[ download Pdf ] Why Evolution Is TrueAuthor Jerry A. Coyne – Kairafanan.co

Why Evolution Is Than Just A Theory It Is A Fact In All The Current Highly Publicized Debates About Creationism And Its Descendant Intelligent Design, There Is An Element Of The Controversy That Is Rarely Mentioned The Evidence, The Empirical Truth Of Evolution By Natural Selection Even Richard Dawkins And Stephen Jay Gould, While Extolling The Beauty Of Evolution And Examining Case Studies, Have Not Focused On The Evidence Itself Yet The Proof Is Vast, Varied, And Magnificent, Drawn From Many Different Fields Of Science Scientists Are Observing Species Splitting Into Two And Are Finding And Fossils Capturing Change In The Past Dinosaurs That Have Sprouted Feathers, Fish That Have Grown Limbs Why Evolution Is True Weaves Together The Many Threads Of Modern Work In Genetics, Paleontology, Geology, Molecular Biology, And Anatomy That Demonstrate The Indelible Stamp Of The Processes First Proposed By Darwin In Crisp, Lucid Prose Accessible To A Wide Audience, Why Evolution Is True Dispels Common Misunderstandings And Fears About Evolution And Clearly Confirms That This Amazing Process Of Change Has Been Firmly Established As A Scientific Truth


10 thoughts on “Why Evolution Is True

  1. says:

    As I read this book, I wondered why am I only learning about evolution in depth NOWand through my own desire to learn How did I get through school including a Bachelor s Degree without really understanding the nitty gritty of evolution I think much of the problem is that so many discoveries were so recent, but actually there is no excuse I THInK I paid attention in school But if I remember learning about Geometry, and, in fact, had at least one high school class CALLED Geometry, shouldn t I have also had a class called Evolution If there was such a class offered in my enormous suburban public high school, how did I get out of it This is crucial stuff Read it This needs to be ingrained knowledge from like first grade on up.


  2. says:

    Shocking and sadHere in Europe we tend to forget that the USA are not exclusively a country of reason and progress Books like this remind us that there is also religious fundamentalism and that uneducated people who believe that the world is 6000 years old and favour intelligent design can rise to the highest political offices The shocking thing is what this book reveals about the condition of our society What kind of society is it where brillant scientists feel compelled to waste valuable time writing serious books to refute harebrained nonsense like a flat earth, geocentrism or creationism intelligent design In Europe creationism is usually perceived as a minor problem, at least one not affecting the educational system In America it seems that creationists are able to gain influence in schools, so much so that in some cases they have to be subdued in court The introduction to this book detailing a recent court case is enough to make your skin crawl How far have we actually come since the times of the Scopes trial If the Untergang des Abendlandes should come it will begin like this With the rise of religious fundamentalism and the abolishment of reason in education The saddest aspect of this book is the realization that those who are really in need of learning the facts will not read it People already interested in life, in biology or in evolution will read ist People who want to know, people who wish to learn, people who have an open mind will read this book Religious fundamentalists are not interested in facts They cannot be convinced by facts because they have an entirely different outlook on life They cannot be reached by the truth because they have chosen to ignore it, fabricating their own twisted and bigoted versions of truth So, sadly, this excellent treatise on evolution, lucid and compelling, will benefit only those who are already open minded and critical It makes for a great introduction to the subject for younger readers or for people with little previous knowledge in biology It may be less suitable for Europeans as the frequent references to creationism would probably be considered distracting and unnecessary by most readers But take out these parts and you have a wonderful introduction to evolution ready for translation into French or German, Italian or Greek, Polish or Swedish Weathermen say that with the prevailing currents it usually takes three weeks for heavy weather from North America to reach Europe Creationism is decidedly slower and it has not yet gained a strong foothold in most European countries Let us hope that it does not act like the weather and that it can be vanquished before it spreads and pollutes the world If anything it will be books like this which may help to teach and enlighten at least those who are willing to learn.


  3. says:

    I ll come right to the point Jerry Coyne s Why Evolution Is True is arguably the best general interest reference book on the scientific evidence for evolution currently in print It really is.Many of the items that Coyne marshals will be familiar to those who are well versed in this topic But I found several items that I had never before seen One example is the recent discovery that diurnal and annual patterns in the growth of Devonian corals could be used to date these corals, since the length of years 396 days evident in these records matches the age approximately 380 million years old coincides with radiometric ages.One of the myths about evolution that Coyne explodes is the claim that there are lots of missing links in the fossil record To the contrary, in the past decade or two numerous transitional fossils have been found, in many cases bridging gaps such as the fish terapod link that creationist critics of evolution have asserted could never be bridged Coyne addresses human evolution in particular, and shows how the fossilized bones of hominin ancestors fit perfectly into the predicted intermediate forms.Coyne s analysis of how evolution coincides with the geographical history of the earth meaning the history of how continents have shifted is particularly good Other notable parts include the evolution of vision, sexual selection selection and evolution, and observations of evolution acting on bacterial species such as Hall s experiments Coyne s chapter on vestigal organs and instances of bad design such as the loss of Vitamin C machinery in primates is alone worth the purchase price.It will be quite a while before someone tops Coyne s book Enjoy it while it lasts.


  4. says:

    I picked this book after reading Dawkins Greatest Show on Earth After a series of conversations I had with some young earth creationists, and in light of what is occurring in the battle for science curriculum here in Texas, I wanted to find a book that I could recommend to creationists, since most creationists have absolutely no clue about the actual science Dawkins book is not that book because he is unable to keep his contempt for young earth creationists out of the conversation I think the book would only insult those people who I wish would open up their worldviews a bit To that end, Dawkins defeats his own purpose for writing the book in the way he delivers the material This book has a far neutral tone, and is a a nice succinct look at the science of evolution He chases less rabbits than Dawkins also, and he presents the evidence with a less impassioned tone than Dawkins, which I think is real plus if you re actually hoping to get those who disagree with you to listen to what you re saying You can see the differences in these two books just by looking at the titles Dawkins Greatest Show on Earth is an impassioned case for evolution It s practically a love letter to the natural world Why Evolution is True is a far drier presentation of much of the same evidence I personally enjoy Dawkins clever writing and all his rabbit chasing, and the passion for the subject that he can not hide, so personally I didn t enjoy this book as much as The Greatest Show on Earth But it s a very good general interest overview of the science of evolution Reading these two books together, I realize how much my education as a child failed me, largely because my science teachers were clearly afraid of wrath of the religious influences in our community if they really taught the facts of evolution To me that this is still going on is a travesty Since I started the quest for a book that I could share with young earth creationists, I ve realized the search is a futile one Once you realize where creationists begin their argument, you realize there s no point in trying to have a reasoned conversation with them They start by stating their hypothesis is fact, and indeed is revealed through God s own words Then they work in reverse Anything that doesn t support this conclusion is suspect, and is thrown out, or otherwise ignored They aren t looking at the evidence to see where it leads, they are looking at the evidence to figure out how to discredit it, or how they can possibly warp it into a way in which it might lend some kind of credibility to what they already believe Their minds are already made up They have no respect for the scientific process, and consider the academic process of peer reviewed publication probably one of the greatest things to happen to the process of learning to be a conspiracy I don t know how I forgot this, but i m grateful for the reminder Far greater minds than me have been unable to get these people to see how flawed this worldview is It s certainly not something I m going to cure So I think this book concludes my quest I don t think it will sway many minds that are already made up, But if you re someone out there just looking for a great overview so you can learn about about the massive evidence used to understand the process that got us here, or if you genuinely don t know what to believe, because science education in this country has failed you miserably, this is a great place to start One thought I think he should have left the final chapter out I understand why he feels like he needs to assuage fears that if society in general accepts evolution is true, we ll quickly de evolve into a pack rabid dogs, but i don t think the argument is something that can be tacked on to this conversation and dealt with fairly in a few pages, and I don t think it has any place in a book about the science itself It s the job of science to excavate the truth about how the world around us works It s up to philosophers and religious leaders and the like to figure out what to do with that information I think the fear of evolution destroying religious world views is about as rational as the fear that the entire universe doesn t revolve around the earth will end the Christian world view When religion and science spar, historically, religion always loses, and it always finds a way to bounce back I think the best way to forward for science is to continue to present the evidence and let the religious leaders work out how they re going to work it into their wordview, though I see why Coyne and Dawkins and others feel that to this point, that approach hasn t worked out so well Still I think the important point that should be hammered relentlessly is that science makes no commentary on faith Evolution makes no true commentary on God It isn t even a theory on origins, merely a theory on how life adapted over time Faith deals with the super natural Science stops at the natural world I think the scientific world would make better progress if they continue to make this point with the religious communities.


  5. says:

    Coyne admittedly had the uphill struggle of trying to prove something that is not true.


  6. says:

    Ellesmere Island _ _ _ _ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act Charles DarwinI will talk about just two evidences from thousands of evidences in order to prove evolution Vitamin C Note you can t understand this clue unless you know in the first place what DNA transcription and translation is.All mammals have the pathway to make vitamin C except for primates we and chimpanzees, orangutan etc , and guinea pigs In these species, vitamin C is obtained directly from their food We don t able to synthesize vitamin C, not because we don t need it if you don t ingest enough vitamin C, you get sick scurvy disease.the reason why we aren t able to make vitamin c is represent strong and beautiful evidence to prove that evolution is true Ok let s see itIt turns out that the pathway for making vitamin C from glucose involves a sequence of four steps , each promoted by the product of a different gene We and other primates and guinea pigs still have active genes for the first three steps , but the last step, which requires the GLO enzyme, doesn t take place GLO has been inactivated by a mutation It has become a pseudogene, called GLO is the Greek letter psi, standing for pseudo GLO doesn t work because a single nucleotide in the gene s DNA sequence is missing And it s exactly the same nucleotide that is missing in other primates The logical explanation is that the mutation that destroyed our ability to make vitamin C was present in the ancestor of all primates, and was passed on to its descendants The inactivation of GLO in guinea pigs happened independently, since it involves different mutations.Only evolution and common ancestry can explain these factsBut if you believe that primates and guinea pigs were specially created direct creation , these facts don t make sense Why would a creator put a pathway for making vitamin C in all these species, and then inactivate it Wouldn t it be easier simply to omit the whole pathway from the beginning Why would the same inactivating mutation be present in all primates, and a different one in guinea pigs Why would the sequences of then dead gene exactly mirror the pattern of resemblance predicted from the known ancestry of these species In our eyes In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards Podarcis sicula were introduced to the island of Pod Mr aru from a neighboring island The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken The wall lizards on Pod Mr aru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation This diet change seems to have driven dramatic changes in the lizards The head of the Pod Mr aru lizards is larger, and has a far greater bite force These are key adaptations for dealing with chewing leaves The most exciting sign of evolution is the development of cecal valves, muscles used to separate portions of the intestine These serve to slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption This is an entirely novel development in the Italian wall lizard, and a major adaptation and all these changes happened in only 37 years , There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved Charles Darwin


  7. says:

    First of all, this is a very well written book that powerfully makes the case for Darwinian evolution The author is well versed in the subject I would recommend this book to anyone who, like me, has little knowledge of the actual science of evolution but wants to learn That said, I am not really bothered by evolution and I am an evangelical Christian, though not a creationist Yes there are theological challenges that the science of evolution brings to scripture I don t think these challenges are as much in Genesis 1 Genesis 1 comes across poetically and I highly doubt whomever wrote it was intending to write modern science The bigger challenge comes in Genesis 2 and 3 which presents Adam and Eve as the first humans and of course, Paul speaks of Adam as the first human in parallel to Christ as the new human But even there, many Christians have found a way to reconcile evolution and faith.The rest of this is not so much a review of the book as my thoughts on the real questions at the heart of the debate which are philosophical, not scientific, questions I think part of the problem in the whole debate is the rhetoric both sides use Throughout the book Coyne attacks creationists To some degree this is necessary as creationists are the ones most opposed to evolution But such rhetoric tends to put people on the defensive I mean, I think everyone has been in an argument where they knew they were wrong but kept arguing anyway to save face The fact is that whether evolution is true or not is irrelevant to the question of whether God exists.A parallel to other sciences may help make my point The Bible talks often about God sending rain and sunshine Yet when meteorology explains how weather patterns occur naturally, no one blinked an eye People of faith continued to see that behind those natural processes, God is still involved in the weather There is no battle to get a creationist view of meteorology taught in schools But I imagine when you read a meteorology textbook there are no slams on God, there is no argument that because we know how weather arises naturally we know God has nothing to do with it.When we get to evolution, the dialogue changes Again, this is not a knock on Coyne for he is specifically defending evolution against creationists, so of course he will attack them I just wonder how the debate would change if both sides admitted that the science of evolution does not prove God does not exist Maybe I am idealistic, but if we heard people in the middle believers who accept evolution, nonbelievers who accept evolution but admit it does not rule out God and less extremes both Richard Dawkins and Ken Hamm see evolution as ruling out God perhaps the debate would change.Coyne manages to mostly avoid the problem of moving from science into philosophy In the last chapter he writes How can you derive meaning, purpose, or ethics from evolution You can t Evolution is simply a theory about the process and patterns of life s diversification, not a grand philosophical scheme about the meaning of life 225 Nice In the next paragraph he notes that finding meaning, purpose and moral guidance are outside the domain of science But by the end of the chapter Coyne is talking about deriving your spirituality from science 232 That seems muddled Right before this, he writes The world still teems with selfishness, immorality, and injustice But look elsewhere and you ll find innumerable acts of kindness and altruism There may be elements of both behaviors that come from our evolutionary heritage, but these acts are largely a matter of choice, not of genes Giving to charity, volunteering to eradicate disease in poor countries, fighting fires at immense personal risk none of these acts could have been instilled in us directly by evolution 230 231 Then where did they come from Not science.He goes on to say evolution acts in a purposeless, materialistic way 231 This is okay, because people find meaning in all kinds of places, including religion 231 Then he gets to spirituality from science, ending up with a quote from an author lamenting the failure of science to replace conventional religion 232 He ends by assuring us that accepting evolution will not cause us to behave like beasts because, well, look how much great art and literature humans have made.I do wonder though, earlier he talks about infanticide among lions 122 If humans are just a part of nature, then why is infanticide wrong for us Likewise, he seems to lament humans introducing foreign species into habitats that then kill native animals off 110 But if humans are part of nature, are we not just playing a role in natural evolution where some animals survive and others do not It appears like on one hand he is saying the science of evolution says nothing about religion for science only talks about how On the other hand, if only we could get rid of religion and just have science But back to the first hand, science alone gives us no meaning and purpose Thus, we have some vague spirituality from science , whatever that is To me, it seems muddled Overall, this is a good book to learn about the science of evolution But whether this science is true or not and Coyne makes a strong case that it is reveals little to nothing about the questions of meaning, purpose and God s existence.


  8. says:

    I d give it 2.5 stars if I could Seeing how I think he s wrong, though, I ll downgrade rather than upgrade.I probably agree with 70% of what s in the book, which may be surprising, me being a creationist I m not going to try to untangle all the mixtures of agreement and disagreement. but its interesting that I definitely am fully onboard with over half of the book, but still disagree with the major premise that evolution is true.Coyne succeeds in presenting a case for neo darwinian evolution By which I mean, he successfully explains observations in light a modern evolutionary theory He paints a fairly complete systematic understanding of the history of life I recommend the book to everyone for this reason E.O Wilson is correct when he writes in the blurb on the back that this is a clear, well written explanation of evolution Unfortunately, he doesn t begin to explain the serious difficulties of darwinism he outright denies the existence of such problems That s a major drawback of the book it presents it as a defensive boast rather than a scientific and critical examination of evidence.A further detriment is the apparently intentional strawman portrayal of creationists There is an endnote on page 33 that explains the creationist position as allowing for microevolutionary change within biblical kinds But this is the only place in the book creationists are treated this honestly Everywhere else special creation is caricatured as a special creation event for each and every species of organism It is dishonest and, once again, takes away from the argument of the book.The final failure of the book I will mention is the last chapter, where Coyne attempts to deal with philosophical and metaphysical implications of evolution It is a sad attempt while he should be praised for recognizing the need to deal with these issues, he should have stopped when he honestly stated the case How can you derive meaning, purpose, or ethics from evolution You can t p225


  9. says:

    This one is like the Beak of the Finch it shows impressive work on Natural Selection, but it doesn t prove that the little changes must lead to the huge changes between people and animals This book also illustrates how scientists are trying to be historians a kind of integrating of subjects and they are failing miserably If any historian tried to pass of these kinds of arguments as history they wouldn t survive the laughter Evolutionists reason like this if these two bone structures look alike they must be related therefore one must have come from the other That s like an historian saying Alexander the Great and Charlemagne were both kings therefore one must have come from the other Evolutionists assume a system and then fit everything into it, but they seem to think that they are not making assumptions Some how they are assumption free Really


  10. says:

    .