Product Description

Less than 450 years ago, all European scholars believed that the earth was the centre of a universe that was at most a few million miles in extent, and that the planets, sun, and stars all rotated around this centre. Less than 250 years ago, they believed that the universe was created essentially in its present state about 6000 years ago. Less than 150 years ago, the special creation by God of living species was still dominant. The relentless application of the scientific method of inference from experiment and observation, without reference to religious, or governmental authority has completely transformed our view of our origins and relation to the universe, in less than 500 years. Few would dispute that this programme has been spectacularly successful, particularly in the twentieth century. This book is about the crucial role of evolutionary biology in transforming our view of human origins and relation to the universe, and the impact of this idea on traditional philosophy and religion. The purpose of this book is to introduce the general reader to some of the most important basic findings, concepts, and procedures of evolutionary biology, as it has developed since the first publications of Darwin and Wallace on the subject, over 140 years ago. Evolution provides a unifying set of principals for the whole of biology; it also illuminates the relation of human beings to the universe and each other. In addition, many aspects of evolution have practical importance; for instance, the rapid evolution of resistance by bacteria to antibiotics and of HIV to antiviral drugs are pressing medical problems.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #48060 in Books
• Published on: 2003-06-26
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 168 pages

About the Author
Brian Charlesworth is Royal Society Research Professor at the Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, and President of the Society for the Study Evolution. His research is mainly in evolutionary genetics, applying classical and molecular genetics to the study of evolution and natural variation. He is author of Evolution in Age-Structured Populations (CUP, 2nd edn. 1994)

Customer Reviews

An excellent summary of current knowledge
It is a sign of the times that the authors on occasion take a defensive attitude to their subject. Creationism, for whatever reason, has proved remarkably adaptive and, strange as it may seem, evolutionary biologists still feel obliged to painstakingly lay out the evidence for evolution per se, rather than just discuss its mechanisms or trace its history.

The Charlesworths do a good job of this, albeit in a rather dry, academic style that may not suit readers that just want a light, readable introduction to the basic principles of evolution.

The book contains a fairly heavy dose of microbiology, as the authors go to some lengths to detail the biological functions underlying heredity and evolution. This is useful revision for readers with high school science, but tough going for the complete beginner. Similarly, the style is plain and succinct but never light or breezy. This is not a dummy's guide.

Evolution theory took a spectacular wrong turn in the latter part of the 20th century with the emergence of the idea that selection acts only at the gene level, a view popularized by Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. This bizarre notion gained a considerable following and was the subject of a heated dispute between Dawkins and Gould that ended only with the latter's death. Thankfully, sanity has been restored and it is now once again recognized that selection can take place at any level, and it is refreshing to see the Charlesworths, in this book, stating unequivocally (p 74) that there can be selection at species level and at other levels (p 73). Interestingly, there is an extract from a very favorable review by Dawkins of this book, on the back cover. Did he skip pages 73 and 74 or has he at last seen the light?

This series is prone to typos and the mutant printing gene has not been bred out of this particular book. Figure 19 is a monumental example. It is printed in landscape rather than portrait mode, effectively sideways (you'd have to see it to understand) thus leaving half the page blank and half the figure missing. The birds and mammals are therefore cruelly pruned from the tree of life. OUP really should get a grip.

Look elsewhere if you want a true introductory text, but select this if you want an excellent summary of the current state of knowledge of evolution and its underlying biological processes.

Dry, clunky and uninspiring.
I decided to read up on evolution after reading Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, in which he suggest that all behavior can be explain with evolutionary theory. I found the God Delusion a well written book that explained some complex ideas in an accessible and engaging way. Given that this book has Dawkins approval plastered over the back cover I figured it would serve as a good introduction to evolution.

Unfortuantly I found this book to be a disappointment. I study Biology at A level so was familiar with many of the concepts in the book but often found myself having to re-read passages to figure out what the point being made was. The tone was dry making it hard to engage with, I end up reading the book in very short sittings as it couldn't hold my concentration.

Darwin is quoted occasionally throughout book and these quotes contrast with the rest of the text. The quotes are far more digestible then the surrounding text and far more compelling too.

My hope was that after reading this book I would at least have a sound understanding of evolution. I have not achieved that, therefore I really can't recommend this book.

Errors and Evaluation


This is a splendid introduction to the subject of evolution revealing both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, representing the broad consensus of opinion among the scientific community and providing a knowledgeable presentation of Darwin's original theory recast in its twenty first century intellectual context.

The basic tenet of the theory is that the Earth is a planet orbiting a star (the Sun) formed from "a process of gravitational condensation of dust and gas" about 4.6. billion years ago. All living organisms "are the descendants of self-replicating molecules..formed by purely chemical means" more than 3.5 billion years ago. According to the theory successive life forms have been produced by a process of "descent with modification" (natural selection) and related to each other by the tree of life.

The theory continues that all vertebrates can trace "their ancestry back to a small fish-like creature that lacked a backbone over 500 million years ago." The authors admit the further back in time they go the more difficult it is to establish relationships but argue that "there are clear signs in ...genetic material of common ancestry."

It follows from the theory that previous theories of special creation have been replaced by the idea "that human beings are the product of impersonal forces and that the habitable world forms a minute part of a universe of immense size and duration" which can be understood by the application of "the scientific method of inference from experiment and observation without reference to religious or governmental authority."

In fairness to the authors they recognise there are problems with the theory such as the process of adaptation. To meet this they raise the far from convincing argument that just as engineering constantly produces improved models e.g. artificial knees, cars so nature has improved on earlier models, citing the work of animal and plant breeders in support of their claim. However, in each case quoted by way of example, the changes have been designed and modifications have been introduced by humans not by impersonal natural forces.

Similarly, in discussing the evolution of eyes the authors suggest "Rhodopsin is used in all animal eyes and is also found in bacteria. Starting with this simple ability of cells to detect light, it is easy to imagine a series of steps in which increased light-capturing abilities evolve step by step leading eventually to a focusable lens that produces a sharp image." However, there is a world of difference between "imagining" such steps and "knowing" that they occurred. In making such statements the authors are reproducing an "evolution of the gaps" rather than an example of the scientific method.

The authors claim, "Although we know nothing of the details of the selective forces driving the evolution of human mental and language abilities, which evidently far exceed those of other animals, there is nothing particularly mysterious in explaining them in evolutionary terms." Such explanation is attributed to control by genes, arguing that, "mutations have been found which lead to deficiencies in specific aspect if grammar in the speech of their carriers". In that case there should be whole populations of stammerers or people with an inability to learn structural forms of language.

The weakness of evolutionary theory lies in its adherence to the Darwin's idea, copied from the equally discredited Malthus, that life was an outgrowth "from the war of nature, from famine and death". The "struggle for existence" envisioned by both is both discredited and indefensible. In addition, like many ideologies - religious, political and philosophical - evolutionary theory is so broad that it can be made to fit any circumstances without critical appraisal. In this respect the scientific community undermines its own credibility by assuming the theory to be valid rather than adopting a critical approach.

However, it would be unfair to allow the previous statement to stand without qualification. The modern state of evolutionary theory is an outgrowth of the modern synthesis of Haldane et.al. which led to modern evolutionary biology. Within the latter there are clear divisions between those such as Dawkins who believe that natural selection is the primary force guiding evolution and scientists such as Steven Rose who argues that natural selection does not fully explain the complexity of evolution and that we are overlooking something big. I remain unconvinced that studying fruit flies, as did John Maynard Smith to whom the book is dedicated, really provides useful information about the human race.

One does not have to be a supporter of Intelligent Design to see the weaknesses of evolutionary theory, in particular, the notion of natural selection or the "survival of the fittest" which was, from the outset, the main idea against which opponents of Darwin objected. It would appear that modern evolutionary theorists are no nearer a concrete understanding of what it is they advocate. The authors argue that "the term fitness is merely a useful short-cut to help express briefly the idea that characteristics sometimes affect organisms' chances of surviving and/or reproducing, without having to specific a particular characteristic." To imagine that this constitutes "scientific inquiry" is an insult to the intelligence.

So why have I given the book five stars? Firstly, the holding of erroneous opinions is an insufficient reason for giving it less. Secondly, in stating their case, the authors lay bare their assumptions in a manner which is easily discernible. Thirdly, whether one considers the theory of evolution is proven or not (and I remain unconvinced that it is), there are far too many books which seem unable to separate scientific theory from philosophical or religious opinions.

In its own terms to book is an excellent presentation of the theory of evolution. One doesn't have to agree with its assertions to recognise the qualities it does have. I would suggest everyone reads it and makes their own mind up accordingly. As a very short introduction it's far better value for money than mud-slinging exchanges of opinion that too often devalue the debate on the issues it raises.