Why Evolution is True
As an astronomer, my familiarity with the details of biological evolution are about on par with that of an interested layman (though being trained scientifically helps with that understanding, adding insight to the process of the scientific endeavor). I’m familiar with the concepts of descent with modification, genetic mutations, natural pressures for adaptations, and the like. I’m less familiar with other aspects, like allele frequencies, how specifically pressures can change adaptations, and what transitional fossils are in the record, but I can probably hold my own against your run-of-the-mill creationist.
That’s why I loved the book Why Evolution is True by biologist Jerry Coyne. This is a clear, easy-to-understand work that shows you — with no compromising and no backing down — that evolution has occurred, the evidence is overwhelming, and that no other explanation for what we see around us makes sense.
He goes through many, many arguments about this: how we do see adaptation to changing environments, how the DNA records support the change in the genome of life with time and environment, how fossils support evolutionary change.
Moreover, he shows that the scientific theory of evolution by natural (and in some cases, sexual) selection makes clear predictions which are borne out by observations. And on top of that he shows why these conclusions make no sense at all if you think there is some Creator that made us the way we are out of thin air (or dust, I suppose).
I was particularly struck by the concept of geographic isolation and how that affects evolution (perhaps because I spent more than a week last year touring the Galapagos Islands). Species isolated on islands adapt genetically and morphologically (or vice-versa) to the environment, and you can see how there are changes in those species as they radiate out to other nearby islands. We only see species on those islands that come from nearby land masses, as you’d expect from natural methods of dispersion over long time periods (but not what you’d expect for a Creator to simply pop life into existence). And all of this fits in with what geologists see by way of plate tectonics and continental drift.
Creationists love to try to pick apart evolution, looking at minor details in isolation and saying it doesn’t make sense. But they’re wrong: evolution is a beautiful tapestry, a complex fabric of countless threads woven together into a grand picture of life on Earth. And it all holds together.
I strongly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in evolution, or the manufactured controversy of creationism. Coyne’s work is complete and convincing, slamming the door firmly closed on young-Earth creationism. If you have to deal with creationists in your life, this book is something you should keep very handy.
Bonus: my friend Joel Parker interviewed Coyne on his radio show How on Earth (you can get the MP3 through this direct link), and another friend D. J. Grothe interviewed Coyne on his podcast Point of Inquiry.
And I’ll leave you with this, Coyne’s perfect summation of the situation (from pages 222-223 of the book):
Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature… and every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible explanations that could prove evolution untrue, we don’t have a single one. We don’t find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that benefit only a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific fact.
I work for a public library, and I ordered this book for our science collection. It’s had universally good reviews, including yours.
I am going to run out to the local book store and grab this tonight. TY for the recommendation!
Evolution is only partially true. The gaps in the fossil record show that there is a missing element. You can’t deny that is a problem.
To John:
That would be true if the fossil record were the only evidence for Evolution. As this review (and the book) make clear, the fossil record is only a small part of the Body of Evidence, and, IMHO, only fractionally important one.
Thanks for posting your review, Phil.
Lately, Jerry Coyne has been really pounding away at nonsense on his blog.
Yesterday he posted an essay called: Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down. He really slams the accommodationist position of the National Center for Science Education, and others (including a blog today on the AAAS). He and others have pounded on Matt Nisbett also, and his accomodationist approach.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/truckling-to-the-faithful-a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down/
Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers have commented on Jerry’s essay. Richard’s is interesting. He says he has moved away from any sympathy he’s had for the accomodationist approach of Eugenie Scott and the National Academy. He even mentions Michael Shermer, who is definitely an appeaser and defender of NOMA. Sounds like Richard, Jerry, PZ and many others are sick of the appeasement approach and favor slamming it.
There’s some interesting quotes from Richard Dawkins’ post:
“lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt.”
“And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.”
“Is it gloves off time? Or should we continue to go along with the appeasers and be all nice and cuddly, like Eugenie and the National Academy?”
As you’ve probably already seen, Jerry slams Kenneth Miller pretty good, and like Dawkins and so many others, shows absolute disdain for NOMA.
http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472
Besides Shermer, it’s hard not to notice the other accomodationist and appeasers in the so-called skeptical movement. In fact in that, “What Do I Do Next” “skeptical activism” guide, they seem to bend over backward to be inclusive to the religious. Of course, Steve Novella, and his SGU interview with Kenneth Miller he shied away from tackling Miller’s religious claims – which interestingly was released around the time of Coyne’s review of Miller (becasue the SGU doesn’t want to talk religion, yea right, that’s why I hear them make fun of Scientology – might as well admit they’re playing it safe to be accomodationist). If PZ Myers has the guts to come out (on the most popular science blog around) to state flatly he’s anti-religious, then may a modicum of gumption can be shown by some of the “skeptics” here.
I wonder how far some of this will go. Michael Shermer seems not only to be an accomodationist, with questionable expertise to talk economics, but has revealed himself time and again as a reactionary “fiscal conservative.” Though, I question where in fact his conservative leanings end when we view his rational for his appeasements to the religious. I couldn’t be more pleased that Richard Dawkins has pulled him out for special mention since Michael has felt it necessary to question the rationality of Dawkins (quite laughable).
To John:
Congrats, you just made me face-palm.
There’s a great book, other than this one, for pointing out all the reasons why evolution is right and creationism is choked by its own mythology and the circuitous reasoning of its proponents. It’s called the Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaac, and it is chock-full of questions and arguments creationists have in opposition to evolution as an empirically based theory. By the fifth page creationism not only makes no sense, what so ever, and makes God look like a dunce (if a God such as that existed), but you begin to realize that the only thing creationists have to use in their defense is that they’re right, and have no need for proof. In other words, their argument is irreducibly complex, and there is just no way to break it down into smaller, unworkable parts. That’s right, start to take it apart, by their reasoning, it crumbles. Evolution, only gets stronger–or fitter.
“Evolution is only partially true. The gaps in the fossil record show that there is a missing element. You can’t deny that is a problem.
Comment by John — April 23, 2009 @ 5:12 am ”
This is the God of the Gaps argument. There will always be gaps. In fact, the number of gaps will double with each piece of evidence one fills a gap with. If a gap exists between A and Z, I may find evidence to link them. Let’s call this “P”. There now exists 2 “gaps” between A to P, and P to Z.
Somewhat undecided on this. Honest question for those who know more than me concerning evoltion. I can believe evolution is a fact, but does evoultion explain why there is “life” and why life evolves intelligently? Why is my nose not up side down, why aren’t my eyes on the bottom of my feet? Even down to the cellular level there seems to be “design” and intelligence involved in how cells work, adapt and evlove. Every thing designed by man works in an intelligent and purposeful way, so I have millions of examples of how designed things work. The human body, cells…etc. work intelligently, similar to man-made things. I see no reason to believe that the body and cells are not the product of an intelligent creator even though I can’t show evidence of that creator. For me the “evidence” is in the things that exist, have life and work in an intelligent manner.
Again my questions are 1. Does evolution explain the origin of “life”? 2. Does it explain why life has “intelligence?
These are honest questions from someone seeking “truth” in order to make a more informed opinion on the matter. Please provide direct answers.
WM:
Q1: No, it doesn’t. Nor does it propose to. The theory is concerned with the change of species over time.
Q2: Organisms do indeed have a designer that got them to the level of complexity you see today – natural selection.
Our eyes are not at the bottom of our feet because any species who had this would be rendered extinct very quickly. If you can’t see a predator bearing down on you, you’re done for! So soon, that species gets all eaten, while the ones with eyes up top remain. They have children, their children have children, on and on, and all have eyes up high.
So no one “designed” the eyes to go up on the head, but because it provides a survival advantage, that’s the trait that lives on. Multiply that thinking over millions of years and the unique geographical pressures each part of the earth faces, and you’ve got the basics of evolution down.
I’d also like to counter your perception that we’re designed “intelligently.” Why do we have appendices we don’t need? Why do we have tailbones? Wingbones? Why is my breathing orafice the same as my eating orafice? That’s just asking to die by choking! There’s a lot of unnecessary junk in our bodies, and lots of places things could work a whole lot better.
And a closer look at the organs and cells reveal messy, messy design. The eye is an impressive piece of work, but the wiring of the optic nerve is an inefficient nightmare. If an electrical contractor designed your house that way, you’d fire him immediately!
But apply evolutionary theory to these questions, and they all make sense. We’re not brilliantly designed from scratch – we’re messily cobbled together over millions of years from the results of the survival needs of our ancestors.
You’re asking great questions – sounds like this book might be right up your alley (I plan to read it)! I’d also recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” (the book, not the above poster) as a great primer on evolution.
Thanks for your reply. Not enough time to totally respond, but, even if you see some flaws in the human body isn’t there enough design there (some of it brilliant) to suggest a creator, whether that creator is perfect are not? That contractor you mentioned may do a sub par job, but it still took intelligence to perform some of his work. The lights in the bathroom flicker but the rest of the service works fine, for example. It took intelligence even if ineffcient…
I’ve seen qoutes from Mr. Dawkins book but have not read it. I agree with his following quote:
“The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up!” (1986, p. ix). We agree. Complex design in nature does indeed cry out for an explanation.”
Another qoute by him,
“The Necessity of Darwinism” that was published in New Scientist, April 15, 1982, pp. 130-132): “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.”
Of course he doesn’t go on to say there is an intelligent designer but I guess he can understand why some believe there is. Since evolution doesn’t and doesn’t claim to explain the origin of life, my search for what I believe is a ‘creator’ continues. I do believe evolution was a tool that was used by this creator however.
BillDarryl,
Don’t know myself, but has science found fossils or some evidence that crreatures had eyes in what we would consider odd places?
Also, just curious, do you have any thoughts on the origin of life?
John: Not everything that dies fossilizes. Its actually amazing that we have as much information as we do about the fossil record considering how tough it is to get a really good fossil. The standard of evidence you have set up is impossible to satisfy. The important thing is not whether we have a complete step by step picture of evolution. The important thing is that no fossil that has come in has been evidence against evolution. Every piece of data paleantologists get makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, and until that changes there will not be a “problem”.
This post (I initially saw via BA blog) got me onto ordering the book off the big A. I very much look forward to reading it.
The whole concept of each new fossil adding two more gaps in the record gave me the idea for a blog name – a new blog I think for an audience who thinks people like Steve, Phil, PZ etc are very clever and we get awesome info from – but we don’t have the relevant education – just a keen interest on the topic. Make people like us feel less humbled perhaps.