Although the title of this book is slightly unscientific, its author is not. As a firm advocate for biological evolution, Prof. Coyne chooses simply to assert its truth even though he is well aware that all scientific theories, even revered blue chips like gravitation and atomic structure, are subject to revision in the light of new evidence. One good reason for not calling the book "Why Evolution is Very Likely True" would be to counter the strangely unbalanced mindset and methods of evolution's more polarized critics. Ever since Darwin and Wallace jointly announced their independent formulations of the theory in 1858, people who compulsively doubt (or fear) its correctness have shown a tendency to overcompensate, that is, to interpret even perfectly normal scientific debates over the details of evolution as signs of the theory's impending collapse. So when the author baldly states that evolution is true, he really means (as explained on page 16) that its 150-year verification record has been more than sufficiently extensive to render negligible its chances of being false.

The mission of the book is to demonstrate in a clear and approachable way why such high confidence in the veracity of evolution is justified, and Coyne succeeds brilliantly at the task. In the preface he concedes frankly that no amount of evidence will sway those who oppose evolution "...purely as a matter of faith...," but he hopes to reach the many readers who are open to reason yet remain unconvinced that a few simple, wholly natural principles can explain the full diversity of life on Earth. The author's tone is friendly and conversational as he unfolds a well organized, well illustrated case. Along the way he specifically addresses the most common misunderstandings and fallacies associated with the "intelligent design" movement and its religiously inspired creationist core.

Coyne opens the first chapter by describing the essence of the theory and explaining why it was a bold, revolutionary and even shocking idea in Darwin's smugly comfortable Victorian milieu. He provides six key predictions (perhaps better termed "postdictions" ) which should be borne out by modern-era evidence if the Darwin/Wallace view is correct:

1. The fossil record, though inevitably thin and spotty, should contain at least some visible evidence of evolutionary change. Moreover, the complexity of life forms should tend to increase as layers of rock become more recent. The most recent rocks should contain the organisms most resembling present-day species.

2. Fossils should reveal at least a few cases where one line of descent branches into two or more lines different enough to be regarded as distinct species.

3. Fossil evidence should exist linking major groups such as birds and reptiles, and the corresponding strata should date to the periods when divergence would be expected.

4. Since many gradual changes within species are the required precursors of speciation, genetic variation of multiple traits should show up both in fossils and (much more rapidly) as a result of artificially guided selection by breeders.

5. By its very essence, evolution is locked into building new features from old ones, rather than starting with a clean sheet as an intelligent designer could. So organisms which have been evolved rather than consciously created should show multiple signs of successive ad hoc adaptations. In other words "good enough" rather than "perfect" should dominate.

6. Although evolution's pace is glacially slow compared with our own lifespans, some signs of ongoing natural selection in the wild should be evident to us.

Much of the material in succeeding chapters is devoted to showing in detail how the challenges implied by points one through six have been answered in the affirmative through the efforts of many researchers (principally biologists and paleontologists, but not excluding physicists and chemists) over the last fifteen decades or so. The author builds a case sufficiently compelling that one has to wonder why so much doubt regarding evolution persists in the public at large. Although Coyne's approach is overwhelmingly based on physical evidence, he also encourages the reader to see that there is nothing psychologically threatening about a world in which life has evolved naturally. In truth, it's a far more edifying and liberating environment than a fictional plutocracy set up and dominated by imaginary cosmic supervisors.

Chapter 5, "The Engine of Evolution," is particularly important in solidifying the author's thesis. Here Coyne discusses in detail the heart of evolution as a random source of variety (mutations in germ cell DNA) acted on by the automatic and emphatically non-random filtering function of natural selection. He goes on to take up one-by-one the most common challenges to the plausibility of evolution, such as how it can generate complex structures like bacterial flagella and camera-style eyes, as well as intricate multistep processes such as the blood-clotting cascade. Also made clear is why more than enough geologic time has passed to go from single cells to modern humans even at the very low rates of change observed in the fossil record.

The sole instance where I would differ with the author concerns a tangential point on page 225, where he claims that the task of finding meaning, purpose, and moral guidance is "outside the domain of science." On the contrary, don't many aspects of meaning, purpose, and morality involve principles or choices compatible with logic and evidence, thus remaining well within the reach of science? For example, our knowledge of genetics, gestation and the observable characteristics of infants helps make it clear that the practice of generational pass-through punishment (used repeatedly in the Bible by Yahweh/Allah himself) is deeply immoral. Similarly, the bizarre and psychologically harmful notion of "original sin" contravenes all we know about biology, and should be judged accordingly.

Prof. Coyne has produced a book which is thorough, accessible, entertaining, convincing, and extremely valuable as a means for conveying the innate grandeur and immense practical importance of evolution.

There should not be a book called “why evolution is true” in the 21st century, just like there shouldn’t be a book named “why we know germs exist”, or “why we know the heart is pumping the blood”. Evolution is scientifically speaking; a long ago settled issue, and the evidence that it has happened and that it is continuously happening is undisputable. One of the reasons this book exist is because religious zealotry in the Muslim world and the United States has made the theory of evolution by natural selection highly controversial and as a result it is often dismissed amongst many in the public.

Creationists often claim that the there is no evidence for evolution, or that the evidence is equally well evidence for “creationism”. They can get away with these kinds of false claims because many people are unfamiliar with the evidence for evolution. This book “Why Evolution is True” outlines a long list of some very powerful evidence for evolution by natural selection. It also explains what evolution is and what modern evolutionary theory is more specifically; evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and it also discuss non-selective mechanisms of evolutionary change. In addition the book discusses various concepts within evolutionary theory, mutations, genetic drift, adaptive traits, speciation, modern findings, the history of evolutionary theory, as well as different variants and controversies within evolutionary theory. The book presents evidence for the various components of modern evolutionary theory in addition to just providing evidence for evolution.

One type of evidence for evolution (among many) comes from the fossil record. There are millions of fossils representing 250,000 different species (17 million to 4 billion species has lived on Earth). The fossil record shows that early life was simple with complex life appearing later, with the youngest fossils being most similar to living species. This is predicted by the theory of evolution but it is not predicted by the assumption of a creator. In the fossil record you can follow lineages; species of animals and plants changing into something different over time (including the so called transitional fossils). The book discusses apes/human lineages, wasps to ant lineages, fish to amphibians, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, mammals to whales, lizard like reptiles to snakes, etc. The fossil record is also matched by the structure of DNA. All this is evidence for evolution but a problem for creationists. Other types of evidence discussed in the book include sub-optimality, vestiges, embryos, the structure of the DNA, and evidence from biogeography. The latter might be the most compelling and the most easily verified of all the evidence.

Unlike some other books on the topic “Why Evolution is True” is a fairly in depth book and not an easy read. Another book that I also recommend, “The Evidence for Evolution”, by Alan R. Rogers, is a brief but compelling overview of the evidence for evolution, and it is also a quick and easy read. Unlike, for example, “the Counter-Creationism Handbook” by Mark Isaak, this book is not focused on debunking creationist claims about evolution. The focus of this book is instead on explaining evolution and presenting the evidence for it in a thorough manner.

Overall I found the book to be enlightening and educational, and it was well organized and well written. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in understanding evolution and the evidence for it a bit more thorough. I do not recommend giving this book to a creationist as they are likely to dig in and refuse to honestly consider the evidence. Reading it together with a creationist to help keep things honest is more likely to work.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Young Earth Creationist. I am reading books on evolution theory in order to educate myself on the real arguments of the evolutionists. I am not trying to be persuaded away from my faith, but rather to understand what evolutionists really believe and why. I believe the debate between science and religion has descended into what is little more than name-calling and character assassination (from both sides), and very little substantive debate. My intention is to return the discourse, at least in my sphere of influence, to a debate on the evidence. I realize that science has many fundamental beliefs regarding the world, nature, and life, but I also believe that great stretches have been made in order to prop up certain beliefs. I know that science (obviously I am referring to those who populate the scientific community) believes that religious people are delusional children who believe in fairy tales. However, that is not a scientific argument, is it?

I am not rating this book according to the criteria everyone else seems to be using, which is whether or not I agree with it. Rather, I am rating it based on whether or not it presents what it claims to present in a manner that communicates clearly to the reader. Basically, my criteria for this book are as follows: Does each chapter communicate an aspect of evolution in a clear manner, well-defended, and consistent with the theory of evolution as I understand it? Does the book as a whole serve the purpose of presenting a well-defended case for the truth of evolution as a viable scientific theory? Obviously, as a proud YEC, I do not agree at all with the arguments presented in the book and had no intentions of being persuaded. I consider these books to be reference books used to ensure that whatever topic I am debating or studying, my presentation of the evolution arguments are accurate. I don't want to be misrepresented and I don't want to misrepresent others. That is not useful to anyone.

So, let's talk about the evidence. Here's what I thought of the book:

"Why Evolution is True" is an easy to read explanation of the theory of evolution, presented as fact, and obviously intended for those who already believe in it as a fundamental truth. The goal of the book appears to be to arm those who already believe in evolution with the arguments against a creation model. The reason I say this is because of the constant references made in this regard.

From a standpoint of content, the book is well written and understandable from a lay-person's perspective. While not as detailed as Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker," it is a bit less complex and quicker paced. The arguments are quickly presented, supported, and concluded so that the book moves along at a steady pace. As a creationist my goals may be different from others who read it. I want to really understand where the arguments come from and how the evolutionists came to their conclusions. In this regard, "Why Evolution is True" is not dissimilar to "The Blind Watchmaker" in that they both rely on a great deal of assumption and supposition to get from point to point. There are unarguably large gaps in the theory of evolution that must be bridged in order for any sense at all to be made of things, and these gaps seem to be bridged by assumption. Since we cannot really prove what did happen, we are left to assume or suppose what might have happened.

I am not going to go into detail, getting into the minutia of each evolution argument, but I did think that Dr. Coyne veered into a very interesting arena to finish off the book. He discusses human social, cultural, and psychological behaviors. He notes that often, various disciplines of science make the effort to "Darwinize" every aspect of human behavior. Dr. Coyne thinks this is dangerous. Why, I don't know. He doesn't really get into detail regarding his reasoning here. I wish he did because I think this is a fundamental flaw in evolution theory. I am not referring to the fact that we cannot explain every human behavior from an evolution perspective, but how can we trust those who propose such a theory when they tell us that there are things that evolution cannot explain? Now, we need to be clear. If humans evolved and are indeed evolving, and there is no God or other higher power dictating morality and values, then everything must be explained in terms of evolution. Everything is Darwinian. That means that even the bad in society is the result of Darwinian evolution. You don't get to say that everything came from nothing, and evolved over billions of years until humans came along and began raping each other, murdering each other, starting wars, oppressing entire populations, committing genocide and enslaving one another, selling one another off to sex traffickers, and so on, and then tell us that these horrific behaviors are not Darwinian. If evolution is true, then everything is evolved.

pp 228 - "But imaginative reconstructions of how things might have evolved are not science; they are stories."

I couldn't agree more. Dr. Coyne was referring to the stories of human behaviors and how they evolved, but why doesn't this statement refer to the entire study of evolution in general? I submit that it applies perfectly. We find fossils. We reconstruct what we think they might have looked like, how they might have acted, and what might have become of them. We make up stories and draw pictures and write books and make movies and TV shows. In essence, we tell stories. Well put, Dr. Coyne. Well put indeed.

Evolution theory does not get a pass just because its adherents cannot explain something. You don't get to say that everything came about through billions of years of evolution from the simplest of creatures all the way up to today's complex creatures, including human beings, and then tell us that we cannot explain things like human behaviors and beliefs and morals using evolution theory. That is patently ridiculous. Evolution is the only answer you're offering, Dr. Coyne. It ought to explain everything. Since there is no god in your account of the origin of life, there is therefore no supernatural force or higher power dictating things like worship, morality, altruism, and so forth. Since these are not evolutionary concepts, and evolution has no means of explaining them (i.e. they don't improve our species chances of survival or reproduction), it seems like your theory is a bit flawed. You see, the scriptural account of creation not only asserts the existence of God, but also His sovereignty over all things, including how all of life operates on this planet. Scripture explains where we got our morality, how come we are compelled towards altruism (in varying degrees because of sin), and why we worship. While scripture doesn't give us the scientific data necessary to explain all of nature's mysteries, we can, an should, use it as the authoritative foundation upon which any of our theories must rest. This means that our logic and our wishes are not important to the study of the universe and nature.

In any event, this book is a worthy treatment of the theory of evolution and resolute in terms of treating the theory as a fact, or a scientific truth. This is common and understandable, although arrogant and the treatment of the religious is condescending as well. He is not quite as mocking as Dawkins is in "The Blind Watchmaker" but you can certainly see that there is a certain disdain for those of us with faith. I wonder if this is the result of having spent years on the front lines of this battle or if he always had these feelings. In any event, his arguments weakened every time he said, "There is no conceivable reason why a creator would..." He made several such statements in an effort to sway the reader, I suppose, but really just came off sounding petty and desperate to me. In fact, going all the way back to the Preface of the book, he makes this statement: pp xiii - "But scientific truth is determined by scientists, not by judges." This statement really sums up how the scientific community feels about everything. They are the final arbiters of truth and reality, and the rest of us should just shut up and listen.

Sorry, Dr. Coyne. Truth is not determined. It is not created. Truth is truth no matter how many people believe it or disbelieve it. Even if every person on this planet believes in evolution, it doesn't change whether evolution is true or not. And you wonder why some of us don't trust the scientific community...

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested to see the evidence on which evolution is based. You can judge for yourself if it is "a theory in crisis," as creationists like to claim. I have been waiting for a book like this; like many others, I have read quite a few books about evolution but there was not a good book I could recommend that summarized the evidence for skeptics. I was very excited when I heard about Why Evolution is True and I was not disappointed when I read it.

Most of the evidence that is useful for convincing skeptics of evolution's truth is presented in chapters 2, 3, 4, and 8. I'll just say that it's a great book and very accessible to the general reader, and then I'd like to sum up a few of the major lines of evidence.

Chapter 2: The fossil record

First, radioactive dating is accurate despite creationist claims: many samples contain multiple radioisotopes, so "dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariably agree." Other methods of cross-checking radioactive dating also show it to be accurate.

>> "The appearance of species through time, as seen in fossils, is far from random. Simple organisms evolved before complex ones, predicted ancestors before descendants. The most recent fossils are those most similar to living species. And we have transitional fossils connecting many major groups."

>> Fossils of some species are so abundant that hundreds or thousands of samples of organisms that lived over a period of millions of years can be collected and you can directly observe evolutionary change happening. He also illustrates a series of fossils that represent a land mammal species evolving into whales, with several intermediate forms.

>> "When we find transitional forms, they occur in the fossil record precisely where they should [in time]. The earliest birds appear after dinosaurs but before modern birds." There are many more examples of this.

>> "No Precambrian rabbits, or any other anachronistic fossils, have ever been found."

Summary: "There is no reason why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones." But that is just what the fossil record shows.

Chapter 3: Vestiges, embryos, and bad design

>> Vestigial organs: blind animals that live in the dark underground or in caves have tiny, useless eyes; why should they have any at all unless they evolved from seeing ancestors? Whales have pelvis bones, and occasionally one is born rudimentary rear legs, which makes sense only if they evolved from land animals. Humans have appendixes, which do more harm than good, but they are helpful for digesting leaves in our primate cousins. Humans have a vestigial tail, complete with a series of small tail bones; occasionally, a baby is born with a small tail external to the body that must be surgically removed. All these organs make sense in light of evolution, but why would an intelligent designer include them?

>> Dead genes (genes that are included in an organisms' DNA but don't do anything): "Virtually all species harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives." Humans have the genes for making tails, but they are normally deactivated. Humans, unlike some other animals, cannot produce vitamin C; we have the genes to do it, but one gene has a mutation - and it's exactly the same mutation that occurs in other primates. "Why would a creator put a pathway for making vitamin C in all these species, and then inactivate it?...Why would the same inactivating mutation be present in all primates, and a different one in guinea pigs?"

>> Embryology: "at one stage of development mammals have an embryonic circulatory system like that of reptiles; but we don't see the converse situation. Why? Because mammals descended from early reptiles and not vice versa." Human fetuses develop a furry coat of hair at around six months after conception, but then lose it before birth; "fetal monkeys also develop a coat of hair at about the same stage of development" which "hangs on to become the adult coat."

>> Bad designs: "Flatfish are born as normal-looking fish that swim vertically, with one eye placed on each side of a pancake-shaped body. But a month thereafter, a strange thing happens: one eye begins to move upward. It migrates over the skull and joins the other eye to form a pair of eyes on one side of the body...the flatfish tips onto its newly eyeless side, so that both eyes are now on top." "We know that...flatfish evolved from 'normal' symmetrical fish." Why would a designer, who can start from scratch, design a flatfish this way? On the other hand, if a flatfish evolved from "normal" fish, it makes perfect sense. Coyne notes, "yes, a designer may have motives that are unfathomable. But the particular bad designs we see make sense only if they evolved from features of earlier ancestors." The bad designs presented in the book are not just random bad designs; they are bad designs that are perfectly understandable if you look at the anatomy of related species and recognize that they are both remodeled versions of a common ancestor. "If a designer did have discernible motives when creating species, one of them must surely have been to fool biologists by making organisms look as though they evolved."

Chapter 4: Biogeography

>> "If we dig into shallow layers of rocks in a given area, we should [and do] find fossils that resemble [but are not identical to] the organisms treading that ground today." The further back you go in time, the more dissimilar the fossils look from animals alive today. "Creationism is hard-pressed to explain these patterns: to do so, it would have to propose that there were an endless number of successive extinctions and creations all over the world, and that each set of newly created species were made to resemble older ones that lived in the same place." That's quite a stretch...

>> Oceanic islands (islands which were never connected to a continent) have some peculiar patterns of species. "They are missing major groups of organisms, and the same ones are missing on different islands. But the types of organisms that are there often comprise many similar species - a radiation - and they are the types of species, like birds and insects, that can disperse most easily over large stretches of ocean. And the species most similar to those inhabiting oceanic islands are usually found on the nearest mainland, even though their habitats are different." This pattern does not exist on continental islands (islands that were at one time connected to a continent). There is a straightforward evolutionary explanation: the species that were able to colonize the islands split into multiple species once they got there. "Why would a creator happen to leave amphibians, mammals, fish, and reptiles off oceanic islands, but not continental ones? Why did a creator produce radiations of similar species on oceanic islands, but not continental ones? And why were the species on oceanic islands created to resemble those from the nearest mainland?" Furthermore, species from the mainland that are introduced on oceanic islands do quite well there, so it's not as if they were omitted because they are somehow unfit for island living.

Chapter 5: Directly observed evolution

>> "Every single [dog], purebred or mutt, descends from a single ancestral species - most likely the Eurasian gray wolf - that humans began to select about ten thousand years ago."

>> Bacteria can have generation time as short as 20 minutes, making it ideal for evolutionary experiments. Evolution of bacteria has been observed in real-time in laboratories, including a single species splitting into two. Another experiment "showed the evolution of a complex biochemical pathway that enabled bacteria to grow on a previously unusable food" - the type of biochemical pathway that creationists have claimed cannot evolve.

>> In the wild, bacterial germs have evolved resistance to drugs in the past few decades.

Chapter 8: Human evolution

>> "We share 98.5 percent of our DNA sequence with chimps."

>> Coyne presents a series of fossils that are intermediate between chimp and humans, in which older fossils are more ape-like and they become more and more humanlike as they become more recent. Creationists claim all the fossils are either humans or apes, not intermediate, and they are separated by "a large and unbridgeable gap." "But the whole folly is exposed by the fact that creationists can't agree on exactly which fossils are 'human' and which are 'ape.'...Nothing shows the intermediacy of these fossils better than the inability of creationists to classify them consistently."

In summary

"Every fossil 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 observations 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...Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right."

Finally, Coyne points out that the opposition to evolution is not due to a lack of evidence, for there is plenty of that, but mainly due to fears that the moral fabric of society will fall apart if people believe that humans descended from ape-like ancestors. "That just won't happen, as we know from the many European countries whose residents wholly embrace evolution yet manage to remain civilized." Time and time again, the imagined catastrophic effects of people knowing the truth about this or that are mostly or entirely misplaced. Humans, of course, have a great capacity for good as well as evil regardless of whether they believe in evolution or not. In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker described the fierce battle some people put up to deny that human behavior is influenced in any way by their genes, believing that if it were true, then personal responsibility would disappear and racism would be justified. These fears, too, were baseless. Pinker also points out that in Galileo's time, people thought the moral order of the universe was based upon the earth being the center of the universe and the sun and stars revolving around it; it was thought that Galileo's challenge to geocentrism would threaten the moral order - a laughable and bizarre concept today. Surely evolution threatens morality no more than heliocentrism does, and I expect one day people will view the denial of evolution much like we view the irrational moralistic opposition to the idea that the earth circles the sun.

Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne

Why Evolution Is True is my favorite book on evolution. It starts of course with the prodigious knowledge of Mr. Coyne but it's his ability to explain such complex topics with ease that sets this book apart from the rest. It's profound without being unintelligible. It's always the first book I recommend when I want to convince someone that the theory of evolution is true and supported by converging mountains of evidence. The book is composed of the following nine chapters: What is Evolution, Written in the Rocks, Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos, and Bad Design, The Geography of Life, The Engine of Evolution, How Sex Drives Evolution, The Origin of Species, What About Us?, and Evolution Redux.

Positives:

1. I absolutely love Mr. Coyne's assured, confident approach backed by lucid scientific evidence. He masters his topic and he conveys it with expertise. This is how all scientific books should be written, make your point and provide cogent arguments to defend it, bravo!

2. Great scientific quotes abound. Reference material.

3. The best explanation for the theory of natural selection with a luxury of details.

4. Mr. Coyne tells it as he sees it without being disrespectful. He establishes clearly where the resistance for evolution comes from and puts it in its proper place.

5. Great use of figures that help illustrate evolution.

6. I absolutely love how Mr. Coyne weaves several disciplines of science to make his points as clear as possible.

7. In making the case perfectly clear for evolution, he in fact destroys any notion of an "Intelligent Design".

8. An outstanding explanation for evolutionary predictions.

9. Radiometric dating and how we are able to have confidence in its accuracy.

10. Everything you wanted to know about fossil records and transitional forms. Including two of the best examples: Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx.

11. One of my favorite sections...vestigial traits. A lot of aha moments here.

12. Great examples of bad "design".

13. Convergent evolution explained.

14. Genetics made easy to understand.

15. The best explanation on how our eyes evolved.

16. Sexual evolution...I finally get it.

17. I enjoy the admiration that evolutionary biologists have for the icons of their industry: Darwin goes without saying but there is great admiration for Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins.

18. Absolutely loved the chapter about human evolution.

19. This book explains the most important concepts of evolution like no other. Brilliant!

20. All the links, notes, glossary does this superb book justice.

Negatives:

1. Having to wait for Mr. Coyne's next book.

In summary, this is in my humble opinion the best book about evolution for the masses. No book explains the theory of evolution any better than this one. It's thorough, well written, and makes you proud to love science. I can't recommend this book enough. A well deserved 5-star book. You don't have to believe in evolution but once you read this book it will leave you no choice but to accept it.

Recommendations: "Your Inner Fish..." by Neil Shubin, "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean B. Carroll, "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr, "Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution" by Nick Lane and "The Greatest Show on Earth" by the great Richard Dawkins.

Darwinism, that is, the theory [fact] of evolution and natural selection is one of the most publicized scientific views in the past centuries. It was amalgamated and truly set forth by Charles Darwin in the mid nineteenth century. The idea of evolution, as philosopher Daniel Dennet may put it, is "dangerous". This is because the idea that present day life forms are a product of gradual speciation and natural selection starkly contradicts many fundamental religious beliefs. The most popular being the doctrine of Creationism; the idea everybody and everything sprung into existence with the aid of a designer (as known as intelligent design). And although opposition has and continues to concurrently run rampant, the evidence for evolution by natural selection prosper and improve. The resulting contemporary citadel of evidence proves to be impenetrably robust. "How?" one may ask. Jerry Coyne, a prolific scientist and author, has set out to answer such a question.

The author begins by explaining what evolution is, and the geological and fossil history that corroborates it. How fossils come to be is explained as well as the methods to extrapolate a timescale based off remnant evidence. Evolution should be manifest as we start from older rock strata to newer rock strata. "Missing links" is looked it and we continue to find transitional fossils (e.g. amphibian-reptile, fish-amphibian, reptile-bird - the famous Archaeopterx). Interesting speculation on the reptile-bird transition was the "tree down" and "ground up" scenarios. The author writes about animal vestiges (vestigial organs), which are the remnant organs and structures in the body that had an archaic use but now is impertinent and sometimes useless. Whales have a lot of them and we, human beings, do so too (the appendix, coccyx; our vestigial tail, arrector pili; the muscles that give goosebumps). Also talked about are "atavisms" - throwback traits produced by the occasional reawakening of ancestral genes that have long been silenced. On the same tip, dead genes are covered and Coyne lays out an interesting case on how the proportions of dead gene expressions testify to evolution and especially natural selection. The discussion of biogeography and it's testimony to evolution was particularly insightful. Of the evolution books that I've read it was best covered here. Also interesting was learning about our fish-like embryos, our transitory fetal coat of hair, and our poor design. As evolution and plate tectonics predicts, continental islands (those that were once connected to major landmasses) would have similar ancestral history than the nearest landmasses it was once connected to millions of years ago. Continental Islands have a more diverse group of animals in terms of size. On the other hand, oceanic islands (those of which were never connected to a larger landmass and became an island because of rising water,etc) tend to have endemic diversity but not many large animals (besides those that made their way to the island, either artificially or by mere chance - for example, on a log). Sex is also a big and potent driver of evolution. This is the reason why we see so many of what's called "dimorphic" traits that apply to a certain gender. Dimorphic means difference in appearance of anatomically the same organism. Despite the environmental disadvantage - which seems to contradict natural selection - many males of a certain species seem to develop dimorphic traits that are vastly different than those of females. There are different purposes to assemble such traits, for example; protection or at-least perceived protection for a female, appearance of strength, possible aesthetic appeal, etc. For example, the males of many bird species have a colorful plumage - a vast array of different colors embellished on the skin. The chapter "What Abut Us?" was fascinating to me, as it spoke about the evolution of the modern day human. It spoke on all the transitional fossils since the initial separation of man and chimpanzee around 7 million years ago. the plethora of hominid fossils (Australopithecus, Neandrathals, Homo-Erectus, Homo-Habilis, etc) found reinforce the idea of human evolution. So far, every found fossil have been testimony to the bipedality, increased brain size, etc, that you would chronologically expect in the transition from our most common known ancestor and modern-day homo-sapiens. Towards the end, there's talk of our genetic lineage and racial differences.

I most revel at the brevity and conciseness of the text, as well as how good certain topics were elucidated. Compared to other evolution books I've read, I think that this one holds the crown on the topics: atavisms, bio-geographic separation; oceanic and continental islands, homo-sapien evolution, dimorphism, and dead genes. The way these topics were covered separates this evolution book from others for me. One of the main motives behind the book was to trump creationist/intelligent design fallacies. The retort did it successfully.

Through many readings and musings on evolution I would say that my personal sentiment is that the impregnable veracity of evolution is and can be manifest, as long as one is willing to consider it, no matter how diffident the very idea of it may seem.

4.7/5

Excellent Book and here are some of my comments:

Evolution is a chance game, but it's a chance game with advantages. If gambling was a random chance game, Las Vegas would be a small train depot with a few farmers in the vicinity. As Evolution produces a new species, then a new set of variations more refined than the previous will follow by pure mutation making it possible for future changes to be made. As chance causes the fine tuning of a species, also variations will be fine tuned. If you take advantages along with the refinement of variations at each step, then it's not difficult to envision the evolution of the complexity of a wing or eye or bacterial flagellum or blood clotting. In my opinion, fine tuning the variations has the key roll in Natural Selection.

However, I'm confused about Intelligent Design. If the most workable philosophy of science means to study natural phenomena's through there natural process excluding the gods or intelligence within the process. Then how can ID claim scientific status by this definition? There title rules them out. Why did it take a court decision to rule them out of the science classes and why was the philosophy not presented in the court case? To me, this should have been an open and shut case on the first day.

Evolution by definition is a fact, not a theory or even a law. A fact cannot be disputed, along with being repeatable, undeniable, and unchangeable, etc. The fossil record has repeatedly verified that life forms have changed over time and this cannot be denied, disputed or changed. Variations, more offsprings can be produced than survived, the struggle for survival, environmental change are all facts. The only theory of Darwin's modification of species is Natural Selection. This is the only aspect that can be disputed by Intelligent Design and if you put intelligent within the process it's not science.

According to Stephen Hawkings book called Universe in a Nutshell. "Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science." He want on to say "A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predication that can be tested. If predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives the test, though it can never be proven correct" Well, Natural Selection Theory has met all these requirements.

The rejection of continental drift by German geophysicist Alfred Wegener demonstrates that even scientists have trouble with new ideas, but he still had no explanation on the mechanism that caused continents to drift and his explanation was incomplete. But, that how science works, it took many more discoveries and new technology to finally confirm his theory.

To make an analogy of fossilization of transitional forms is like making a movie, however with differences. Movies are made with sequence of picture frames in rotating order to show movement and sound. Now let's make a movie titled "Transition from fish to Amphibians" as directed by the Fossil Record and produced by Fossil Hunters. First frame you see a lobe fin fish. The next frame is about 1/4 of the movie and you see a creature that is fish, but has some characteristics of an amphibian. Now the next frame is about ½ through the movie and you see a creature that is getting further away from a fish and more closely to an amphibian. Well the next frame pops into view and your about 3/4 into the movie and now a picture of a creature that has more amphibian characteristics than a fish and finally you get last frame and you got yourself an amphibian. Yea, we made it. All the picture frames in between the frames seen are missing. In order to see all the picture frames, the fossil record would have to fossilize and the fossil hunters would have to find about every 4 to 5 generations. Well this may be possible, but it's not probable. So now, what can we do, well it's very simple. You take a very sound scientific concept and scientists with good imaginations and you fill in the gaps and then you eliminate God from these gaps.

Sexual Selection works because of the fact that a male can breed many females, and a female can only mate with one male, makes sexual selection possible.

A comment about my eyes which are blue. According to genetics, blue showed up around 6 to 8 thousand years ago by a mutation of brown eye gene in one person, let say a man. This man will pass on the blue gene with a two to four chance to his offspring. Let say this dude had four children which two have a blue eye gene, of course no blue eyes will be present in any of his offspring. Now the next generation, the two individuals with blue eye genes will also have a two in four chance, thereby you've doubled blue eye gene. The following successive generations each will double the blue eye gene ie 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc, until such time there is enough blue eye genes in the population to cause two individuals to come together each having a blue gene. In such case, one in four chance that a child is born with blue eyes. The secret of passing on a single mutated gene is it's ability to replicate, transmit the gene to future generations and with the doubling law, will eventually show up in the population.

If ID wants to eliminate evolution from public schools, ask them, do they want to keep there families healthy and put affordable food on there table? Evolution gives a beautiful explanation as to why, diseases along with bugs become resistant or resistant to our medicines and pesticides. Entomologist and Medical Science have a powerful tool to understand how and why these events occurred and if you know something, you can do something. They don't have to start from ground zero, there half way there, in coming up with new medicines and pesticides. Ask ID if they want to go back to the good old days, when a couple had a dozen or so children and they were lucky to get half of them to adulthood.

Selection can build complexity for the simple reason, as mutations occur and is favorable for the population, it will spread through the population eliminating competing similar characteristics building up another variation that is more complex than the previous one. Variations is the key in evolution, to make complexity. So as the variation becomes complex it will make a more complex variation to continue the complexity of characteristics. Eyes and wings are easily evolved if there is light and an atmosphere. Eyes in vertebrates and arthropods have evolved independently. Wings of insects, birds and mammals all evolved separately from each other at different times. I predict when we go to another planet with life exposed to sunlight and an atmosphere, there will be eyes and wings.

Darwin stated that everyone knows what a species is, but no one can define it. Well, it's easily defined where a population can produce offsprings and if the offsprings are fertile, then the population is of the same species. Also, included in the definition is the ability to evolve. In the 1800's the black man was considered a separate species from us white folk. But this prove to be wrong,since some of the childlings started look like us white folk.

Darwin theory is only one that appears to passed all the tests thrown at it, that includes new discoveries, genetics, laboratory experiments, etc. Even Newton's Laws didn't make it. Albert showed that his laws were flawed. This also brings to mind that it's not necessarily the truthfulness that is important, but how useful they are. We still use Newton's laws in most science along with space programs, engineering and technology. Some areas of science it can't be used like proton acceleration or at the atomic or cosmic levels. But you know, we can't use Albert's theories at the atomic and subatomic levels either. Darwin's theory appears to have made it at all levels of the cosmos.

What about us? That was a sticky question is Darwin's day, but as you shown in your book, the evidence in genetics, the fossil record and being able to classify us in the tree of life has doomed us to be another creature of nature. However, I can now know where I came from which is 3.5 billion years of unbroken chain of life forms to give me this brief moment in life. I know where I'm going and that is back to nature, recycling me, so that other life forms will have there brief moment of life. This is more appealing to me than burning in hell for infinity.

I believe I can answer your question in the chapter Evolution Redux and that is memes. I just finished reading Richard Dawkins book on "The God Delusion". Memes act like genes, but there not materialistic, brain thought that requires no thinking. For example "There is life after death". Now for the longest time, I couldn't understand how people could accept ridiculous stories in scripture and I use to get frustrated arguing with them. Now I know, they can't help themselves, because of memes. These are installed in people usually at a young age and there imbedded in the brain where thinking is non-existent. If Dawkin's is right, it's like changing the genes that make my blue eyes.

Science is suppose to be wrong. What am I saying!! If science is always right, then science itself would perish. It's the wrongness that keeps it alive and thriving. If Charles Darwin was completely right about explaining his own theory, then Evolution would become stagnant. Scientists like Robert Gould and E.O. Wilson are refining his explanation and righting some of his wrongs. We learn far more from being wrong than being right.

I'm going to close this review on this note: "Man will not cease in seeking the truth through science and at the end of all that seeking and when we believe that the we know the truth, we will arrive were started from and know this place a little bit better, then we will start all over again." ( I cheated on this and model it after T. S Eliot, Four Quarters: Little Gidding)

Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. This is the main theme running through this book. What Coyne's book is not, is a directed rebuttal of ID creationism. What Coyne's book IS, is a very well- and clearly-written survey of the various evidences for evolution. Coyne's point is similar to Dobzansky's: all of this varied evidence can only be made sense of via the model of evolution. The fossil record, genetic evidence, etc, would simply be nonsensical under a theory like ID (unless the designer designed everything to look like it had evolved).

As a science teacher, I wish this were a book I could give both to my kids and to other science educators. Coyne gives very engaging and crystalline summaries of concepts like speciation, genetic drift, the significance of vestigial structures, and the falsifiability of evolutionary theory. For my fellow science educators, this book provides some great ideas on how to explain these and similar concepts, and also provides fascinating examples of evolution in action (I had no idea, for instance, that several sea-dwelling creatures have vestigial and all-but-functionless eyes!)

Two things that particularly struck me about this book: first, one of the most common ID objections is that we have never directly observed macroevolution/speciation in action. While Coyne incorrectly fails to correct this misimpression - any doubters, look it up - he deal well with his reply (which will still doubtless be disappointing to ID supporters). Coyne rightly notes that macroevolution takes place generally over many, many thousands of years, and that its glacial pace makes it appear as if it is not taking place. (Long and short: the best way to see the slow process of macroevolution at work is via the fossil record, and we have done that in spades.) The only reason I bring this up is that this is considered by IE supporters to be a very "live" and concerted objection, and Coyne's response, by contrast, is very, very subtle and indirect. This indirect response could be seen as a weakness by evolution's handful of critics.)

Secondly, Coyne goes through all of the lines of evidence for evolution in some detail EXCEPT the genetic evidence. As many have noted, one could ver well throw out all the fossil evidence and still have enough evidence, via genetics, of evolution. The chapters on paleontological, embryological, and zoological, and geographic evidences for evolution are very powerful. But I really missed, and hoped for, a good chapter on what many feel to be the strongest evidence for evolution: the genetic code. (Good books have been written entirely on this evidence, including Daniel J. Fairbanks's "Relics of Eden," and Sean Carroll's "Making of the Fittest." Both are highly reccomended.

Despite these points, this book is exactly what the lay-public needs. As statistics confirm that the general populace lacks good education and understanding of how evolution works (and why evolution is a sound theory), Jerry Coyne has written a patient, clear, and interesting book marshal ling the various evidences for evolution (and, by converse, against ID). As mentioned, Coyne's book is not devoted to direct confrontation with ID "theorists" like Behe and Demski. (See Miller's "Only a Theory" and Pennock's "Tower of Babel," just to mention two of hundreds.) Rather, Coyne does a great job arguing the positive case that, as Dobzhansky said, nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. If only everyone would read this.

Im Prinzip ist es eine Schande, dass es ein Buch wie dieses geben MUSS. Da es aber leider genügend Menschen gibt, die naturwissenschaftliche Theorien in Zweifel ziehen (insbesondere die Evolutionstheorie, um die es in diesem Buch geht), sind solche Bücher leider notwendig. Für alle, die es immer noch nicht kapiert haben oder für diejenigen, die keinen Zweifel an der Korrektheit der Naturwissenschaften (und damit der Evolutionstheorie, speziell in ihrer modernen Synthese) haben aber die entsprechenden Argumente vielleicht nicht formulieren können, ist dieses Buch geschrieben worden. In anschaulicher Weise werden die (unzähligen) Belege für die Evolutionstheorie dargestellt und die Pseudoargumente religiös verbrämter Zweifler aufgezeigt. Wer nach Lektüre dieses Werkes immer noch nicht überzeugt ist, dem kann nicht geholfen werden.

Ouvrage intéressant qui se dévore avec plaisir, mais l'auteur fatigue un peu à confronter sans arrêt ses arguments face à ceux des créationnistes. Faut croire que c'est utile outre Atlantique, mais personnellement je pense qu'il n'y avait pas besoin de se rabaisser à ça.

Coyne takes one gently by the hand and explains why Creationism and Intelligent design are simply false. Our world is 5 billion years old and anthropologists and paleontologists have unearthed remains of life of all kinds and had them scientifically dated, and 6000 thousand biblical years is a fallacy and untrue. This is a n easy primer that teaches evolution and how it happened and undoubtedly keeps happening . So slowly but surely.! This is one of the easiest books for basic students of evolution. Highly recommended.

This is a great book delivers a Solid account explaining the evolution and its ability to make predictions, its applications and of course solid evidence that's available to us all. I did my undergrads and grads in physics and this book gave me a great knowledge on the subject of evolution by natural selection. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning natural science.

The best introductory book on evolution. The

author presents detailed illustrations for

almost every piece of evidence he mentions in

the book, allowing readers to understand

evolution clearly--deep enough to see why

İntelligent design is unnecessary and how

evolution functions, but not so deep that it

becomes difficult to follow.

If readers ever find themselves in a debate

about evolution, this book provides more than

enough evidence to teach the truth with confidence.