You know that I think that Wallace Arthur is one of the sharpest writers on evolution today and that his Biased Embryos and Evolution is one of the best books I've read recently on the topic. I just saw that he has a new book out, Creatures of Accident. Has anyone read it yet? Is it good? Just in case, I placed it on my amazon wish list, so, if you think it is worth my while, I can get it once I get hold of some cash.
Search this blog
Profile
I am the Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE (Public Library of Science). My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. I am not an MD so I cannot diagnose and treat your sleep problems. This is a personal blog and opinions within in no way reflect the policies of PLoS. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com
DonorsChoose 2008
Join us at ScienceOnline'09
Submit your entries to OpenLab08
Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:
Recent Posts
- ScienceOnline09 - we are full!
- Analysis of Gene Regulatory Networks in the Mammalian Circadian Rhythm
- Michael Pollan's Letter to the President
- My picks from ScienceDaily
- Ants eat a gecko in a little over two hours
- Why does Open Access matter to you? A blogging contest
- ScienceOnline'09 - travel, accommodation, food
- DonorsChoose - prizes
- Today's carnivals
- Clock Quotes
Recent Comments
- Greg Laden on ScienceOnline09 - we are full!
- Gayle Miller on Biscuit
- kayla on New and Exciting in PLoS ONE
- arby on What insect is this?
- Coturnix on Diabetes Mellitus Explained
- Evelyn Guzman on Diabetes Mellitus Explained
- Blake Stacey on ScienceOnline'09 - a more complete list of registered SciBlings
- DNLee on DonorsChoose 2008 Challenge - SciBlings need some urgent help
- Arikia Millikan on Gaming Systems
- Laurent on What insect is this?
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Blogroll
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
My Old Stuff
Make Me Happy
Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!
Make Me Solvent
I Support
Bloggie Stuff
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
« Friday Weird Sex Blogging | Main | Blogrolling: G »
Creatures of Accident
Category: Books • Evolution
Posted on: November 25, 2006 10:03 PM, by Coturnix
Comments
Yeah, I've read it, and I've been meaning to put up a review...I've been slow because, in all honesty, it sucked. Sucked big time. I was greatly disappointed.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 25, 2006 11:44 PM
Wow! Sorry to hear that. That is a dissappointment from such a smart guy.
Posted by: coturnix | November 25, 2006 11:46 PM
I've got the book on hold at the local library, and I'm next in line. In what way is it a disappointment?
Posted by: Gerry L | November 26, 2006 12:04 AM
Don't know but the three available customer reviews on Amazon have some hints. I'll wait for PZ's review and hold off on buying it (there are many better books on my waiting list).
Posted by: coturnix | November 26, 2006 12:08 AM
Oh boy, PZ, you have piqued my interest. I hope you get around to writing that review soon. :)
Posted by: Dave Carlson | November 26, 2006 12:34 AM
I bought it and read it, and like PZ, was disappointed. I won't review it here, but for openers, while there are a dozen or so "suggested readings" at the end of the book, there are no references. Arthur would make an intriguing remark and then zip right along to something else and without references one couldn't easily follow up the remark.
Posted by: RBH | November 26, 2006 12:46 AM
It's also painfully repetitive and condescending. About the third time he told me to surrender my presuppositions and just accept what he was claiming, I was ready to stuff his presuppositions up somewhere dark and damp and uncomfortable, I tell you what.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 26, 2006 10:07 AM
I'll see what I can do about the review...it's hard to write a negative review when the book has completely squelched your interest.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 26, 2006 10:08 AM
Oh, and I winced every time I read "evolve upward". And it's heavily used phrase in the book.
Posted by: RBH | November 26, 2006 4:05 PM
I bought it and was planning a review but after reading it, I understand what PZ's saying.
In two words: Don't bother.
Posted by: Shalini | November 27, 2006 8:21 AM
[Oh, and I winced every time I read "evolve upward".]
Uh....is there such a thing as to "evolve downward"?
Posted by: Shalini | November 27, 2006 8:23 AM
Having recently published Creatures of Accident, I have had a lot of positive feedback, and a great review in Nature. But this blogsite seems to be a magnet for detractors. Well, all books are disliked by some readers, and authors have to accept that. But the reasons cited by your correspondents are weird, and their language puerile ('sucked', for example). Clearly, the person who says 'is there such a thing as to evolve downward?' hasn't understood the book at all. (Of course there is such a thing, and I discuss it in the book.)
Posted by: Wallace Arthur | December 7, 2006 12:13 PM
Thank you for coming here. I don't understand why this blog is a magnet since I only asked a question and, as you can see from the first link, I think that Biased Embryos and Evolution is one of the bext books on evolution ever. The new book is still on my amazon wish list and if someone buys me a copy, I will read it and evaluate it myself.
Posted by: coturnix | December 7, 2006 12:17 PM
I agree, PZ's language is puerile. If he had a blog of his own, he'd soon see that those sort of rants aren't appreciated by serious readers.
Posted by: Dave Munger | December 7, 2006 12:37 PM
We are so used to such language that we do not see how it may seem puerile to someone unfamiliar with the 21st century online discourse.
Posted by: coturnix | December 7, 2006 12:40 PM
Being unfamiliar with 21st century online discourse is an excellent stylistic qualification for an author! Blogs don’t translate into books and books like the (to my mind excellent) Creatures of Accident don’t translate into blogs. Too easy to dismiss an elegant and simply put position - particularly if you don’t understand it – with some kind of insult. Of course the book doesn’t have references – he’s trying to communicate with people like me (humanities postgrad) who would be put off by them. This is popular science – it’s good to come across someone who can write it. Most scientists I’ve read who try to cross the bridge from their specialism to talk to “laypeople” like me just can’t do it. Arthur succeeds, and I don’t think he’s condescending at all. Just clear.
Has anyone looked at the interview with him on the American scientist website?
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/ScientistNightstandTypeDetail/assetid/54316
Gives some interesting angles on this interesting writer.
Posted by: Mairtin Howard | December 8, 2006 10:34 AM
The link to Arthur interview has been scheduled to appear on this blog at noon today.
Unfamiliarity with online discourse, in which honesty is primary and courteousness on the back burner, is not a point against Arthur - it just explains why he responded to language we consider normal as if it was not. We can all write in two or more different modes/voices/styles: one for blogs, another for stories, another for scientific papers, etc.
Posted by: coturnix | December 8, 2006 10:40 AM