i CANNOT WAIT to sink my teeth into this juicy book.



http://www.amazon.com/What-Evolution-Er ... 0465044263

At age 97, Ernst Mayr is one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century, and here he delivers yet another valuable addition to the field of evolutionary theory.

Mayr, who was also a curator at the American Museum of Natural History for two decades, guides lay readers through evolutionary thought from the book of Genesis and creationist theory through Darwin's theories and "soft" evolution and on to more contemporary, inclusive concepts. He takes readers on a whirlwind voyage from the scala naturae (the Great Chain of Being, in which everything in the world was accorded a position in a developmental hierarchy) to Mayr's own work, which builds on Darwinian theory and environmental factors.

No one but Mayr could explain evolution so well, and though the text is peppered with many scientific terms, overall the author is triumphant in his goal to teach "first and foremost... biologist or not, [anyone] who simply wants to know more about evolution." While many authors suggest their tomes are the authoritative source, Mayr remains humble, reminding readers that "many details remain controversial." And the combination of his expertise, his elegant prose and the sheer pleasure of so many enthralling facts (the 145-million-year-old Archaeopteryx is a near perfect link between reptiles and birds, for example) means that studying the fossil record has rarely been so absorbing.

Appendixes answer FAQs and respond to various objections to evolutionary theory, while a glossary offers entries from acoelomate to zygote.

Okay, I'm taking this with me to Monterey along with the Discourse on Method and Cannery Row. Your powers of persuasion are formidable.

that's what (internet) friends are for.

looks interesting

i haven't read non-fiction in awhile.

Have you read anything by Stephen Jay Gould?

I had the priviledge of hearing him speak. He was witty, wonderful and entertaining. Such a shame that we lost him so early.

There's a very good collection of his called The Richness of Life that was edited by friends after he died. And I loved his book The Mismeasure of Man. It turns the obssession with intellectual quantification on its head.

Here's part of his deposition in a suit challenging the requirement to teach creationism in Arkansas schools.

Q. If you had an alternative of either trying to get balanced treatment [for creation science] or eliminating both [creation science and evolution], which would you prefer?

A. That's very hard to decide between two reprehensible alternatives. I don't know. They are both really frightening to me.

Q. You have no opinion, you wouldn't make a decision on that?

A. I think the human psyche is generally a jolly thing and likes to postpone considering bad

things that may not happen.

Q. But if you had to make a decision, what decision would you make?

A. I don't know. I don't have to make it, thank goodness.

Q. The Act 590 does say that you ought to teach the scientific evidences and inferences for both creation-science and evolution science.

A. There aren't any for creation-science.

Q. All right. Assuming that, why are you so opposed to the act, if there is no scientific evidence for creation-science and the overwhelming scientific evidence is all for evolution?

A. Because the act nonetheless requires that what is not science be taught as science.

http://www.antievolution.org/projects/m ... ld_dep.htm

i've not read any gould -- just other scientists slamming his NOMA argument.

Not all other scientists. The National Academy of Science agreed very much with Stephen Jay Gould's position on the separate spheres occupied by science and religion. From their position statement:

Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 24&page=R8

As far as Stephen Jay Gould's controversial interest in exploring facets of evolutionary biology that lie outside of adaptation based on gene selection, it seems that his basic premise, that adaptation is a more complex business than we realize, is becoming more and more accepted. Gene regulation is becoming more and more important in our understanding of how we come to be what we are.

no, not all other scientists, and perhaps not even a majority, but i would guess a decent chunk. dawkins comes to mind. i myself don't agree with the NAS.



indeed it is. speaking of dawkins, i've come to understand that his "selfish gene" argument is extremely valuable to the field of evolutionary biology, but it definitely incomplete.

Many scientists are religious. Newton felt that his greatest works were his religious texts. Francis Collins went from being an atheist to being deeply religious. I don't think that religion necessarily interfers with one's ability to do science.

Although I believe that many of the more prominent atheists believe this.


I think that Dawkins, like many advocates of their own research, may be becoming too attached to his basic premise to consider the possibility that it could be extended. I think that the gene is in fact the basic unit by which adaptation occurs, through mutation, through selection. However, there may be other factors involved in adaptation involving processes that do not appear to have adaptive potential at a given moment. For example, the appearance of the mutations that cause sickle cell anemia and sickle cell trait may have served no purpose when they originally arose, but they were propagated because they conferred an anti-malarial advantage on the host. Dawkins would argue that their selection did yield an adaptive advantage from the beginning. We may not necessarily have been able to observe it. Could the best explanation lay somewhere in the middle?

i agree with you, and i think some of the prominent atheists are wrong -- you can be religious and practice science -- but i do not think that science has nothing to say about religion and its various claims.

Do you think that religion and a consideration of the existence of God are two separate things?

interesting question. you can't have religion without god, but i do consider them to be somewhat separate issues. i think i've said before that all science does is change the description of a possible "god."

You can't have religion without God, but science allows you to dispense with God, should you feel the need. The scientific refutation of standard religious dogma allows you to have a God free of exterior constraints. Or in the Protestant vocabulary, science allows you to have a truly personal God.