Why Evolution Is True

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)

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...

That loudmouth Daily Mail journalist Melanie Philips once opined that evolution is a theory, not a fact. She meant presumably that evolution is 'speculation': that the evidence as it stands does not lean toward creationism or Darwinism. Hence, on the evidence there is, it is equally reasonable to opt to `believe' in either.There are a lot of people out there who would agree with her. They need read Jerry A. Coyne's book which tackles the misunderstandings about Darwinian theory head-on. Evolution is indeed a theory, but that does not make it speculation. As Coyne explains, in science a 'theory' is much more than speculation about how things are: it is `a well thought-out group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world.' Second, for a theory to be scientific, as opposed to mere speculation, it must be `testable and able to make verifiable predictions' and, third, `the scientific theories can be tested against other theories (pp 15-17).What facts, then, support the theory of evolution - what predictions does it make that have been confirmed? Here are a few salient examples Coyle offers.First of all there is the movement from simplicity to complexity. If life has evolved ever greater complexity over eons of time, the theory predicts that the fossil record should show greater and greater complexity over time. The oldest layers of rocks contain simple fossils, younger layers more complex examples. Evolution predicts simple organisms evolved before complex ones, with transitional fossils between simpler and more complex fossils. The fossil record does indeed confirm this prediction (see page 30)So take the largest mammal on Earth, the blue whale, the distant ancestor of which was a shallow-water dwelling hippopotamus. Fossil mammals have been found that existed 60 million years ago but no fossil whales exist at this point. These appear 30 million years ago. Therefore the theory predicts that the transitional forms from hippo to whale would appear between 60 and 30 million years ago. The transitional fossils have been found exactly as predicted, appearing between 60 and 30 million years ago.If species didn't evolve, then there is no way their distribution on Earth would make sense. Marsupials like the platypus are not found outside Australia yet their oldest fossils, over 80 million years old, are not found in Australia but North America. The theory is that marsupials originated in North America and migrated southwards to Australia, reaching the tip of South America 40 million years ago and reaching the Australia around 30 million years ago. But how did they cross the South Atlantic? There was no ocean to cross: the continents were joined. The tip of South America was joined to what is now Antarctica, which in turn was joined to Australia. Marsupials migrated across Antarctica.If all this is true, then marsupial fossils should be found in Antarctica, and they should be younger than those in South America but older than those in Australia. Scientists set out to prove just that and indeed did just that and they were of the right age, around 35 to 40 million years old (pp 102 - 103).Perhaps the greatest anathema to creationists and intelligent designers is the idea that humans descended from `apes'. What is the evidence for this? When Darwin made this prediction, in The Descent of Man, in 1871, there was very little fossil evidence around to back this up - just a handful of Neanderthal bones. He made this prediction on the basis of anatomy and behaviour. But since then, starting with the discovery of the `Southern Ape Man' in South Africa in 1924 and `Lucy' in 1974, among others, the evidence has been coming in.As the fossils become more recent, we should see brains getting larger, teeth smaller and posture becoming more erect and this is what has been confirmed. It's not possible with the existing stock of bones and fossils to trace a linear descent and this may never be possible, as all the links may never be found. But, as Darwin predicted, `fossils that start off ape-like ... become more and more like modern humans as time passes.' (p. 227).But evolution doesn't just make predictions, it explains facts about the natural world, or retrodictions. We know about the alarming tendency of bacteria to develop resistance to drugs (see pages 139 -141). This is a result of random genetic mutation occurring in pathogens, enabling them to survive and replicate, thus producing resistant strains. Creationism and ID cannot explain this phenomenon but evolution via natural selection can.So when Coyle says evolution is true, he means the major tenets of the theory have been verified. This is not the same thing as saying it's not a fact because some mysteries remain unsolved.Gaps in evolution do not mean that the entire theory has no foundation or is just speculation. Moreover over time the gaps are becoming fewer. We know that birds came from dinosaurs. They were not created out of thin air. We have evidence of the evolution of complexity in the eye, with many types of eye, at various levels of complexity, all around us. The precursors of complex biochemical processes such as clotting have been identified in invertebrates (p 151).But still the existence of gaps allows proponents of ID to attempt to refute the theory. If there is complexity, and it is not entirely understood, then this is evidence for supernatural intervention. But this is simply a `God of the gaps' argument and explains and predicts nothing. There is no way that this can be verified. It makes no sense whatsoever to explain facts about nature by appealing to something that is outside nature. This to me is the fatal flaw that undermines all appeals to ID: the idea is incoherent.Further observation about the facts of the world undermines the plausibility of ID.Natural selection is a tinkerer, not a precision engineer. It works with the material it has. So some adaptations maximise reproductive fitness but are otherwise a disadvantage to the organism concerned. The peacock's tail is fantastically well-adapted for attracting mates but also predators. Female sea turtles dig their nests on beaches with flippers, an arduous process. It would be better if they had shovel-like flippers but this would mean they couldn't swim very well. Selection involves trade-offs (see page 13).An intelligent designer could resolve this by giving the turtle an extra pair of retractable shovel-like limbs, or maybe giving the peacock a tail it could unfurl away outside mating season. Natural selection cannot do either of these things. It can only work with the existing framework but an all-powerful creator or designer by definition should not be limited by structural flaws.Percy Bridgman, Harvard Professor of Physics and tutor of Robert Oppenheimer, once remarked: `Scientists aren't responsible for the facts that are in nature. If anyone should have a sense of sin, it's God. He put the facts there.' How indeed to explain these facts? Not all of them pretty facts, either.We've seen how drug-resistance bacteria evolve. Is the creator creating new resistant strains out of nothing or is the designer tweaking microbes' DNA to develop resistance? How can we explain the existence of parasites like tapeworms? Are these the creations or the design of a benevolent deity? Why have 99% of species gone extinct? Is this really evidence of ID?It is sometimes said that scientists are proselytisers and evangelicals for atheism and materialism. This is way off mark. All scientific proof is provisional. New data may conceivably undermine Darwinism. The theory of evolution would not survive if fossils of Cro-Magnon were found in the same layer of rock as a Tyrannosaurus Rex. If this happened, this would refute the entire theory. But the theory is supported not because of a dogmatic refusal to countenance other possible theories but because the data support the theory.It is therefore false to say that evolution and creationism are both `faith positions', if by this it is meant that it is equally reasonable to believe or teach either position based on the evidence available. The evidence out there does not lean equally either way: it leans one way - and overwhelmingly so.

Very nice quality !

Coyne’s “blockbuster” Why Evolution is True lives up more to the origin of the word (meaning destructive bomb) than its more current, positive usage. The only praise it deserves is the foreshadowing of that part of Coyne’s more recent Faith vs. Fact, in which he does a masterful job exploding the foolish attempt of religionists to accommodate evolution to special creation through classic theistic evolution or today’s more contemporary “evolutionary creation.” As Coyne rightly argues, it is illogical in the extreme to argue that an intelligent Creator acting purposely to bring about human existence used a random, purposeless natural process (conveniently biased to achieve the intended result!).Otherwise, Coyne’s book is elegant rubbish, packed wall to wall with circular arguments assuming the very conclusions he is claiming to prove; straw-man arguments superciliously destroying supposed creationist positions they would never affirm; and other breathtaking logical fallacies more expected of a college freshman. Nor would the uncritical reader be alerted to Coyne’s disingenuous assertions of undeniable proof where there are gaps wide enough to drive 18-wheelers through without a scratch. The reader would be wise to employ Coyne’s own advice: “We should be deeply suspicious of speculations that come unaccompanied by hard evidence.”Of course, Coyne would protest that there is sufficient hard evidence to justify his liberal use of “probably,” “might well be,” “almost certainly,” and “one can envision” in long arguments meant to persuade us that evolution is factually true. After all (speaking of whale evolution), “there is no need to describe this transition in detail, as the drawings clearly speak—if not shout—of how a land-living animal took to the water” (p. 53). Drawings, hard evidence? One might just as easily argue that an artist’s sequencing of a boat, a sea-plane, and an airplane undeniably proves that planes evolved from boats, or indeed vice versa. Don’t planes and boats share uncanny “anatomical” similarities, not to mention 98 percent the same molecular structure?Coyne’s argument from the fossil record is betrayed when he is honest enough to admit (p. 27) that “we can’t expect to document every transition between major forms of life.” Indeed, “the chance of finding that single ancestral species in the fossil record is almost zero” (p. 36). So it’s enough if you can find “evolutionary cousins,” or maybe not even that. “Showing common ancestry of two groups, then, does not require that we produce fossils of the precise single species that was their common ancestor, or even species on the direct line of descent from an ancestor to descendant. Rather, we need only produce fossils having the types of traits that link the two groups together” (p. 37). Apparently this convenient fudge justifies Coyne’s bold claim (p. 28) that “we can produce fossils that show continuous changes within lineages of animals…(those missing ancestors of whales, for instance, have turned up).” Not! Only wild speculation, vivid imagination, and clever drawings.At least Coyne appreciates where the crux of the evolution debate lies. “A better title for The Origin of Species, then, would have been The Origin of Adaptations: while Darwin did figure out how and why a single species changes over time (largely by natural selection), he never explained how one species splits in two” (p. 185). “…We must also explain how new species arise. For if speciation didn’t occur, there would be no biodiversity at all—only a single, long-evolved descendant of that very first species.” The obvious validity of Coyne’s point turns out to be his very undoing.Coyne rightly points out that speciation has much to do with sex. “As we’ll see later, speciation simply means the evolution of different groups that can’t interbreed—that is, groups that can’t exchange genes” (p. 6). It’s not just groups, of course, but tens of millions of individual species. How do we know we have a different species? Sex, baby, it’s all about sex! Exclusive, pin-number-protected sex by organisms that can only compatibly mate and reproduce with members of their own distinct species. As Coyne puts it (p. 187), “species are distinct not merely because they look different, but because there are barriers between them that prevent interbreeding.” So, “if you can explain how reproductive barriers evolve, you’ve explained the origin of species” (p. 190). Good luck on that one.Coyne’s feeble attempt to explain restricted-breeding speciation centers on the formation of “sister species” caused by geographic isolation when, for example, a mountain or body of water comes between two groups of the same species. “Suppose these conditions were to happen…,” Coyne begins. “Now imagine…,” he continues his speculative hypothesis. And yet again, “Now imagine…” After all that hard evidence, Coyne concludes that species “are simply the inevitable result of genetic barriers that arise when spatially isolate populations evolve in different directions” (p. 192). Interesting hypothesis. But even if that hypothetical scenario remotely explained the odd “sister species,” there simply aren’t enough mountains, rivers, or lakes on the planet to explain the origin of tens of millions of different species.More important still, Coyne doesn’t seriously address the bigger problem: the need for the simultaneous random coevolution of both the first male and first female of each new species in order to move to the second generation of the species. Coyne does acknowledge that, “why the two sexes have different numbers and sizes of gametes is equally messy” (p. 169). What’s more than just “messy” is how evolution possibly could have produced disparate genders in the first place. How could natural selection have selected something which never before existed? That question alone brings us to evolution’s single most fatal flaw: the origin of sex (male/female meiosis) from asexual replication (mitosis).As with all other evolution apologists who are confronted with the quietly-acknowledged “Queen of evolutionary problems,” Coyne asks the wrong question when it comes to gender and sex. “Why sex evolved is in fact one of evolution’s greatest mysteries” (p. 168). The question is not WHY sex (addressed in all the talk about the Red Queen, Muller’s Ratchet and the DNA repair theory, etc.), but HOW sex? In order for sexual reproduction to be advantageous despite its high genetic cost, it must first exist. So how did that happen? Darwin never went there. Neither does Coyne. Instead, he does a classic end-run, talking instead about sexual selection (which assumes both sex and gender rather than explain its origin).If Coyne is to convince his readers that evolution is true, he must quit running the film of evolution at such speed that it tricks the mind into thinking that the moving pictures they’re watching could happen without the individual snapshots that would have been required in each frame. Nor is it scientifically valid simply to say, “We just don’t know yet.” Sheer scientific logic tells us there couldn’t possibly be a mechanism for the simultaneous evolution of the first-ever sexually-compatible male and female organisms, reproducing by a never-before-seen process of meiosis rather than mitosis. Where would be the DNA? And don’t even whisper the word “mutations.” As Coyne admits, “mutations are changes in traits that already exist” (p. 13).In Faith vs. Fact, Coyne taunts theists with the challenge: “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.” If perhaps it would be unfair to expect Coyne to produce evidence of the first-ever sex, it is entirely fair to expect his vaunted fossil record to show us the transitional organisms leading to, say, the first-ever penile/vaginal sex. Even given that sex doesn’t exactly fossilize well, the necessary transitional organisms (not just imagined “cousins” or “groups”) certainly ought to be there staring us right in the face. They’re not, of course, and that’s because half a penis or half a vagina couldn’t possibly have produced the first generation in order to move to the second generation. In a graphic nutshell, that’s the problem with speciation from beginning to end, not the least of which are major supposed transitions from amphibian to reptile to mammal. At some magic moment we’d have to have not one but two first-ever sexually-reproducing reptiles from one or more amphibians produced by amphibian sex, not reptile sex.Or take the bizarre sex life of the praying mantis. How possibly could natural selection have gradually coevolved both the unsuspecting male and the cannibalistic female? At just what freeze-frame moment in evolutionary history did natural selection come up with the brilliant idea of cannibalism in the middle of having sex? The only thing more bizarre would be the precursor species that was partly cannibalistic and partly not! Hardly fits Coyne’s highly-imaginative “sister species” scenario, no matter how geographically isolated. As always, the devil is in the details.For all his illustrious bluster, Coyne hasn’t proved his case. Not even nearly. It wouldn’t be the first time sex was someone’s undoing. But this time, it’s gone one better: proving that Darwin’s Grand Theory of evolution is NOT true.

Jerry Coyne is a bit annoyed that it was necessary to write this book. I am glad he got annoyed enough to write it. In part he is writing against the intelligent design movement, and against creationism and he shows the flaws in these viewpoints not with rhetoric, but with well chosen evidence.The book is a powerful and straightforward account of evolution showing the strength of the theory, its ability to make predictions, and giving many examples of the evidence on which evolution is based. After reading the book you have a good idea of what evolution is about, and what fields of study it applies in. Coyne is clear that evolution is a theory in biology of great explanatory power. The key idea is that of descent with modification.He is also clear (in his final chapter evolution redux) of the limits to evolutionary thinking. Good scientists know what they know, and also have some idea where their knowledge stops. Coyne demonstrates this ability well. By doing this he becomes a far better advocate for evolution than Dawkins.Evolution is not an ontological or moral theory. You can derive no moral lesson from evolution- it just is (p253). David Hume pointed out that deriving an ought from an is is usually to make a specious argument. The fact that the idea of evolution as progress has been misused by many is not an argument against evolution. It is an argument against the misuse of ideas.Coyne (p248)describes that, "There is an increasing (and disturbing) tendency of psychologists, biologists and philosophers to Darwinize every aspect of human behaviour, turning its study into a scientific parlour game." He liberates us (p250)from some of the genetic determinism that sometimes accompanies evolution, "There is no reason, then, to see ourselves as marionettes dancing on the strings of evolution. Yes certain parts of our behaviour may be genetically encoded, instilled by natural selection in our savanna-dwelling ancestors. But genes aren't destiny...."genetic" does not mean "unchangeable.""Coyne liberates evolution from its role as chief evidence for atheism.(pxix) "Nor must it promote atheism, for enlightened religion has always found a way to accommodate the advances of science. In fact, understanding evolution should surely deepen and enrich our appreciation of the living world and our place in it." Denis Alexander makes a similar point in his recent book,"Creation or Evolution:Do we have to choose."This book does have one notable omission which arises because it sticks closely to the facts. There is no account of how the first cell ever got started, maybe because there is not yet any great evidence for how this happened. So far as I can understand evolution it describes the mechanisms of relationship between ancestors and descendants, but the tracing back of ancestors can only go back so far- to some original reproducing cell.This book is timely this year. It's a great account of how evolution works from its 6 basic principles namely evolution (genetic change over time), gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and non selective mechanisms of evolutionary change. The basic principles have clear starting points and consequences which are observable or at least, inferable.It puts evolution in a sensible context, and shows where, and to what, it sensibly applies. It is a welcome book this year and it puts the theory of evolution centre stage on its own merits, and not as a means to advocating for other ideas. Sensible, tolerant, encouraging and provoking further thought. Very scientific. Highly recommended.

Taking into account the book's title, 'Why Evolution is True', one can wonder why this book needed to be written. However, I am very glad that it has been. That evolution has taken place, and still is occurring is an undisputable scientific fact. There are not too many of these. Why, then, is evolution so disputed (albeit by a small group of vocal, but sadly deluded individuals)? The first reason is that it is superficially straightforward to understand, unlike General Relativity for example that needs knowledge of advanced mathematics and therefore cannot be easily attacked. However, this apparent superficiality actually leads people to misunderstandings. Thus the understanding of evolutionary theory amongst creationists is actually very poor. Secondly, evolution touches on the nature of human beings themselves. I find it amazing that I share a relatively recent common ancestor with Chimpanzees, for example. That we are part of the continuum of life on Earth is tremendous - we share an awful lot in common with even the simplest organisms. I do not need to feel that I have been especially created - that the universe exists and contains life is amazing.The writing is excellent - clear and logical. It is aimed in particular at those who may not have knowledge of evolutionary theory. The book details evidence for evolution - from fossils, molecular biology, studies of isolated islands et al. And there is plenty of it. It also discusses mechanisms of evolution, including evolution by natural selection and sexual selection. There is also a discussion of polyploidy. The chapter on human evolution is fascinating. It is interesting to note that certain religious authorities in Kenya have attempted to censure museums that display fossils from early hominids. It is hardly believable!Coyne's style not in anyway patronising. This would be an excellent book for anyone interested in evolution, and for those people who may be unsure of it. It would make a good beginning for anyone interested in pursuing amateur studies in evolutionary science. It must be noted that there is a bibliography included giving suggestions for further reading. This is an excellent idea and far too rare. Very highly recommended.