable exchange between Dawkins and a creationist, one Wendy Wright of an organisation called `Concerned Women for America'. When reminded that there are such things as museums which house evidence (and this is not including the Creation Museum of Kentucky, which houses none) her response is a series of Sarah Palinesque squeaks about very little, concluding with the exhortation to `believe in a loving God who created each one of us'. Much the same point is made in an anecdote concerning the author's colleague Dr John Endler who once, in conversation with a fellow passenger on a domestic US flight, dropped a clanger by telling him that his research was guided by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Their conversation up to that point had been amicable with the man showing an intelligent curiosity, but at the mention of such an ungodly name and subject his demeanour changed completely.
  
  Here, the newcomer to evolution is eased into it gently with a discussion of the difference between a theorem and a `theorum'. An example of the former is a mathematical proof which brooks no argument, while a theorum cannot be proved in the same way. Instead it is supported by a massive body of evidence, for example the `theorum' that the earth is not flat, or that species were not suddenly conjured into existence. Emphasis is placed on the value of inference, and scientists investigating evolution are like detectives arriving on the scene after the event, piecing together from the available evidence what in all probability happened but was not observed at first hand. `The `God of the evolutionary gaps' argument beloved of creationists is thus plainly silly. A supernatural being can no more account for the gaps in the evolutionary record than for the gaps in, say, a murder investigation caused by a malfunctioning CCTV camera that failed to record the deed.
  
  Following Darwin in the `Origin of the Species' Dawkins begins with variation under domestication. This is where man, rather than nature, is the agent of change in plants and the shape and behaviour of wild animals, the artificial `sculpting' of the gene pool. Dog breeders choose which dogs mate with which to achieve the desired characteristics and the current variety of breeds is something that took centuries, or even decades, to evolve rather than millions of years. There is a description later on of an experiment in which silver foxes were specifically bred for tameness in the interests of Russia's fur trade. When we come on to the subject of flowers it is the same story as dogs or foxes, except that the process took millions of years of `sculpting' by insects' eyes and antennae, natural as opposed to artificial selection. Part of the intimate relationship between flowers and their pollinators is the `trade-off', which has nothing to do with altruism. Something is always given in exchange for something else, and sexual selection, as Darwin named it, is vital in the propagation of any species. For example peahens choose attractive peacocks for breeding, thereby preserving attractive genes.
  
  In the story of evolution fossils play an important part. The Victorian term for `gap in the fossil record' was `missing link', but it is no longer appropriate as we now have fossils linking modern humans with the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. There are portmanteau words jokily coined by creationists as part of their attempt to discredit evolution (frog and monkey conflate into `fronkey', crocodile plus duck equals 'crocoduck') but the joke is on them. Not only did monkeys and frogs share an ancestor, which would have looked nothing like either, but `every one of the millions of species of animals shares an ancestor with every other one'. All Dawkins' examples of human fossils, the various `Homos' and `Australopithecuses', are links that are no longer missing. Chapter 10, `The Tree of Cousinship' considers further the descent from a single ancestor of all living creatures in whom the DNA code is invariant while the individual genes vary. Incidentally colour plate 8b features an attractive `crocoduck' tie of which Dawkins is the proud owner, but as far as I can gather they are not on sale yet to the general public.
  
  Continental drift and plate tectonics are also important as they enable us to understand how species diverged and are distributed over the world's continents and islands. We can see how the Brazilian coast fits the bulge of West Africa having been joined together with it around 165 million years ago as part of the Gondwana super-continent. Apparently creationists accept that there was continental drift but think that, instead of taking millions of years, it all must have happened during the forty days and nights of Noah's flood. On the subject of geological time there are three principle means of establishing the age of the earth and dating fossils; dendrochronology (`tree rings'), radioactive clocks and carbon dating. The general reader will be on somewhat difficult terrain with the second of these as it is not a subject easily reducible to lay terminology although Dawkins does his best and, still with the non-specialist reader in mind, he defers a consideration of molecular clocks to a later stage. He is always as lucid as his material permits and in the account of an experiment with the E. coli bacterium, which shows evolution occurring before our eyes, we are advised not `to read this section of the book while tired'. The tone is schoolmasterly but when the master is as erudite and good-humoured as Dawkins we may perhaps consider it a pleasure, and reassuring, to be thus patronized.
  
  The weight of evidence is very much against the intervention of a designer, unless it was a designer that kept having second thoughts about the appearance of his progeny and how he wanted it to function. Whales were once land-dwellers in some form or other, as is evident from tiny bones that are useless now but once formed the hind legs of their walking ancestors. Flightless birds such as ostriches and emus retain mere stubs of wings and are therefore obviously descended from birds that could fly, while subterranean creatures like salamanders have `vestigial' eyes, remnants of an earlier above-ground phase of their evolution which now suffice for where there is poor light or none atall. This is not so much `unintelligent design', just changes and improvisations, but the human eye is an example of appallingly bad design with its back-to-front retina and photocells pointing the wrong way, corrected of necessity by natural selection. Also illustrative is the circuitous path traced by the recurrent laryngeal nerve (bizarre enough in humans, even more so in giraffes) and the indirect route of the vas deferens from the testis to the penis in humans (whether the same applies to giraffes is not stated). Bad back trouble in some of us is traceable to the fact that we have only been walking on our hind legs for one per cent of 400 million years, insufficient time for proper readjustment from our long-adopted quadrupedal posture. Presumably a designer would have gone back to the drawing board and started from scratch instead of tinkering with the botched, unrealised version of the prototype. As for nature's great `arms race it does not play out according to any conceivable plan. If trees had been blessed with the power of rational thought - that is, if a designer had paid due attention to the task in hand - they would be able to agree about what height they should grow to when forming a cluster. That way they would all get a fair share of the available sunlight and ` photon rain' instead of selfishly trying to outgrow one another. On a less pleasant note cheetahs, through natural selection, are efficient killing machines which prey on gazelles while the latter, also through natural selection, have become extremely good runners so that they can escape from their attackers. So whose side is the creator on? Tennyson's `Nature, red in tooth and claw' springs to mind, not the Genesis idyll or Isaiah's poetic ruminations about the lion and the lamb resolving their differences.
  
  In the final analysis it's all in the genes. Nature is amoral and the problem of evil and suffering does not concern the evolutionary biologist. The last chapter is a reverential line-by-line analysis of the concluding paragraph of the `Origin of the Species' where Darwin notes how evolution proceeds `from the war of nature, from famine and death'. His lack of belief in a beneficent creator was informed by private tragedy as well as a natural abhorrence of the cruelty inseparable from `the production of the higher animals' of which the ichneumon wasp's far from endearing habits provide an illustration. On the other hand his reference in the same paragraph to `endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful' that will continue to evolve would seem to endorse a feeling of mystic awe in regard to the greatest show on earth of Dawkins' title. Whether mysticism is in order is a matter of personal inclination, but the 32 colour plates of superb photographs will surely reinforce our conviction that the title is apt.
  
  `The Greatest Show on Earth' is a vital counterblast to creationism's ongoing war against intelligence. This is not to over-dramatize and there is many an opportunity on the web to see the history-deniers portray themselves in their true obscurantist mien. A Google search of the aforementioned `Concerned Women for America' alongside `evolution' uncovers a hopelessly blinkered level of nonsense for which there is less excuse than ever now that books like this, and Jerry A. Coyne's also excellent `Why Evolution Is True', are available. It is not merely a question of cranks indulging a personal interest. The point is made by Dawkins that when such people occupy positions of authority and influence - on school boards, even in the United States Congress - there is real cause for concern. His early reference to Trofim Lysenko is apposite. Just as Stalin favoured the quack biologist with disastrous consequences for Soviet agriculture, so the history-deniers of today pursue their agenda with a contemptuous disregard for objective fact and the pernicious effects of their ignorance. Long may the de-Stalinization continue, then, with contributions to the debate as powerful as this one.
  
  
  
• A masterpiece! What a marvelous book!
  By A216HW4H2MY6OT on 2009-10-16
  Dawkins is at his best in this book. Every concept is beautifully laid out and written in wonderful prose. Not only does Dawkins explain the evidence of evolution, he proves that it occurred without a doubt. I already believed in evolution prior to reading this book, but was unequipped to properly explain it...until now. Dawkins starts the book by introducing what he calls the "history deniers", those who deny evolution. Regrettably, this is my only qualm with the book. Immediately he attacks those who don't accept evolution as fact, but then goes on to say that he wants to educate those who may not accept evolution. Seems to me that it you want to persuade somebody of your position the best thing to do is not attack them. Other than this minor detail, everything else in the book is wonderful. Dawkins starts off by discussing domestication and artificial selection to "soften up" the reader for natural selection and finally the meat of the book, the evidence of evolution. Dawkins takes on the dating methods and breaks down the process so that anyone can comprehend it. Further, I was able to disprove an article given to me by a creationist friend that said radiometric dating is unreliable because a rock that was only 20 years old was dated at 330,000 years using potasium-40 dating. Based on what I learned from Dawkins I was able to explain the margin of error relative to the half life of the potasium-40 and that the dating method used was not the proper method for a rock that new (old). Anyway, Dawkins discusses the fossil evidence, which is vast, then moves on to the genetic evidence and geological evidence. The genetic evidence is, in my opinion, the most powerful. Not only does all this prove evolution true, but anyone who reads this and is still skeptical is obviously stuck in religious dogma. Overall, great book and I highly recommend it!
  
  
• A Brilliann Narrative: Everyone SHOULD Read
  By A2ANSSA96RVIIH on 2009-11-03
  First, let me start by saying I am an unapologetic fan of Richard Dawkins. Secondly, I think it important to be aware that Dawkins is 'devotional' to the sentiment that natural selective pressures are able to account for the entirety of evolution. While this isn't particularly relevant to this book, and it shouldn't be taken as criticism, it is a worthwhile frame to have in mind.
  
  Richard Dawkins has presented a near perfect 'primer' on Evolution and Evolutionary Theory in general. It is a smooth flowing narrative that guides the reader step by step through the broad sweeping ideas that lead through the accumulation of various forms of evidence (morphological, geographical distribution, molecular chemistry, fossil, etc) to build an understanding in the reader of what Evolution is and what kinds of evidence are available to present for its acceptance and the kinds of studies being engaged in.
  
  It is a tribute to the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. And it is simply brilliant. I might be inclined to dock him a mark or two for unnecessarily tweaking creationists noses every once in a while, but I also recognize what Richard Dawkins' "voice" is in his writing, and I can easily over the extraneous tweaking for the greater enjoyment of his style.
  
  Whether You are someone that accepts Evolution or rejects it, this is an incredibly worthwhile read. It is a reasonably easy read, and should be enjoyable to all. Even if You are one that rejects evolution, it shouldn't dissuade You from reading this book if for no other reason than to at least get a thumbnail sketch of what it is that You are rejecting. Dawkins provides us with an extraordinary primer on the subject of evolution that can enable us all to come to a common understanding of what the subject is, even if we don't all agree with the conclusion.
  
  I can recommend this book to any and everyone without the slightest hesitation.
  
  
  
  
• Lucid and thorough
  By A2L80JFVOUQFGY on 2009-11-02
  Some of Dr Dawkin's works can be heavy going for those without a serious interest in his subjects. This one is a much easier read. With impressive style and clear and convincing explanations (for those who are open to them), Dawkins takes us on a fascinating journey through the evidence for evolution. I think this should be required reading for every high school student
  
  
• "The Greatest Show on Earth" is a must read
  By A1MG3A0ZJENNJA on 2009-11-02
  
  Dr. Richard Dawkins has done it again with his this book on evolution.
  If you think you understand evolution this book shall open your mind to new avenues of thinking about evolution that shall allow you to better fend off misapprehensions propagated by the creationists and, in addition, firm up your own our own understanding of natural selection and evolutionary thinking.
  
  These misconceptions run the gambit from "what use is a half of an eye?
  Or, the specious argument that it is impossible for a complex organism to appear spontaneously, which by the way Dr. Dawkins agrees with and explains how the antievolutionists continue to misconstrue the science associated with these
  arguments.
  
  The reader of this book I think shall acquire a deeper understanding of the broader spectrum of sciences supporting the ideas of Darwin, from embryology to the organic chemistry of protein molecules, to the specious arguments surrounding the search for the missing links, et alia!
  
  
  
• Greatest Show Indeed
  By A2TT4AA3QO0DPY on 2009-11-01
  When I first heard about Dawkins' new book on evolution, my first question was "Why?" After all, there have already been several books published in recent years that defend evolution against its critics- "Why Evolution is True," Sean Carroll's books, Ken Miller's "Only a Theory," several books on the Dover Trial, as well as anthologies of scientists writing essays against creationism. I was pleasantly surprised. "The Greatest Show on Earth" (here on out to be abbreviated as TGSOE), is in a sense another book on evolution that continues the trend of a backlash of scientists against Intelligent Design, but it stands out because Dawkins uses his best talent, science writing, to not only argue the case for evolution but to reach out to those who are not already especially well-versed in biology to understand it. According to the author, in his previous science books, such as "Blind Watchmaker" and "The Selfish Gene," he simply assumed evolution was true, and felt that he needed a new book to explain why it is true, and because of the alarmingly high rate of non-acceptance of evolution in the United States.
  
  TGHOE's first order of business is to explore the use of the word "theory." "Evolution is only a theory" seems to be a ubiquitous phrase among its opponents these days, and Dawkins wants to dismantle the notion. He talks about how theory is understood:
  
  "Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded oor accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
  Obviously the two meanings are quite different from one another. And the short answer to my question about the theory of evolution is that the scientists are using Sense 1, while the creationists are- perhaps mischievously, perhaps sincerely- opting for Sense 2. A good example of Sense 1 is the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System [or the Atomic Theory of Matter of the Theory of Gravity, etc], the theory that the Earth and the other planets orbit the sun. Evolution fits Sense 1 perfectly." (p. 9) He goes on to note that, strictly speaking, only Mathematicians can prove things, with theorems. However, evolution is proved in the same sense that the Heliocentric Theory is proved. "Even the undisputed theory that the moon is smaller than the sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of 'fact' seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution...Though logic choppers rule the town, some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact." (p. 10)
  
  According to Dawkins, given all of this, and since the word theory in the context of evolution is so loaded with "Sense 2," it's better to call it "The Fact of Evolution." Will the strategy pay off? Since the cultural basis for creationism is so strong in the United States, it's hard to see how. Having said that, it may be worth a try. If different words and phrases can cause enough people to change their method of thinking, it may indeed have an impact.
  
  Several other parts of TGSOE stood out for me: 1.) The analogy between artificial breeding and evolution by natural selection, and its relation to genetics. 2.) The discussion of barriers to understanding evolution, such as "essentialism" and "the Great Chain of Being," 3.) The analogy of embryonic development to origami
  
  Darwin realized by observing plant and animal husbandry that people can change species through selective breeding. This was nothing new, of course. But the insight he extrapolated was that species themselves were not immutable and that nature itself acted as the selecting agents. Inheriting genes, Dawkins says, is more like shuffling cards than blending two different kinds of paint together. So no descendant is going to be exactly like its ancestor. With enough "selection," a particular species will change over time, as has happened with the domestication of many animals and plants. The same principle, that species are mutable and changeable, makes evolution by natural selection the next logical step- with nature as the selecting agent, we can get great diversity of life, given enough geographic variation.
  
  Dawkins claims that "the dead hand of Plato," which he also calls "essentialism," is behind much of the confusion regarding evolution. There's the idea, going back to Plato, that there are ideal forms behind appearences; i.e., a perfect form of a rabbit behind rabbits. So many people think of different living things as somehow set, as in Platonic ideals. This is deeply unevolutionary. I agree, but I think that it's a mistake to blame this on Plato, because it doesn't explain why people who have never heard of Plato would want to be set in rigid categorization in the first place. Bruce Hood in Supersense makes a good case that the human brain naturally tends to classify objects, which will naturally make evolution hard to understand. With that aside, it's good for Dawkins to mention this. Species classification is something that biologists impose on themselves to explain the world- not absolute categories that exist "out there." Related to essentialism is the problem of what Dawkins calls the legacy of "The Great Chain of Being," which is implicit in the demand for "missing links." In the middle ages was the doctrine that there was a "great chain," or a ladder, with inanimate objects at the bottom, lower animals next, followed by man, angels, and finally God. With this doctrine entrenched, it's difficult to understand how there can be any form of transition or "link" from something on one chain. But according to evolutionary biology, among living things there is no "chain" as such, since everything is interrelated- there is only growing complexity and/or diversity in response to environmental pressures.
  
  The final thing that really impressed me in TGSOE was Dawkins' discussion of embryonic development. The DNA code, though containing instructions for how proteins are to develop based on the gene sequence, cannot be described as a blueprint. Blueprints have a one-to-one relationship. In other words you can have a blueprint and construct a building, and go to a building and reconstruct its blueprint; the same reciprocal relationship simply does not exist with organisms and gene sequences. Dawkins says that the best way to look at embryonic development is like origami, or the unfolding of the gene sequences through proteins and catalysts. This chapter was simply fascinating.
  
  There is much else in the book that I could discuss in this review, such as Dawkins' discussion of the last paragraph of "Origin," his discussion of "evolutionary theodicy," carbon-dating, fossils, etc. Whether this book will turn the current anti-science cultural/political tide in a more favorable direction is is hard to say, though it is definitely well-written and will greatly help those wanting to learn about evolution a means of doing so.
  
  
• Excellent
  By AAD0UN7NQAA55 on 2009-10-30
  Richard Dawkins amazes once again. In 'The Greatest Show On Earth', evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins lays out the evidence for evolution, and shows how creationist arguments are nonsense. The book is easy to read, provides a lot of information, and is quite entertaining. As always, Dawkins conveys science in a fun and interesting way.
  
  I would say this book is intended for people who don't know anything about evolution or know some things, but want to know more. Of course this book will not win over hardcore creationists, which is sad since they are missing out on a beautiful theory and are rejecting evidence.
  
  This book has NOTHING to do with atheism and/or religion. The only semi-religious thing in the book is when he compares evolutionary acceptance among western nations, and concludes (and data agrees) that the most religious nations tend to reject evolution.
  
  I would also recommend:
  'Why Evolution Is True' by Jerry Coyne
  'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin
  
  
• A Must Read
  By AD3IN8E13YNY6 on 2009-12-20
  The Greatest Show on Earth lives up to its name, in Dawkin's graceful style. Dawkins blasts the idea that evolution is "only a theory" out of the water. Every page provides insight into the inner workings of evolution, through example after example. From dogs, cows, and cabbages, to so called "missing links," this book follows Charles Darwin's tactfulness in On the Origin of Species by starting with what we all take for granted, artificial selection (a.k.a. domestic breeding) and builds on that foundation to lead the reader to natural selection, and evolution.
  
  One of my favorite chapters was chapter 5, "Before Our Very Eyes." Dawkin's gives three examples of evolution that scientists have had the opportunity to witness first-hand. I've always heard the history-deniers repeat the mantra that "no one has ever seen evolution happening," so this was a very interesting chapter indeed.
  
  I'm always amazed at Dawkin's ability to take complex scientific ideas and present them in such understandable and elegant form. A great read!
  
  "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."---On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
  
  
  Shawn Sparlin
  
  
• A massive learning time
  By AHHU34NT0HTR1 on 2009-12-16
  In The Greatest Show, Dawkins the famous atheist provides experiemental evidence for evolution.
  
  For those expecting a diatribe against religion or a lampooning of creationists don't read this book. Dawkins sticks strictly to a diet of explaining the facts. Sure occasionally he pokes fun at creationist theory, but the basis of the book is biology lessons.
  
  While I imagine some people who won't have read the book will tirade and condemn this book, the book isn't particularly controversial (unless of course you vehemently deny evolution, or read the appendix on history-deniers). Dawkins even restrains himself from criticising those who believe God made evolution.
  
  Recommended for those who want to learn more about evolution from a plain-speaking perspective.
  
  
• the greatest show on earth
  By ARPZGZBUJHTNQ on 2009-11-26
  This book presents most of the powerful evidence for evolution.
  At the same time, the author uses scientifically-supported facts to refute the counter claims of creationists.
  He uses many examples of animals and plants to explain how they have changed and developed over time.
  He also gives many examples of "intelligently designed" animals and plants that could have only been designed by a moron (Since no one believes that God is a moron - evolution lets Him off the hook).
  His arguments are irrefutable, which is why nearly all biologists accept this evidence - with the only exceptions being staunch creationists who "refuse" to accept it.
  
  
  

• The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author
• The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
• Why Evolution Is True
• The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture