What sort of evolution book do we need?

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Thanks, fixed.

I keep a copy of a facepalm image stashed here.

As to the question you asked:

I'm not exactly sick of hearing about any particular aspect of evolutionary biology, not nearly as sick as I am of the whole science-v-religion business (one reason I turned down a free review copy of The Constant Fire, even though it was promised to be a "new approach"). I'd say that any book which roots out the "textbook cardboard" would be a pleasant thing to have, no matter the area of its focus.

Now that I've got my science-fiction novel wrapped up and ready to sell to the niche market which would actually care, I'm sketching out a couple possible new projects. One of them is a math book which will give me the opportunity to write about population genetics, which I haven't seen explained particularly well. Then again, the presence of mathematics probably rules out counting it as a "popularization".

I'd like to see a children's (or adult's, I suppose) book that would address the specific issues in evolution that are difficult to wrap one's mind around -- the extreme nature of deep time, the idea that it might not be entirely genetic in nature, etc.

I'd also like it if it didn't make paleontology the centerpiece. (I never imagined I would be typing those words in that sequence.) If recent examples of evolution were put in the forefront along with developmental biology and genetics with paleontology brought in mostly as a source of examples I think the argument would be a lot stronger for most people -- it's too easy for some intellectual (just removed some profanity) to simply deny the validity of the fossil record.

Man, now I wish I had the education to write that book. Maybe someday...

We need a book which overwhelms the standard creationist canards - not just chips away at them, but overwhelmingly hammers all of their canards into the ground by sheer weight of evidence.

First of all, even though it's a book on evolution, it needs to undercut creationist goal-post shifting and whining by having a section on abiogenesis - with a selection of the latest evidence. Because as soon as you demonstrate evolution, they run away from that and start talking about abiogenesis. Cut that off at the knees and don't give them anywhere to run or anything to run with.

It needs to show examples of evolution that go beyond the peppered moth and beyond speciation into higher levels of so-called macro-evolution, to undercut creationist equivocation along the lines of:
Creationist: There's no speciation!
Evolutionist: Here's a documented example of speciation.
Creationist: I meant that no one has seen speciation.
Evolutionist: Here's a documented example of speciation observed in the lab.
Creationist: I meant that no one has seen speciation in the wild.
Evolutionist: Here's a documented example of speciation observed in the wild.
Creationist: What I mean by speciation is macroevolution.
Evolutionist: Speciation is macroevolution.
Creationsit: No, I mean an animal do one kind turning into an animal of another kind....
Etc., etc., etc.

An evolution book needs to slam the door on this kind of weaseling with a good solid example or two of evolution at a level above speciation, including something which has been observed, even if it's only in bacteria.

And so on!

We've already got the only evolution books we needed: The Ancestor's Tale and Your Inner Fish.
Now we just need to make 'em mandatory reading in schools.

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. Keep them coming...

Blake; I hear you. Not only am I tired of creationist arguments, I'm tired of hearing arguments against them. It's important to tear apart creationist nonsense, but we shouldn't let their squawking dictate everything we do. With the exception of books on the history of the evolution/creation issue, I generally pass on books that take the debate as their starting point.

A population genetics book sounds cool, too! Especially if you could work in a bit on group selection.

Sean; Good point, and I think we need both fossil evidence and studies of extant animals. If we focused on existing creatures alone, some people might say "Well that's microevolution. How did evolution make a whale?" If we just focus on the fossil record, we might demonstrate that evolution happened but not entirely how it happened. Lots of books contain bits of both, but it would be nice to see one that meshes the lines of evidence together rather than presenting them separately.

Ian; I definitely am with you about abiogenesis. Too many scientists try to avoid the question and look a little foolish in the process. In terms of rebutting creationist arguments, though, would you want an author to confront them outright (i.e. "Creationists say x, but the observation of [y] refutes this") or to keep creationist arguments in mind while crafting the prose? A direct approach can be very effective, but it can also be very annoying. You're right that creationist arguments should not be ignored, though, and instead be used to mow down creationist arguments before they can spring up.

John; Your Inner Fish was ok. I actually didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. It reminded me a bit of W.K. Gregory's Our Face From Fish to Man. It wasn't bad, but I wasn't entirely satisfied by it. As for The Ancestor's Tale, it's a bit of an unwieldy tome, and suffers a little from Dawkins' lack of experience with the fossil record. I know a lot of people who found it pretty dry and couldn't get into it, either. It might be another cause of a book not being bad, but not being particularly great, either. I think we can do better.

No, I'm not saying we should have anything like a numbered list of arguments with responses. That would be tedious! Plus www.talkorigins.org has that covered in many instances!

I don't think it's even necessary to directly mention or acknowledge creationists or creationism. What's most important is to make sure none of the claims go unaddressed in the presentation of evolution.

For example, instead of writing "Creationists claim that...", you could write, "Sometimes it's argued that..." and go on to demolish their common objections to whatever topic it is you're addressing.

I'm more in line with what you're suggesting - to have their complaints in mind when writing, but not just the immediate objections. It's also important to anticipate where those objections might run to as you knock them down one-by-one, so that they're left with zero "wiggle-room"!

My inclination would generally be to keep creationist arguments in mind while crafting one's prose, but not to drag them into the flow explicitly. "Upon seeing a fossil like this, one might think that. . ." Or, "The temptation might be to say that. . . However, . . ."

"We need a book which overwhelms the standard creationist canards - not just chips away at them, but overwhelmingly hammers all of their canards into the ground by sheer weight of evidence." says Ian above.

Well, Coyne's book is precisely that. On the other hand, Ian's later suggestion that you don't need to take the creationists head on is plain wrong. This isn't necessarily about science v religion (if people want to believe crazy religious stuff, that's their affair), but about Science vs nonsense. And ID is nonsense. Coyne's book "hammers" all their arguments and for that it should be widely read. I shamelessly pillaged it for my first year lectures on evolution, and have ordered 20 copies for our university library.

I await with interest Brian's "facepalm" moments from the paleontology section. I certainly didn't spot any howlers when I read it in MS, although, no doubt, there are some misteaks in there. Brian's claim that "at worst [it] completely fails to satisfy its premise of presenting the abundant evidence for evolution" is just plain silly. Given the limits of a brief popular book, that is precisely what it does.

Think over what your own weak fields may be. Have competent people from those fields review your manuscript before it makes it into print to avoid facepalm moments among your readers.

I agree with John that Your Inner Fish is most excellent. Some points you could take from that example: make your book your own. Tell how your own field of specialty, or even your own research, is illuminated by and illuminates evolution. And work hard on the writing. Good popular writing is harder than many people think. Don't just spew a pile of facts, keep the reader interested with some narrative devices. But of course don't overdo it so it comes off as gimmicky. Like I said: it's hard, and it takes work.

And be sure to include a couple shots at Matt Nisbet. That will ensure your sales to the Scienceborgs community.

Matthew; Coyne's book does make a big show of taking some creationist arguments to task, but it does not fit what Ian has described here. In a few places he even opens himself up for attack by saying things like natural selection is difficult to observe in the wild, and referring readers to another book exclusively on that topic. That's hardly an example to follow.

As for confronting creationists head on, as I said, it can have its merits when done right. The problem is that all too often scientists let creationists frame the debate with their nonsense. As for saying that it's "just plain wrong" to mold arguments to combat creationists but not directly confront them, then I guess Charles Darwin was wrong. Many of his arguments in On the Origin of Species were shaped by his reading of Paley and natural theology. He constructed some of his arguments, like his discussion of the eye, based upon what creationists had already said.

I also recognize that a brief popular book can not present all the evidence for evolution there is. I know from my own work that it can't be done. That said, in many cases, particularly the discussions of fossils, Coyne leaves out an embarrassing amount of information. In the section of early tetrapods, for instance, he only discusses Tiktaalik despite the wealth of related genera from the Devonian and Carboniferous. How can you convincingly lay out a case for evolution if you ignore the other transitional fossils that help make sense of Tiktaalik?

As I said, such sections represent the book at its worst, and in the better sections, most of the examples given have been seen elsewhere before. I just am not particularly impressed with it, and there are many minor errors and other little details that bugged me (i.e. Coyne's insistence in using "Darwinism" and "missing link"). I'll lay out my complaints in detail tomorrow, but while the book is not a terrible one and has its merits, I don't think it's worthy of the high praise given it on the dust jacket.

And another thing: it needs to be a pop-up book.

Trin Tragula:

And be sure to include a couple shots at Matt Nisbet. That will ensure your sales to the Scienceborgs community.

In retrospect, I should probably have included the phrase "Marquis de Coiffure" in the aforementioned novel, but if he makes it to p. 144, I expect he'll be unhappy anyway. The prospect somewhat pleases me.

Laelaps:

In the section of early tetrapods, for instance, he only discusses Tiktaalik despite the wealth of related genera from the Devonian and Carboniferous. How can you convincingly lay out a case for evolution if you ignore the other transitional fossils that help make sense of Tiktaalik?

The neat thing about Tiktaalik was not just "Hey, here's a freaky animal that looks halfway between two familiar kinds of critter", but rather that the people looking for it knew where to hunt. They had an idea of the strata which might contain such remains, and where in the world those strata could be found. Tiktaalik is fascinating because it fits into a picture developed based on earlier discoveries. Our cousin the fishapod is not just a half-and-half monster, but a piece in a jigsaw which exactly fills the gap left by the pieces around it.

I don't know how you get this perspective across without going over the finds which went before, i.e., "the wealth of related genera from the Devonian and Carboniferous".

Eeek. I got caught by the spam filter!

Blake; I know the story well, and it's a good story. It's just not the only one, and your conclusion is exactly the point. How can you make sense of the evolution of tetrapods by only talking about one fossil?

At least Shubin's book doesn't venture into vaguely eugenic prognostication at the end like Gregory's does. Not that I necessarily hold that against Gregory, given the social and scientific context he was working in, but it does make me wonder what attitudes or assumptions are lurking in the contemporary science-for-the-masses genre that we will come to regret a half-century from now.

I suppose my answer to the question you pose depends quite a lot on the definition of "we." While I certainly applaud those who take it upon themselves to sell or defend evolution to the public, especially if they take a novel approach, at this point those books just aren't terribly interesting to me,. In fact I'd much sooner read a book like Gregory's, which for all its faults will at least provide an interesting perspective on how previous generations thought about evolution rather than just echoing my own convictions and repeating examples I've read a thousand times before.

I would love to see a book written in language accessible to the interested public which deals with open-questions within evolutionary theory: Why are genome sizes so variable? What role (if any) does selection or sorting above the species level play in evolution, or is that a bankrupt concept in the first place? What factors feed conflicts between molecular and morphological investigations of phylogeny? Is there such a thing as a "molecular clock"? What transitional forms are out there still waiting to be found? What would we anticipate them to be like and where stratigraphically and geographically to find them? How have invasibility, disturbance, climate change, tectonics etc. affected evolutionary patterns in the past and what (if anything) do they say about the future of life on our planet? Can we even make such prognostications?

I realize that many of these are contentious and unlikely to be cleanly resolved in a popular book (in fact I'd be very suspicious if they were) and some might be concerned about feeding the fire of anti-evolutionism by highlighting disagreement and debate within evolutionary theory. However, I think what truly sets the scientific worldview apart from others is that it is not a dusty set of dogmas or creeds, but a vibrant discourse in which everyone is invited to challenge established tenants and everyone is invited to refute your challenge. I think a book that adopted this attitude (perhaps there already are some out there) would do a great service not only in educating people about the truckloads of support for evolution which we have amassed in the last century-and-a-half but also highlight why continued investigation into the nature and history of biological evolution is exciting and important (and deserves generous funding!).

On my own blog, which is primarily dedicated to psychology/neuroscience issues, I transcribed two articles on evolution because I thought they were good enough to share:

Three Facets of Evolution (Stephen Jay Gould
Why Are Some People Black? (Steve Jones)

These two articles are easily readable discussions on evolution and which I think are apt for the lay reader to engage their interest. Perhaps it's interesting stuff like this that I'd like to see in a book on evolution, and which I'd feel confident enough to recommend to friends.

Also I'll take myself out of the running to write such a book write now--what with the run-on sentences, misapplied punctuation and overuse of pretentisms like "prognosticate"!

Laelaps:

I guess one way to say it is that the story of Tiktaalik makes no sense without the back-story.

I have taught a junior level evolution course on several occasions. I was never really happy with it. There are so many facets. How much time does one spend on history of ideas and the people involved? How much on the history of life on earth? How much on population genetics? How much on speciation? How much on taxonomy, etc. etc, ad infinitum? Same dificulties apply to writing any sort of comprehensive book, I think.

I would like to echo Sean's comment. If the book is about evolution in general, you should resist the temptation to make it too fossil-centered. Fossils are awesome, but a general text should focus on neontological data, particularly genetics.

As a more practical point, it is important (perhaps essential) that the book has good and plentiful illustrations.

What about the forthcoming Evolution: The First Four Bill

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-First-Four-Billion-Years/dp/067403175X/… Years?

1000 pages!

Brian...I've also been toying with the idea of writing my own book and here's what I think based upon talking to the local creationists.

Taking potshots at people like Kenn Hamm is fun and all, but popular science books should focus on the actual science of the matter. Taking potshots merely gives the sense there is, in fact a controversy when in reality the whole opposition to evolution is just manufactured by religious zealots. The science, if properly explained and presented speaks for itself.

A good popular science book should focus on applications just as much as it does on various lines of evidence.

Perhaps a good book detailing the nature of evolution should contain these three sections: 1. The fossil record, with it's numerous intermedary species. 2. The existence of "atavisms", such as the occasional hind legs on whales, or extra toes on horses. 3. "Evolutionary baggage", features which no longer serve a purpose but once did, such as the remains of hind legs and pelvises on certain snakes and the human appendix, now useless but once important for storing vegetation. It might also be useful to point out the ad hoc nature of evolution, where a feature of anatomy is sub-optimal, like the gastrointestnal tract of mammals crossing the respiratory system, or human retinas being turned inside out. This last part would help make clear that much in evolution is messy, based on"use what you've got" rather than on something perfectly designed and created as it is. This three-step presentation would help make all the facets of evolution understandable, and strengthen the argument (of course, you could always throw more ingredients in, like the existence of pseudo-genes!)

Hi! I see this message, and I have something to say.
First of all... Brian! I finished the review of cetacean evolution and creationist look at this phenomenon. Yes, if you remember, I began thiswork in spring. I just wanted to get an answer from specialists in cetacean evolution from Paleontological Institute in Moscow. But the silence was an answer. I corrected some mistakes in translation, and published this one in my site. I hope it will be useful in polemics with creationists.
And next, I must say something about anti-science. I think the greatest problem of theory of evolution is not christian creationism, but damned Michael Cremo and his books. I say it because I read his books. In comparison with books of other anti-evolutionists, books of Cremo are built not of any fantasies, but of any... so... I call these things "stories". They are dated, and exact names of discoverers and dates of discovery are done. Because of it these arguments must be analyzed and refuted only by one way - the complete story of EVERY (EVERY!!!!!!!! I repeat it, and I'm ready to repeat it as many times, as I can) find must be traced up to nowadays. The destiny of every find must be described in details. Anthropologists may say "Oh, its a bullshit!" many times, but it will be only words, the kind of air shaking. Facts are better things.
I speak about Cremo, because, for example, in Russia creationists often use Cremo's "stories" as facts proving the idea of young Earth and pre-Flood primeval paradise, where ALL KINDS of fossil animals lived in common.
Christian creationists are silly. Usual facts of fossil record and examples of recent species may show the depth of their stupidity. But the refuting of Cremo's books must be a work comparable to the work of police detectives. But making a successful strike against Cremo's books we may deliver a strike to creationism in common.
As for me, I'd like t write next article about marsupials and creationists. I think you know how many problems the biogeography causes in creationist tale about Flood. Marsupials and their area are one of them. I like Harun Yahya's comments that marsupials and placentals may be identified only by the presence/abscence of pouch, and their bones are identical (wolf and Thylacinus are compared in this case). How are marsupial and placental sabertooth predators differed in this case? They both are fossil...

I had a bit of a brainstorm while cutting up cauliflower for lunch, partially inspired by the structure of the vegetable.

The very first thing I'd put in the book would be a section on artificial life programs, showing how complex organized patterns arise naturally from the repeated application of simple rules --

"Doesn't this look as though it was designed? It wasn't. And the same holds true for living things."

And write a detailed chapter about abiogenesis. creationists like to shift the discussion to this subject. I even take part in such kind of discussion at one Russian atheistic forum.

To Pavel: marsupials and placentals differ considerably in anatomical detail, as you would expect for two groups that diverged 100 plus million years ago. Key differences can be found in the teeth, lower jaw, and unsurprisingly the pelvis which allow marsupials and placentals to be confidently diagnosed as one of the other from fossils alone. The Yahya claim that they only differ in the presence/absence of a pouch is like most everything that man publishes an exceptionally lazy lie.