The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (A Brief History of the Natural World)

One of my fondest childhood memories was from a family vacation to Paris. Of all the wonderful things in that city, one place struck me the most, and my memories, upon a recent revisit, were relit: The Grand Gallery of Evolution. The Grand Gallery is organized far different than American museums. The entire structure is dedicated to placing Darwin's theory of natural selection right in front of you, to let your eyes see the story of life itself. There are few colorful placards, no special themed exhibits, or other things tailored to appeal to pop sensibility. Instead, the viewer is faced with endless rows of skeletal fish, reptiles, amphibians, marsupials, mammals, and crustaceans in one chamber, and a less dense collection of dinosaur fossils in the other room. The skeletons in the first chamber are each placed amidst related species, so as to indicate their shared heritage. The collection spans the smallest fish to the largest whales, the most humble toad to fearsome land predators. There is one particularly morbid shelf that places infant skeletons side-by-side of each ape species, including a human infant skeleton. Above all this is a wide class ceiling window that allows light to pour through onto the specimens. No artificial light is necessary to view life's grandeur. The Grand Gallery, through the sheer brute facticity of physical evidence, proves what Dawkins in his latest book "The Greatest Show on Earth" proves through citation and argument. Because of his crusading against theism during the 00s, it can be easy to forget that Dawkins is one of the titanic names of evolutionary biology. Not only did he pioneer research into the role played by genetic competition in competitions between organisms, but he has written multiple "user-friendly" guides to the mechanics and intellectual debates within evolution. With this most recent tome, however, Dawkins seeks to provide a much-needed guide to the evidence that proves Darwin's theory. He covers a wide variety of different "sectors" of evolutionary evidence, ranging from fossil dating, comparative anatomy, modern genetics, paleoanthropology, and others. He tackles each of these subjects, and demonstrates that when the study of life is approached with the scientific method in hand, it's impossible not to see the incredible explanatory power of Darwinism. Although Dawkins frequently addresses creationist critiques of evolutionary theory throughout the text, this book has both an effect and appeal beyond those who want to disprove the nonsense known as "Intelligent Design." Dawkins succeeds in paying homage to the awe-inspiring natural history of life itself. The book entertains and inspires, as well as informs. "The Greatest Show on Earth" is not just some recap of your high school bio courses either. Dawkins is a genuinely talented scientific writer, and his style aids greatly in absorption of the information he presents. However, Dawkins also tells the story of how modern science finally discovered natural selection, along with all the bumps and failures along the way. Furthermore, and this is something I give him a lot of credit for, Dawkins discusses the epistemological challenges that evolutionary biology has struggled to overcome throughout its development. One of the most basic challenges that evolutionary biology faced in its formation, in terms of its conceptual apparatus, was with the way the human mind conceives of living beings themselves. We like to think of living organisms as fixed species, and our complex taxonomical systems help perpetuate this illusion. As Dawkins states though, life is Heraclitean, not Platonic. It is always in flux. Organisms are bundles of genes which constantly compete with each other for expression. All evolutionary changes are contingent by essence. They depend on the pressures and mutations that an individual organism faces. They do not fit into a master plan, and it is clear that there is no intelligence behind their design, at least in the sense that Creationists argue. The physiological and behavioral characteristics that genes express can shift in their usage, and reconfigure to push evolution onwards. Feathers were originally "meant" to keep certain dinosaur species warm, or perhaps aid in sexual selection. However, at some point, natural selection pushed this characteristic towards usage in flight. The eventual usage of feathers for flight was entirely contingent. Evolution easily could have pushed the avian dinosaur species in another direction. This is the same reason, as Dawkins points out, why bats have an entirely different means of flight from birds, because the means by which they gained the ability to fly was contingent. It was based on certain selection pressures they faced at a certain point in their natural history, and was based on what biological tools bats already had in their repertoire, which didn't necessarily have anything to do with flight beforehand. Also, many seemingly complex devices, such as eyes, go through phases of increasing (and sometimes decreasing) complexity, but not because they are working towards an end goal, but because natural selection pushes them in different directions at different points in evolutionary history. Some of the most fascinating pieces of evidence that Dawkins provides are recent, and highly successful, attempts at recreating species evolution in laboratory settings. By simply exposing microrganisms, inspects, and fish into controlled settings, it has been demonstrated that evolution, and huge leaps in evolution at that, can occur before our very eyes. Many changes that Creationists used to claim were impossible can actually be observed directly by the scientific process! Aside from this, Dawkins provides the reader with glimpses into the story of natural history in our own bodies, the organs of animals, the fossilized imprints of plants, and countless other sources. The incredible thing, which I don't think I entirely grasped before reading this book, is that the evidence doesn't simply point to the fact that changes occur constantly throughout natural history, but that we can see the battles between competing genes as they're played out in the very bodily being of life itself. Needless to say, I have a high opinion of this book. If you've been turned off by the sometimes boorish (although often insightful) things Dawkins has to say about organized religion, then I implore you to put aside your prejudices and read this book. Dawkins is a lovely writer when you give him a chance. If you affirm the scientific theory of Darwinism, but don't feel as if you really know much about evolution per se, then this book will go a long way in filling that gap. If you're an ID proponent or a Creationist, then I double dog dare you to read this. I have no doubt that you'll come out shaken.

After reading Dawkins's "The Magic of Reality" to my kids each night (which my 13 y/o and 9 y/o both love), I snuggled into my own bed and also read his latest book (for adults), "The Greatest Show on Earth". While I have read almost all of Dawkin's books, I must say this is amongst my favorites......literally bringing tears of amazement to my eyes. Dawkins brings stunning clarity and broad wisdom in presenting objective, unifying, diverse, and virtually irrefuteable scientific evidence for evolution. He leaves no doubt. He shows that evolution is by no means a theory in the lay definition of "theory", i.e. unproven conjecture. Rather he presents evolution in the strictly scientific definition of 'theory", i.e. a proven, reproducible, testable, dependable concept. I would argue that evolution is even more, actually a basic LAW OF NATURE. As such it is as real as the Law of Gravity, or the Laws Governing Conservation of Mass and Energy. Even the most narrow-minded, uniformed, biased zealot would be amazed by the incredible breadth of evidence Dawkins presents in support of what I call "the law of evolution". He provides centuries of bacterial, plant, and animal speciation data, accurate geological and cosmological dating information, traditional/mendalian genetic insights, modern (DNA) molecular genetic revelations, chemical/isotopic explanations, and of course, actual fossil record information (surprisingly the last proving to be the least important of all). Amazingly, all of this independent and indisputeably derived information converges upon, and can be explained by, only one simple evolutionary fact.......that every living species on this planet derived from a common shared ancestor. He presents ancestry "trees" which demonstrate how such common ancestors emerged amongst both plants and animals, many tracing back to the beginings of life on earth billions of years ago. He completely debunks the "fossil search for a missing link" gambit as completely irrelavent, despite that argument being so often advocated by creationists and intelligent designers. Dawkins does not discuss religion at all in his text, but rather only presents solid objective evidence of all types, yet understandable to non-scientists. He throws this evidence open to close scrutiny and challenge by anyone. Whether to embrace or reject the idea of evolution, one certainly needs to at least consider these facts. Dismissing evolution as only "a theory" while continuing to completely ignore proven facts, is simply disgraceful. Humans desparately and rightfully fear Nature's obvious indiscriminate and often cruel power. It seems difficult to rationalize such indifference in the context of a "responsive and all-loving God". Even worse, it is virtually impossible to mentally conceive of the unimaginably long timeframe over which genetic change occurs under varying selective pressures. Thus it is much easier to simply take the memetic way out, i.e. succumb to delusional (but biblically appealing) notions of a 6000 year old earth, designed and ruled by a divine power that is still responsive to our needs and pleas. Understanding evolution actually brings us much closer to a more realistic "God" than ever before, enabling us to finally see ourselves as top dog contenders in the cosmological and timeless realm of NATURE. As such, we are perhaps one of her more amazing genetic outcomes ever. Dawkins delivers warm clarity in revealing that, as well as in explaining how and why it happens. From such knowledge should emerge confidence that our own species will continue to survive and thrive along with, and in spite of, Mother Nature's fury.

There are few authors alive capable of weaving wonder and authority into popular science writing better than Richard Dawkins, and in his newest book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, released in September, 2009, he has shown that he is still the master of popular biology. Following a narrative that works much as the one employed by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (and frequently mentioning Darwin), Dawkins presents a comprehensive look at the modern state of evolutionary theory, and more specifically, the evidence which proves it is true beyond any serious doubt. I had read many Dawkins books prior to Greatest Show, including his biology and science-oriented books The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Blind Watchmaker, and River Out of Eden. I have not yet read The Ancestors Tale (which I understand is Dawkins most comprehensive biological work, nor have I read Climbing Mount Improbably (which Dawkins has stated is his own favorite work), both of which I own but have yet to get to. So, my review is in light of these experiences (or lack thereof). The first couple of chapters are for softening up any hesistant readers and convincing new learners that evolution is not only realistic, it can be observed around us in a myriad of ways, including the comparisons between natural selection and the artificial selection practiced by human animal and plant breeders. Following this intro, Dawkins lays down the tool kit and shows how Neo-Darwinian theory knows how to trust estimated dates, looking at the various chemical clocks available. The chapter titled "Before Our Very Eyes" was the most enjoyable and enlightening for me, personally, as the reader has described for him/her several fascinating experiments which have demonstrated the power of natural selection and mutation to drive complex genetic progression. The information on the Richard Lenski-led study of E. coli is worth the price of the book alone. Tremendously important and strong evidence for Dawkins' central thesis. Dawkins follows this by moving into fossil records, showing the reader how scientists have studied and come to see the fossil record as important, but not the most important facts available to evolutionary theory. He shows that the 'gaps' in the fossil record are actually useful for taxonomic reasons, and posits that a complete fossil record would lead to immense confusion when trying to determine just where a new species begins from the old. Dawkins also knocks down the argument that talk of 'missing links' is useful, and pleads for the cessation of this term since its usefulness has long-since been destroyed. Like he says often, every fossil we find is a missing link, every one is a transitional fossil of some sort. The chapter "You did it yourself in nine months" was my least favorite, though it was certainly necessary to present in a comprehensive view of evolution. The following chapter on biogeography returns to a superior narrative and offers strong evidence for geographic proof of evolution, again, just as Darwin did in describing the variety of species found strew across the Galapagos Islands. Following that are chapters on cousinship among life forms and the ability of DNA to provide a historical archive which begin to draw together a personal closeness that derives from the evidence of the preceding chapters. The final couple of chapters move a bit more toward being meditative, though don't expect Dawkins to get too mushy. What begins as a discussion of arms races ends with a look at 'evolutionary theodicy', where Dawkins argues that we find suffering and pain exactly as we would expect from the emotionless processes of natural selection. Finally, the book winds down with more reflection as Dawkins expounds upon the last paragraph of Darwin's Origin and draws together the book's conclusion by reinforcing that the fact of evolution does not depend on any statement about abiogenesis or origin of life concerns. Clearly, what the theory suggest, and has been proven by practically every bit of evidence uncovered, is that, however it started, evolution is the way in which living things grow, compete, reproduce, and change. I haven't read a more comprehensive book on Evolution to date, and I think Dawkins has abolutely knocked it out of the park here. I admit to a strong Dawkins bias, so I wanted to like this book, but I also had very high hopes for it because it was the first Dawkins biology-centric book to be released since I started reading his work. I expected a ton. I got it and more. For the beginning reader, I would still recommend the much-more streamlined arguments in Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, but for the reader with some science experience, or for the curious reader who wants the full picture, this is as good as it gets. Five stars.

There is a large disconnect between what this book purports to be and what it actually is. Presumably, to judge by the book's subtitle, 'The Evidence for Evolution,' its intention is to summarize the reasons why evolution is now accepted as a scientific fact. According to this criteria, the book fares pretty badly - the narrative is too rambling, too digressive, and at times too speculative, to present a clear and coherent case - and the evolutionary skeptic would be better off reading Jerry Coyne's far more compact volume, "Why Evolution is True." Taken however, as a general overview of evolution, with some interesting bits of theory, exposition, and explanation along the way, the book does far better. If you are uncertain about the state of evolution to begin with, this book is probably not the one that will convince you. In fact, in the first hundred pages, hardly any evidence for evolution is presented at all. It's not that the evidence doesn't exist - it's there, in both this book and many others - it's just that Dawkins takes his sweet time getting there - far longer, in fact, than most doubters would sit down and wait for. Instead we find distinctions between facts, theories, and Dawkins' new 'theorums', differences in philosophical approaches to nature, allusions to his favorite old computer programs, and a chapter on artificial selection which parallels Darwin's old treatment of the subject. There's nothing wrong with any of this really - the computer simulations are a bit stale by now - except again, it is not the book readers will be expecting and I imagine a good number will be put off by the whole thing. Take away the subtitle, and everything holds together much better. As far as the content goes, its treatment of clocks is better than any I've seen so far, and its chapter on embryology more thorough than I've seen in any scientific popularization (I haven't read any real biology texts myself.) Dawkins is also admirably punctilious in the attribution of credit to the writers and scientists whose ideas he borrows or works he cites. Several times he recommends Jerry Coyne's own book on evolution and goes so far to credit individual anecdotes, jokes, and turns of phrase to their appropriate originators. Say what you like about him as a person, I don't think he would ever knowingly steal a single sentence not his own. The book is at its worst in its last few chapters. It dwells far too morosely on the cruelty of nature and the futility of things, points I'd rather not bother much with or at least let readers decide. I'm an atheist and I think here he says too much that would alienate deists and more optimistic readers. Picking apart a quote by Darwin in the final chapter constitutes the absolute low point of the book. Dawkins insists on explaining it line by line, poetic imagery and all, and so we're left in the absurd position of reading explanations of how gravity works, how the planets orbit the sun, what human memory is, and how culture transmits information. It all seems a bit out of place and left-field of nowhere. Dawkins might argue that polls prove a vast proportion of people are actually ignorant on all these points - but they wouldn't exactly pick his book up, would they? and they certainly wouldn't have made it to the end.

THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH, by retired science professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, is at once of `thriller' and 'sure-footed non-fiction' genres. Mind-bending to wondrously eye-opening, this work clarifies the mountainous evidence for Evolution. How nice the synchronicity: publishing it on the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th of The Origin of Species. Marketing has its place. I had mulled Darwin's statement: "There is grandeur in this view of life." After reading TGSOE, it rang truer yet. And toward the last of its 437 pages, I was almost giddy (sounds isotopily unstable, I know) [Footnote: The Bible and Qur'an are not science books] Scientific findings should not be ignored, dismissed out of hand, or its data unanalyzed, because it belies dogma; often enough, human animals are seduced into delusional world views due to fear; perusing a few pages here n there just might start a process of freeing one up, however, from its limiting effects. When is it that one gets dissuaded from questioning? Or derided for critical thinking? Or if fortunate, encouraged to curiosity? Well, if YOU were dissuaded at some point, Dawkins' book may be your ticket to a life-renewing antidote. (Consider visiting a museum of natural history, too.) Now I doubt that the mere reading of this work will result in all the intellectual mutations Dawkins hoped for; certainly not among the devout, who faithfully remain cocooned in the beguiling comforts of platitudes. But in time... Revelation: 1) modern species do not evolve into other modern species; they share common ancestors. 2) Animal and plant breeding--techniques applied for centuries--give us insight into branches of living diversity that spread over millions upon millions of years, via random, mutating genes within DNA. (Broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts have all derived--via non-random/artificial selection by bright humans--from a common ancestor: wild cabbage) Pedigree dog-breeding led to today's 200+ breeds, each sharing a common ancestor: the wolf; molecular genetics proved it. Wolves adapted to man via natural selection, by self-domesticating into village dogs. 3) When we observe an increase or decrease in the frequency with which a certain gene appears in a gene pool, THAT is evolution. 4) Skilful breeding (artificial, or by insects, bats, hummingbirds, frogs) of roses or sunflowers, produced innumerable varieties. 5) Cross-fertilization via pollination led Darwin, who'd come upon an orchid with a foot-long tubular, to predict the existence of a very long-nosed Madagascar moth with an even longer tongue; just such a moth was found. 6) By sexual selection, Nature plays the role of a selecting agent, and living bodies are patchworks of compromise aimed at survival, but hardly perfectly. 7) Wild foxes have been bred for tameness, using variations in `flight distances' and cute facial expressions. 8) Orchids exist that fool male bees into pollinating them by looking like a female bee. 9) Measured age of Earth is 46 million centuries--4.6 billion years. Now let that sink in. Hmm? Measuring Time: re: Radioactive clocks--unstable isotopes decay, turning into something else at known rates; `half-life' is a favored measure: time for half an element's atoms to decay; Geological clocks--tree rings (date back 11,500 years), coral-reef rings, carbon dating, which began in the 1940s, was refined by mass spectrometry; an accumulating quantity of argon-40 in a rock crystal derives from decay in potassium-40, and these accumulations enable elapsed-time measurements. If an igneous rock shows a 50-50 ratio of argon to potassium, it is 1.26 million years old. Now at the moment an animal or plant dies it ceases to take in Carbon-14, and so begins to decay to Nitrogen-14; elapsed time can be measured as the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the deceased. Is chemistry hot or cool? Maybe both. Evolution in our time: a) elephants' tusks shortening within mere decades, as humans killed for ivory; these mammals suspected or knew the reason why, at some level; b) evolutionary divergence was also evidenced on islands off Croatia: in 1971, pairs of lizards were introduced to a non-lizard islet; then in 2008--some 19 lizard generations later--a thriving population of `new-home' lizards was found to have grown larger heads than the `old home' lizards. The evolutionary change? Traced to the vegetarian diet in their new islet setting. c) Guppies (aquarium fish) evolve with blend-in camouflage--depending on type/prevalence of predators--or by changing color-schemes where predators are scarcer, all in an effort by males to attract females by standing out. (Hey, tattoos may yet become inked into our DNA) A fundamental (ist) myth whacked: No modern species is descended from any other modern species; nope, humans are NOT descended from monkeys; but each species shares a common ancestor that dates back 6 million years. `Lucy' from Ethiopia/1974, aka Australopithecus afarensis, is a bipedal hominid fossil 3.2 million years old. Homo erectus fossils (Java Man), less than a million years old, were unearthed in 1891; in 1929 (Peking Man). Ardi, found in Ethiopia in 1992, are the fossilized skeletal remains of a female Ardipithecus ramidus, a human-like species 4.4 million years old. And the bits just keep on comin' "Natural selection favors the survival in the gene pool of the genetic mutations responsible for making crucial changes in embryos." Dawkins devotes Ch 9 to how geographical barriers (islands or isolation) play key roles in evolution; barriers arise via quakes, tsunamis, climate change, volcanic eruptions, continental drift. In Ch 10, he shows us a fascinating display of similarities--invariance across all vertebrates--among mammalian skeletons, despite differences in skeletal size, shape, or purpose (viz., Pterodactyl vs. human). The photography and illustrations are first-rate. The molecular clock assumes that aspects of evolution itself proceed at fixed rates. The genome is subject to mutations; only in a tiny portion of it, however, is it that any mutation bears on survival; natural selection rids deleterious mutations, yet favors ones that enhance life by forging adaptations to changing environments. In evolutionary time, mutations may go `to fixation'--become part of a genetic norm. Evolutionary history is written all over us. In dolphins, too--for having migrated from land to sea they still have lungs, not gills; nature's record is dotted with major flaws being "corrected"--a genetic tinkering, if you will, at a local level that nature required for a species' survival. Given contemporary human health woes, the Devil's chaplain could gleefully write a helluva book recounting them all, but Dawkins emphasizes that nature is neither kind nor unkind; neither favoring nor opposing suffering. Near the end of this book comes a hint of what Malthus, Darwin, and the like have already noted (as has non-notable me): human over-population has dire implications, ones we ought not to dismiss. Can't recommend this book enough. Sheer fun, and a worthwhile benefit: enrichment.

The subtitle is "The Evidence for Evolution," but if that was all that was included, it wouldn't be very new or exciting. Indeed, Darwin himself did a sufficiently good job for his time, and his work has been added to for 150 years. This is different. A more accurate subtitle would be "Arming rational people to debate with creationists." It's all here, in great detail, done for those of us who do not have much of a science background as well as for those who do.<br/><br/>Chapter 1: Only a theory? There's nothing "only" about a real scientific theory. Dawkins explains very carefully the difference between the way a scientist uses the word "theory" and the way, for example, lawyers do.<br/><br/>Chapter 2: Dogs, cows and cabbages. The ways in which artificial selection can help in understanding natural selection, particularly since humans have been breeding plants and animals for specific characteristics for a very long time.<br/><br/>Chapter 3: The primrose path to macro-evolution. Other species besides humans have shaped the evolution of other species. How flowers are pollinated is a great example.<br/><br/>Chapter 4: Silence and slow time. How fossils -- and even modern DNA -- can be dated. Several methods are described, which overlap one another and reinforce one another's conclusions.<br/><br/>Chapter 5: Before our very eyes. Some evolution is remarkably quick, and therefore need not rely on fossil evidence.<br/><br/>Chapter 6: Missing link? What do you mean, 'missing'? The very term "missing link" is nonsense, and Dawkins shows why. He makes the point that we don't really need the fossil record to prove evolution is real; it's just a bonus.<br/><br/>Chapter 7: Missing persons? Missing no longer. The previous chapter specific to human evolution.<br/><br/>Chapter 8: You did it yourself in nine months. The ways embryology tells us about many physical functions and developments, including evolution.<br/><br/>Chapter 9: The ark of the continents. The way plate tectonics reinforces what we know of evolution. And evolution reinforces plate tectonics, too.<br/><br/>Chapter 10: The tree of cousinship. It's not just fossils that can tell about our development. DNA marks how close any one modern species is to any other.<br/><br/>Chapter 11: History written all over us. The ways in which earlier developmental stages are still evident in modern species; the design is far from intelligent.<br/><br/>Chapter 12: Arms races and 'evolutionary theodicy'. As both predator and prey respond to their arms race to survive, there are limits where the trade-offs are no longer worthwhile.<br/><br/>Chapter 13: There is grandeur in this view of life. Dawkins is quoting Darwin here, and expands on every sentence in the last paragraph of Origin of Species.<br/><br/>An appendix is titled "The history-deniers," and is more directly about those who seek to discredit evolutionary theory. There are also extensive notes, bibliography, suggestions for further reading, and index. There are also 32 pages of color photos which go a long way to illustrate the text, as well as any number of black-and-white illustrations.<br/><br/>The style is conversational, often amusing, and especially good at putting clever asides in footnotes. Here's one of my favorites, after a reference to 'Peking Man':<br/><br/>*Predictably, the Peking fossil is now sometimes called Beijing Man. Why, since we are talking English rather than Chinese, do we go along with 'Beijing' at all, when referring to China's capital? There a rather charming programme on British television called "Grumpy Old Men, which is a genially edited collection of grouses and grizzles of just this kind. If I were on it, I would say something like the following. We don't dab on a splash of Eau de Koln to drown out the smell of Mumbai Duck, or go waltzing to the strains of 'the Blue Danaj' or 'Tales from the Wien Woods.' We don't compare Neville Chamberlain, the Man of Munchen, to Napoleon's retreat from Moskva. Nor yet (though give it time) do we take our snuffling little pet Beij for walkies. What's wrong with Peking, when it's the English language we are speaking? I was delighted recently to meet a member of the British diplomatic corps, fluent in Mandarin, who had played a leading role in our embassy in what he insisted on calling Peking."

Richard Dawkins has done it again! Another home run grand slam for humanism and reason, providing the layman in the trenches with more weapons to use against the mindless hordes who suck at the teat of superstition. I too was at one time was a Young Earth Creationist who dabbled in Christian apologetics. In fact, it was my reading of anti-evolution books that kept me from casting off my faith sooner than what I did when I began questioning certain things. If you have never been indoctrinated into a Young Earth Creation movement you really wouldn't understand the leap it takes to even consider evolution as an option. Most people in Christianity don't want to give up their cozy belief system, no matter how inconvenient it may be on a day to day basis, because it is just more convenient to have someone spoon feed a world view to them rather than carve one out for themselves through a stimulation of their own gray matter. It was a book by Richard Dawkins that helped me make the leap from faith to reason. While The Selfish Gene didn't prove evolution in one giant stroke, it did prove to me that it was a system that was based on more than a few fossils and a lot of speculation. The Greatest Show on Earth is probably the best book Dawkins has ever written. Until now, my personal favorite has been The Ancestors Tale. While I originally took to reading books on evolution to argue with Creationists, I have discovered a splendor equal to, or even exceeding the existential thrill gleaned from reading ancient idioms from leather bound creeds of yore. In Dawkin's latest book he has laid down such a convincing case that I am embarrassed to even admit I used to believe in a literal account of Biblical Creation. He leaves no stone unturned in discussing fossil evidence, evidence for unintelligent design and pointers that prove our earth is much older than some want us to believe. It is sad, but one can almost hear the steady cadence of keyboards typing out responses to Dawkin's book from Creationists (much like they did with The God Delusion) who haven't even given his work an honest reading. The real litmus test as to whether they actually read his book is whether they still harp on the Second Law of Thermodynamics; an argument Dawkins thoroughly decimates in The Greatest Show on Earth. There is a book that theists could write in response to The Greatest Show on Earth that would have a bit of relevance to it. Since there are a great number of Christians who see no contradiction between faith in God and Evolution, how about a book explaining redemption theology in light of evolution. It is my belief that if I had been a member of a Christian group that accepted an old earth and evolution I might not have seen a contradiction and left the faith. I was taught that the events in the Garden of Eden had to be literal; the perfect creation, man's fall from perfection and need of a Savior and the advent of sin into the world bringing death with it. Romans 5:12 still stands out in my mind as a road block hindering the joining of Christian theology and evolution together. If evolution is true, death has been in the world since the beginning before man developed the ability to comprehend right from wrong and sin. Furthermore, if there was no literal Adam, how do we interpret Paul calling Jesus Christ the second Adam in 1 Corinthians 15? Rather than a pathetic book attempting to refute solid scientific facts I would like to see a book written on Christian theology aiming to reconcile these issues. Furthermore, I would like to see it written by some one with the ability to explain things clearly and concisely without confusing terminology created in ivory towers to confuse the simple. In short, lets see a book written as beautifully, clearly and as convincing as The Greatest Show on Earth.

I just finished reading "The Greatest Show On Earth, the Evidence For Evolution," the newest offering by Richard Dawkins, the author of "The God Delusion" and other works. In the preface, Dawkins said that his reason for writing TGSOE was to lay out all of the evidence for evolution, from all the scientific disciplines, and, speaking as a non-scientist I would have to say he has done exactly that! While reading along, I had the feeling I was observing a master puzzle-person assembling a vast jig saw puzzle, with a few clues here and a few clues there, slowly but surely building a seamless wall of evidence with fact after supporting fact, at the end leaving no doubt about the truth of evolution by natural selection. Dawkins made it clear from the very beginning that this was not an anti-god book, for as he said, he has already done that! Throughout the book, he refers to the anti-evolution folks as "the history deniers," a term which I feel is stronger then merely assigning them to one of two opposing (and possibly equal) camps, and places them in the category of those who choose to disbelieve what science considers undeniable fact. Dawkins takes us on a purposeful romp through many different scientific disciplines, demonstrating how they all work together to prove the wonderful truths of evolution. We have an exploration of nuclear physics, which, supported by biology and geology provides the clocks by which we measure the vast expanses of geologic time. We learn that the fossil record, much maligned by the history deniers, is only one of the evidences for evolution, and not even the strongest, even though it is rich and nearly un-assailable. Dawkins recounts the DNA evidence, which tells us exactly how closely we are related to every other living thing on earth. He goes into great detail explaining how DNA controls the development of an embryo, how various organs are constructed. We also learn that various constructs within our bodies are actually evidence for evolution. For instance, there is a nerve, called the recurrent laryngeal nerve that runs from our brains to our larynx (voice box). You would think it would go directly, but it actually takes a turn around one of the major arteries leaving the heart, and returns to the larynx after a journey of almost a foot. All mammals have this same recurrent nerve, and in the case of the Giraffe, it's journey takes it almost fifteen feet our-of-the-way, resulting in an animal that seems to have a very robust larynx but is only able to vocalize short grunts. This recurrent nerve makes no sense whatsoever if we were "intelligently designed," but makes perfect sense if you take into consideration that our ancestors had no necks and gills! If we had no fossils, no DNA and no chemical evidence for evolution, we could still make an excellent case for Darwin with the evidence provided by the distribution of species, taking into account the former and present positions of the continents. Dawkins shows us why this often-overlooked evidence is important, and how it fits into the overall scheme. All in all, I think this book is one of the best of its kind, and certainly meets the expectations of the writer. I recommend it highly, as it is accessible, readable and extremely comprehensive. Dawkins does a very good job, even in areas where he isn't a recognized expert, in laying out ALL the evidence for what is certainly the foundation of all biology. I have mentioned only a few of the areas he covers, he managed to teach me a great deal in a few short days, and I need some time for some of the lessons to sink in. Certainly a wonderful addition to the genre.