Recommendations for books explaining evolution?

January 16, 2005 2:12 PM

My father, though a very iintelligent and respected lawyer, says he often has trouble accepting the idea of macro-evolution, because he says to him the idea is too vast to take in. Can anyone suggest some books on the topic that can explain evolution better than my feeble attempts?
posted by Sangermaine to education (22 comments total)

Though he may have some preconceived notions about the author, this book offers a unique perspective on evolution. Instead of beginning with prehistoric Earth and narrating evolution to the present, the book works backwards from the modern era showing how punctuated species development and selection is probable and intuitive.
posted by fatllama at 2:20 PM on January 16, 2005

Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable would also be great, as it focuses strictly on issues of macroevolution; The Blind Watchmaker would be good as a supplement.

For what it's worth, the idea being "too vast for him to take in" is a lazy argument, especially for an intelligent person, and a lawyer at that: it's little more than a cop-out on the question of evolution. If I were you, I would call him on it and get into his real feelings on the issue.
posted by The Michael The at 2:34 PM on January 16, 2005

Fatllama: I'm reading that as we speak (er, as we write, and when I say "as", I mean "I was reading it about 5 minutes ago"). It doesn't really make evolution easy to understand, but it does put it into perspective, and, I find most importantly, it really does clarify the science behind evolution, removing it from the layman's idea that scientists just look at different animals, find similarities, and go "I bet this evolved from that". It presents so many examples and anecdotes that at the end of it, as hard as the vastness of evolution is to take in, it makes most non-evolutionary theories even harder to take in.

But, I warn you, it is very, very long. And it has some (completely inappropriate, even though I agree with them) stabs at Bush. I sense that in 10 years, Dawkins is going to be very embarassed by putting those bits in, merely because they stick out so much from what the book is about. Still, we're only talking perhaps two or three paragraphs out of a 688 page book, so if your dad isn't a hardcore Republican, he can probably ignore those bits quite easily. If he's very right-wing, though, they might poison the rest of the book for him.

Preview: Nah, it really is vast, if you think about it, and it can be hard to come to grips with. The same thing happens when you start talking about the infinite size of space, or the irregularities that happen as things approach light speed. Even as a believer in evolution, I have a hard time coming to grips with its vastness, and I don't know what that would be a cop-out to, since I do believe in evolution.
posted by Bugbread at 2:40 PM on January 16, 2005

[Warning: self-link] A few years ago, to teach myself Javascript, I created an evolution simulator. I just made it for fun, but a could of people said it helped them understand evolution.
posted by grumblebee at 2:56 PM on January 16, 2005

bugbread, I've felt similarly uncomfortable with the political bits of several of Dawkins' interviews. Nice stuff, grumblebee.
posted by fatllama at 3:31 PM on January 16, 2005

Carl Zimmer's Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs covers only the cetaceans and pinnipeds, that might be a good way to work up to the whole deal, but if you want a good book on the whole deal, I like either book of life (general reference format - mostly illustrations) or the variety of life (cladistic field guide format - mostly text).
posted by milovoo at 3:47 PM on January 16, 2005

For a rigorous but accessible treatment, one can't go wrong with Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology; this goes well beyond the sorts of generalities one picks up in popular science books to give you the real meat of the subject.
posted by Goedel at 4:01 PM on January 16, 2005

Also worth reading, by the same author, is Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. This isn't a textbook, but it does address creationist arguments head on - or rather, it demolishes them outright.
posted by Goedel at 4:05 PM on January 16, 2005

For what it's worth, the idea being "too vast for him to take in" is a lazy argument, especially for an intelligent person

I think one of the hardest things to assimilate about evolution is the length of time it takes to function. Even highly intelligent people really have no idea what a billion years is like. This is why people frequently see evolution as a kind of poof! ape-becomes-man magic trick, and reject it outright. I'd say that calling it "too vast to take in" is an incredibly fair and honest starting point. Of course, once you spend time contemplating the lengths of time involved, you begin to see that stability is an illusion, and that species must inevitably change over such vast stretches of time, under so many diverse pressures.
posted by scarabic at 4:30 PM on January 16, 2005

If you want to keep it simple, The Cartoon History of the Universe, Vol. I, does a really nice and entertaining job of it.
posted by obloquy at 5:55 PM on January 16, 2005

Is macro-evolution an actual scientific term? It seems like I only hear it in ID/Creationism vs. Theory of Evolution arguments, but I am by no means an authority (or even knowledgeable dilettante) on the matter. Does he have a specific belief that you need a counter argument for?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:38 PM on January 16, 2005

If your father is serious about understanding evolution, I would suggest going back to the beginnings and reading the original work, it's quite well written, and explains a lot about how his conclusions were reached, which some modern texts don't do. It is a bit long, but interesting.
posted by orangskye at 6:42 PM on January 16, 2005

My question would be "how is any alternative less huge?" If he believes the universe and all the creatures in it were created by God, well, God is a pretty huge thing to try to wrap your mind around. For that matter, any appreciation of the universe as we can perceive it at right this moment (setting aside how it got to be this way) is completely mind-blowing.

So I'd have to agree that "too vast to take in" is lazy, since in any attempt to honestly take in any alternative, you quickly hit the wall of vastness and, like Neo, say "whoa...!"

On preview: PinkStanlesTail--I just checked out the wikipedia entry on macroevolution. It's interesting. I was going to say that macro-evolution is a made-up concept from the Intelligent Design crowd, but it's actually more complicated.
posted by adamrice at 6:45 PM on January 16, 2005

PinkStainlessTail,
When I used that term "macro-evolution", I was referring to evolution on the global scale. I'm not sure if this is a term scientists would use. "Micro-evolution" would be small-scale evolution, like antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria evolving during medical treatment. He has no problem with this "micro-evolution", which makes sense because it is so intuitive . As to your second question, no, there is no specific belief to be fought here. He does not disagree with evolution per se. It is more of a situation of, "I accept that this idea is valid, but I would feel much more comfortable with it if I knew more about it and had a clear explanation of it and the evidence for it." The books that you all have pointed out will help a lot to this end. Thanks a lot.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:47 PM on January 16, 2005

"
My question would be "how is any alternative less huge?" If he believes the universe and all the creatures in it were created by God, well, God is a pretty huge thing to try to wrap your mind around. For that matter, any appreciation of the universe as we can perceive it at right this moment (setting aside how it got to be this way) is completely mind-blowing.
"
He actually isn't religious, my previous post explained that he does not actually object to the idea itself. But on a more general note, and I hesitate to respond with this because I would rather not have this become a debate about religion, I disagree with your assertation that the "God alternative" is equally as intimidatingly vast as evolution. The reason, and I think for many people one of the more comforting aspects of religion, is that the idea of a creator God is very personal in nature. It is a relationship that seems intuitive, like the parent-child relationship. A God who made the universe and cares for it, where everything is connected to Him, does not come across as enormous as the scientific view. I myself am not religious, I was just responding to your point about why people might find one view vast and the other not.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:54 PM on January 16, 2005

Tangentially, Hawking's book A Brief History of Time (the book) is very good at explaining the origins and evolution of the universe without a Creator. Talk about vast ideas.
posted by callmejay at 8:56 PM on January 16, 2005

When I used that term "macro-evolution", I was referring to evolution on the global scale. I'm not sure if this is a term scientists would use. "Micro-evolution" would be small-scale evolution, like antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria evolving during medical treatment. He has no problem with this "micro-evolution", which makes sense because it is so intuitive .
Join a lot of the scientific community, or at least where I'm at at least.
posted by jmd82 at 9:25 PM on January 16, 2005

"too vast to take in" sounds like he's politely brushing you off. i doubt he understands quantum chromodynamics, but he probably doesn't think things are made of magic pixie dust, either. sorry this sounds like a snark; i'm just saying don't expect any book to change anything.
posted by andrew cooke at 4:14 AM on January 17, 2005

I think andrew cooke is correct. When people give little excuses like that its a big hint they don't want to address the issue. Arguably, evolution is child's play compared to things like astrophysics which most people don't have a problem with. "Using gravity to gain momentum by rounding the earth and dropping a probe on one of Jupiter's moons?" No problem. Time and space are the same thing? No problem. At high speeds or higher gravity you will comparitavely age slower than I? No problem. These things are just not personal.

Asking someone to be self-aware of the body and brain they have and how they really came about is a problem for them. Not to mention the cognitive dissonance a lifetime of religion can cause in a person. Your dad, regardless of his intellectual pedigree, is part of an older generation and I've found that, in general, only younger Americans really can accept evolution without too much protest or dissonance. There's something to be said about psychological determinism and the generation gap here.

Don't bother, you're probably wasting your time if the best he can say to you "its too vast." Anyone can go to the library and get a decent pop-sci book from Dawkins and be done with it. Not to mention Morris's "The Naked Ape" and other works about the human animal.

Not to mention, if you two are already talking in terms of "micro vs macro," well its pretty obvious there are emotional issues at work here as micro-evolution never seems to be an issue but for the most part the two concepts are the same thing.
posted by skallas at 7:45 AM on January 17, 2005

>A God who made the universe and cares for it, where everything is connected to Him, does not come across as enormous as the scientific view.

Maybe to you. Lets see you have this completely unknowable being(s) who hides itself, yet speaks through prophets (who contradict themselves), can be molded in anyway you like, tends to hate the things/customs/people you hate, etc. Then toss in this debasing thing you guys call worship and its a not only confusing, its weird, and far from "easy" to understand or even natural.

I think that comment really shows how well one can be indoctrinated into a religion or a cult or whatever and ignore the larger philosophical and logical issues that scream out "falsehood." Then again, say, Scientology might be a crock to you, but not to them. Pick pantheism if you are a Scientologist then. If anything, comfort comes not from "easy answers" but answers which address purpose and mortality in a wish-fullfillment kind of way, e.g. live forever, someone watching out for you, etc.
posted by skallas at 7:52 AM on January 17, 2005

At high speeds or higher gravity you will comparatively age slower than I? No problem. These things are just not personal.

Sorry for the derail, but I've always been fascinated what skallas has described. I can't count the number of bar conversations I've had with people who seem to believe in the resolution of the twin-paradox without the slightest clue about why it is true. Or those who have no doubt in the veracity of radio-carbon dating yet also believe that the moon-landing was a hoax because "you can't make footprints in a vacuum." Or how about the middle school science teacher who didn't belive in the existence of HIV.

Honestly, it seems common enough that I often wonder what astounding fairy tales are built into solid fact between my own two ears. I think I need to speak less.
posted by fatllama at 12:22 PM on January 18, 2005

Obviously I know nothing about your father, but the "too vast to take in" excuse sounds reasonable to me.

In most documentaries involving evolution one of the first things they have to do is give the viewer a framework for dealing with the large amounts of time involved. You know, "if the whole life of the earth were one year, then humans would have existed for only the ten minutes on the last day". It's tough to grasp for some people, rather like the distances involved in cosmology or the minuteness of quantum particles.

Also, if people around you choose to use the words macroevoluton and microevolution, you might be ahead of the game if you truly understand the processes of speciation, adaptive radiation and natural selection.

I do remember one of my own "aha!" moments in studying this was when I grasped that nothing that an individual animal does in it's lifetime (other than mate selection and survival) makes a difference to the resulting offspring, as the genes are fixed at their birth. Therefore giraffe's long necks are not from individual animals stretching to reach leaves, but survival to reproductive age those with a pre-existing ability to reach them. I had previously thought of it in the same incorrect way as Lamarck (or at least the anecdotal Lamarck).
posted by milovoo at 11:04 AM on January 19, 2005