Kampourakis, a philosopher at Geneva, has compiled and discussed sensibly a range of topics concerning evolution. He begins with the conceptual difficulties people have in understanding the evolutionary process, and why. In chapter 1, he discusses how we know about evolution, what questions it answers, and considers two cases that are close to home: domestication and epidemiology, the evolution of disease.
The evolutionary questions are about why living things evolved the way they did, about speciation, the process of evolving new species, and the hypotheses that these require. He talks about explanation (especially "[inference to the best explanation](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/)") and the use of scientific method in evolutionary biology. The sections on domestication of animals and on epidemiology are satisfyingly complete.
Chapter 2 covers religious objections to evolution, including, of course, creationism and intelligent design. He discusses the arguments made by ID, especially in the context of atheism and agnosticism. Arguments from design in nature are expounded and given a thorough treatment, including "artifact thinking" and complexity.
The he discusses world views in conflict, especially relating to Richard Dawkins' views, and then more widely the views of both theist and atheist scientists. Gould's "nonoverlapping magisteria" and Simon Conway Morris' inevitability thesis are also reviewed. There is a nice discussion of the differences between knowing and believing and various kinds of methodological and metaphysical naturalisms.
Chapter 3 is titled "Conceptual difficulties to understanding evolution". Here he discusses psychological essentialism in detail, and the "design stance" that Dennett identified. The problems of conceptual change, which I have published on myself, are then discussed. An example he uses is the shift from geocentric thinking to heliocentric thinking, and it is a good case study. The discussion on essentialism and design thinking, especially of artifacts, appeals to the psychological literature in detail.
Chapter 4 gives a complete and up to date account of how Darwin himself came to his theories. In particular he discusses how Darwin thought varieties became species, and gives a nice timeline of Darwin's intellectual development. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how scientists and the religious reacted to the _Origin_.
Chapter 5 is about common ancestry. Usually books of this type focus upon natural selection, as if that were where Darwin's originality lay. Kampourakis knows that Darwin's true novelty lay in this idea instead. He explains how genealogical thinking allows us to reconstruct and classify the history of nature, and how thinking in terms of a historical tree of life made all the difference (and was Darwin's first and main problem to solve). There's a good discussion of molecular evolutionary biology here.
He gives an account of an often misunderstood notion in biology: homology. This is followed by phylogenetic classification and construction, and a discussion of the question of apparent similarities in biology: convergences (analogy, or homoplasy). Many clear and useful diagrams make the chapter even easier to follow. Then he considers the role of developmental thinking, and how evolution often modifies the timing of development.
Chapter 6 is titled "Evolutionary change". It discusses "deep time" and dating of taxa and their divergence. Here he notes that while selectionist accounts are important, much evolution is stochastic, that is, chance. He discusses the difference of within-species evolution (microevolution) and between-species evolution (macroevolution) and gives a good summary of scientific ideas about these, especially the "major transitions" literature. The "selection-against" and "selection-for" distinction is explained here. Speciation and extinction are also explained. Then he returns to the question of inference, in a historical science like evolution.
Finally, in his concluding remarks, he discusses what evolution does, and does not explain, especially with respect to ethical and religious questions.
Each chapter has a good reading list, and the material is up to date in both science, and philosophy and history. He takes stances throughout but does so explicitly, allowing the reader to decide what to think for themselves.
This is an excellent, and long-needed book. The education of evolution in schools is now so poor in many countries, that this can act as both a primer and as an invitation to think further, and I would recommend it unreservedly to anyone who wants to know what evolution really is and means. It is not cheap, but neither is it as expensive as many books of its kind. Buy a copy.New book on understanding evolution
I occasionally get books for review unsolicited, and many of them are not worth noticing. However, Kostas Kampourakis' _Understanding Evolution_ is a wonderful resource for students of all kinds, including biology students.
Kampourakis, a philosopher at Geneva, has compiled and discussed sensibly a range of topics concerning evolution. He begins with the conceptual difficulties people have in understanding the evolutionary process, and why. In chapter 1, he discusses how we know about evolution, what questions it answers, and considers two cases that are close to home: domestication and epidemiology, the evolution of disease.
The evolutionary questions are about why living things evolved the way they did, about speciation, the process of evolving new species, and the hypotheses that these require. He talks about explanation (especially "[inference to the best explanation](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/)") and the use of scientific method in evolutionary biology. The sections on domestication of animals and on epidemiology are satisfyingly complete.
Chapter 2 covers religious objections to evolution, including, of course, creationism and intelligent design. He discusses the arguments made by ID, especially in the context of atheism and agnosticism. Arguments from design in nature are expounded and given a thorough treatment, including "artifact thinking" and complexity.
The he discusses world views in conflict, especially relating to Richard Dawkins' views, and then more widely the views of both theist and atheist scientists. Gould's "nonoverlapping magisteria" and Simon Conway Morris' inevitability thesis are also reviewed. There is a nice discussion of the differences between knowing and believing and various kinds of methodological and metaphysical naturalisms.
Chapter 3 is titled "Conceptual difficulties to understanding evolution". Here he discusses psychological essentialism in detail, and the "design stance" that Dennett identified. The problems of conceptual change, which I have published on myself, are then discussed. An example he uses is the shift from geocentric thinking to heliocentric thinking, and it is a good case study. The discussion on essentialism and design thinking, especially of artifacts, appeals to the psychological literature in detail.
Chapter 4 gives a complete and up to date account of how Darwin himself came to his theories. In particular he discusses how Darwin thought varieties became species, and gives a nice timeline of Darwin's intellectual development. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how scientists and the religious reacted to the _Origin_.
Chapter 5 is about common ancestry. Usually books of this type focus upon natural selection, as if that were where Darwin's originality lay. Kampourakis knows that Darwin's true novelty lay in this idea instead. He explains how genealogical thinking allows us to reconstruct and classify the history of nature, and how thinking in terms of a historical tree of life made all the difference (and was Darwin's first and main problem to solve). There's a good discussion of molecular evolutionary biology here.
He gives an account of an often misunderstood notion in biology: homology. This is followed by phylogenetic classification and construction, and a discussion of the question of apparent similarities in biology: convergences (analogy, or homoplasy). Many clear and useful diagrams make the chapter even easier to follow. Then he considers the role of developmental thinking, and how evolution often modifies the timing of development.
Chapter 6 is titled "Evolutionary change". It discusses "deep time" and dating of taxa and their divergence. Here he notes that while selectionist accounts are important, much evolution is stochastic, that is, chance. He discusses the difference of within-species evolution (microevolution) and between-species evolution (macroevolution) and gives a good summary of scientific ideas about these, especially the "major transitions" literature. The "selection-against" and "selection-for" distinction is explained here. Speciation and extinction are also explained. Then he returns to the question of inference, in a historical science like evolution.
Finally, in his concluding remarks, he discusses what evolution does, and does not explain, especially with respect to ethical and religious questions.
Each chapter has a good reading list, and the material is up to date in both science, and philosophy and history. He takes stances throughout but does so explicitly, allowing the reader to decide what to think for themselves.
This is an excellent, and long-needed book. The education of evolution in schools is now so poor in many countries, that this can act as both a primer and as an invitation to think further, and I would recommend it unreservedly to anyone who wants to know what evolution really is and means. It is not cheap, but neither is it as expensive as many books of its kind. Buy a copy.
Kampourakis, a philosopher at Geneva, has compiled and discussed sensibly a range of topics concerning evolution. He begins with the conceptual difficulties people have in understanding the evolutionary process, and why. In chapter 1, he discusses how we know about evolution, what questions it answers, and considers two cases that are close to home: domestication and epidemiology, the evolution of disease.
The evolutionary questions are about why living things evolved the way they did, about speciation, the process of evolving new species, and the hypotheses that these require. He talks about explanation (especially "[inference to the best explanation](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/)") and the use of scientific method in evolutionary biology. The sections on domestication of animals and on epidemiology are satisfyingly complete.
Chapter 2 covers religious objections to evolution, including, of course, creationism and intelligent design. He discusses the arguments made by ID, especially in the context of atheism and agnosticism. Arguments from design in nature are expounded and given a thorough treatment, including "artifact thinking" and complexity.
The he discusses world views in conflict, especially relating to Richard Dawkins' views, and then more widely the views of both theist and atheist scientists. Gould's "nonoverlapping magisteria" and Simon Conway Morris' inevitability thesis are also reviewed. There is a nice discussion of the differences between knowing and believing and various kinds of methodological and metaphysical naturalisms.
Chapter 3 is titled "Conceptual difficulties to understanding evolution". Here he discusses psychological essentialism in detail, and the "design stance" that Dennett identified. The problems of conceptual change, which I have published on myself, are then discussed. An example he uses is the shift from geocentric thinking to heliocentric thinking, and it is a good case study. The discussion on essentialism and design thinking, especially of artifacts, appeals to the psychological literature in detail.
Chapter 4 gives a complete and up to date account of how Darwin himself came to his theories. In particular he discusses how Darwin thought varieties became species, and gives a nice timeline of Darwin's intellectual development. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how scientists and the religious reacted to the _Origin_.
Chapter 5 is about common ancestry. Usually books of this type focus upon natural selection, as if that were where Darwin's originality lay. Kampourakis knows that Darwin's true novelty lay in this idea instead. He explains how genealogical thinking allows us to reconstruct and classify the history of nature, and how thinking in terms of a historical tree of life made all the difference (and was Darwin's first and main problem to solve). There's a good discussion of molecular evolutionary biology here.
He gives an account of an often misunderstood notion in biology: homology. This is followed by phylogenetic classification and construction, and a discussion of the question of apparent similarities in biology: convergences (analogy, or homoplasy). Many clear and useful diagrams make the chapter even easier to follow. Then he considers the role of developmental thinking, and how evolution often modifies the timing of development.
Chapter 6 is titled "Evolutionary change". It discusses "deep time" and dating of taxa and their divergence. Here he notes that while selectionist accounts are important, much evolution is stochastic, that is, chance. He discusses the difference of within-species evolution (microevolution) and between-species evolution (macroevolution) and gives a good summary of scientific ideas about these, especially the "major transitions" literature. The "selection-against" and "selection-for" distinction is explained here. Speciation and extinction are also explained. Then he returns to the question of inference, in a historical science like evolution.
Finally, in his concluding remarks, he discusses what evolution does, and does not explain, especially with respect to ethical and religious questions.
Each chapter has a good reading list, and the material is up to date in both science, and philosophy and history. He takes stances throughout but does so explicitly, allowing the reader to decide what to think for themselves.
This is an excellent, and long-needed book. The education of evolution in schools is now so poor in many countries, that this can act as both a primer and as an invitation to think further, and I would recommend it unreservedly to anyone who wants to know what evolution really is and means. It is not cheap, but neither is it as expensive as many books of its kind. Buy a copy.
68 Comments
DavidK · 15 April 2014
Sounds like an excellent book worth reading, but it's awfully pricy ($81 HB, $31 PP). I'm sure the dishonesty institute will soon pan it.
John Harshman · 15 April 2014
It sounds interesting, but I think I'll be hoping that the local libraries get a copy. Does it cover conceptual problems in interpreting cladograms? The apparent difficulty of tree-thinking has been a big topic in evolution education for a while, e.g. failing to understand that rotation around nodes makes no change in relationships.
Flint · 15 April 2014
As of today, Amazon says the book has not yet been released. Why the kindle version is $25 more than the paperback is a mystery.
nobodythatmatters · 15 April 2014
i wonder if a deal could be struck with the publisher for a bulk run of this book at a reduced price point. It would be entertaining, and possibly educational, for some wealthy person or organization to get a lot of copies of this book and politely offer them for free to students at religous institutions.
i also think it'd be funny to show up at evangelical churches and politely offer them to the congregation as they enter or leave the church. I wonder how they'll feel about the "both sides" argument in that context.
TomS · 15 April 2014
This is published by the Cambridge University Press, so I tried their website, and you can get some more information here
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/evolutionary-biology/understanding-evolution
You can download the illustrations in the book.
Robert Byers · 15 April 2014
Is this philosopher a biological scientist? Has he done any science with accomplished results.
Its okay to write books on evolution is not a scientist. many creationists write great debunking books on science. However its brought up in the bars about them being not scientists!
The only thing that matters is proving your case.
I would scan such a book, FIRST, for whether he provides biological scientific evidence , ENOUGH, to justify evolution as a theory of science as opposed to a hypothesis/hunch.
He discredits himself right off if he calls opposition to evolution as coming from religious opinions.
its not,. It comes from intellectual opinions with or without a prompting from other presumptions called religion.
It seems like the same old stuff one would read in wiki.
the times have passed for mere repeating of the a tired and failing old script.
Prove your case like real sciences do.
The Philistines are upon you.
phhht · 15 April 2014
Rolf · 16 April 2014
Robert, do yourself (and us) a favor, please buy the book! Instead of scanning, Will you read, really read and apply whatever intellect you may have to understanding what you read? Do you really have a sufficient background in general science making you capable of proper understanding and assimilation of what's written?
Don't read it only once, the bare minimum is two readings but my experience is that re-reading a book over an extended period of time, there is always something new to be learned. Learning takes an effort! It is your resistance to learning that does the work of teaching you what you read.
If you read with the premise that it is all crap, you are just augmenting the crap you already have far too much of instead of learning.
Robert, The place in heaven you have waiting for you won't be jeopardized by making an effort to learn something you do not like and do not want to believe. Knowing your enemy makes you capable of making valid arguments.
Someday you may grow up an realize how silly you once were...
But that's okay, I still have much more I should learn than what I already learned over 70 years of studying both evolution and creationism.
Peter Moritz · 16 April 2014
"It comes from intellectual opinions with or without a prompting from other presumptions called religion"
Your style of writing as displayed in this one sentence betrays the dearth of intellectual rigour in your thinking - if what you post here can be called thinking at all.
Please be so kind to link to any books by those criticizing evolutionary theory that are not based on religious beliefs. And ID does not count. They threw that cloak of lies away some time ago.
Other than that - your willful ignorance, your opinions based on nothing but misunderstood, half digested information and untruth soaked up with the willingness of one who is too lazy to read and understand the literature that provides simply overwhelming evidence for the process of evolution gets really tiresome.
You are nothing but the ghost of denial...in the face of over one-hundred fifty years of still accumulating evidence from palaeontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, physiology etc. one can only hope that the the thin gruel that supports your existence in the interweb eventually will lead to a vanishing act as in Charles Dickens story.
gnome de net · 16 April 2014
John S. Wilkins · 16 April 2014
Robert Byers · 16 April 2014
Robert Byers · 16 April 2014
Dave Luckett · 16 April 2014
Three "evidences" says Robert, in his version of English.
One. All living things reproduce with variation, and the variations are themselves heritable. Observed fact.
Two. All variations, however slight, are neutral, advantageous, or disadvantageous. Logically necessary, but also observed fact.
Three. Advantageous variations tend to be selected by the environment (and sometimes by other factors), while neutral ones are not selected and disadvantageous ones tend to be culled. Logically necessary, but also observed fact, confirmed by countless field studies.
The emergent effect of these confirmed, reconfirmed, endlessly repeated observations is necessarily the theory of evolution. That was the evidence that Darwin saw and led, and the necessary logical deduction he made. It was good science then, and still is.
This is somewhat like the Rabbi Hillel's reply when asked to explain the Torah while "he stood on one foot". He said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. The rest is commentary", but he added, "Now go and study".
If Byers actually wanted to know, he'd go and study. He doesn't and he won't, of course.
Richard B. Hoppe · 17 April 2014
It's a textbook, which is why it's expensive.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmSOoisp2Oqk5_gBhZFwlSisb7SMhyTjFs · 17 April 2014
TomS · 17 April 2014
iSTM that the evidence for evolutionary biology is more accessible to the ordinary person than is the evidence for the heliocentric model of the Solar System. Or the atomic theory of matter.
John Harshman · 17 April 2014
I also recommend another textbook, Tree Thinking, by D.A. Baum and S.D. Smith. Roberts and Company Publishers. ISBN 9781936221165. It would appear to overlap somewhat in subject and treatment, but is focused on teaching phylogenetic systematics. It has quite a bit on how to understand phylogenetic trees, including what can cause people not to understand them.
Tenncrain · 17 April 2014
Helena Constantine · 17 April 2014
Helena Constantine · 17 April 2014
phhht · 17 April 2014
Robert Byers · 18 April 2014
Robert Byers · 18 April 2014
Rolf · 18 April 2014
Since this thread already is contaminated beyond salvation;
Robert: Evolution is the only viable explantation of the evidence. Call it whatever you like, science, heresy or whatever.
Now tell us how and why Genesis is - not true - but "the truth"?
The "bits of data" joined sounds interesting, tell us more about them!
Keelyn · 18 April 2014
phhht · 18 April 2014
fnxtr · 18 April 2014
There's no point shouting at Bobby. He's intellectually deaf.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 18 April 2014
Just Bob · 18 April 2014
Helena Constantine · 21 April 2014
DS · 21 April 2014
As for creationism, in any of it's many transparent disguises:
1. It explains none of the observed facts.
2. It makes no testable predictions.
3. It is has never been modified as new evidence is discovered (only superficially modified when court decisions are handed down).
When Bobby can get his mind around these simple facts, maybe he will begin to see the error of his ways. Until then he can blubber his unique brand of idiocy all he wants, he isn't fooling anyone.
TomS · 21 April 2014
prongs · 21 April 2014
Scott F · 21 April 2014
I have an answer for Robert: one hard piece of evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution:
Tiktaalik
[ If you haven't watched the videos yet, I think they are excellent. Very well done, and very informative. Neil Shubin is my new favoritist science spokesman! ]
I'm not talking about the creature or the fossil itself. That's almost beside the point (of this response).
A Scientific "Theory" is a "Theory" because (in part) it is useful in making predictions. Neil Shubin (and his colleagues) used the Theory of Evolution to predict that if they explored a certain valley in Canada which no one had ever visited before, that they would be likely to find a creature that would represent a species that was transitional between fish and reptiles. This prediction of the Theory of Evolution proved to be correct.
Now you may not believe that what they found represents what they claim. That doesn't even matter, because that's not the point. What they found is unique (no one had found anything quite like it before), and (most importantly) what they found was what they said they were looking for, in exactly the spot on the Earth where the Theory of Evolution said they should find it.
That is an example of what makes Evolution a "Theory". It makes testable predictions about the world, which more often than not turn out to be "true" predictions. Shubin used the ToE to make the prediction that they would find a fossil like this, in this valley. And they did.
Robert, name one prediction made by creationism that, after experimentation, turned out to be true. However, this prediction has to be something that was not known at the time the prediction was made, and it has to be something that the Theory of Evolution would not have predicted.
Scott F · 21 April 2014
If I were a Creation "Scientist", the most obvious prediction of "The Flood" related to life is that we should expect to see the various species of life radiating outward from a central point on the globe. Just by looking at the distribution of existing "native" species, and at the fossil finds, we should be easily able to identify where on the Earth Noah's Ark must have grounded. Do we find such radiating distributions of life on the planet?
No, we do not.
Can Creationism explain why kangaroos and lots of closely related marsupials are found in Australia, and no where else on Earth?
No, it can't.
Can Creationism explain why there are penguins on every continent south of the equator, but none around the north pole, yet (conversely) there are polar bears around the north pole, but not the south?
No, it can't.
Can Creationism explain ring species? Dinosaurs? Why blind cave fish have the genes to make eyes? Why chickens have the genes to make teeth?
Nope, nope, nope, and nope. All it can do is to deny any and all evidence found for any of these things.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/UZTyNgIV2NoJdpo6Kaxq0gI.KQ--#90715 · 22 April 2014
Dave Luckett · 22 April 2014
prongs · 22 April 2014
I said "elucidate" not "obfuscate." But then what else have we come to expect from creationists?
SWT · 22 April 2014
Is this homecoming week or something? Biggy's made a brief appearance on the BW, as has Bozorgmehr, and now, it looks like SteveP is back.
SteveP, of course, has neither new content nor any links to respectable peer-reviewed scientific papers that make a scientific case for a "designer".
DS · 22 April 2014
Information? Really? So exactly how is this information created? Where is it created? Why is it created? How can we predict where it will pop up next? How can we explain why it popped up where it did? Why do you think it could not be produced by natural processes? Are you getting extra credit points or are you just being obtuse for no reason?
Have you read the book on understanding evolution? Do you have any comments that have to do with the topic of this thread? Are you just a hit and run science wanna be who can't answer a simple question?
Scott F · 22 April 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 22 April 2014
phhht · 22 April 2014
eric · 22 April 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 22 April 2014
Helena Constantine · 22 April 2014
shjcpr · 23 April 2014
Helena, why would you think God 'speaking and it was so' is some sort of magic. Is this an attempt to ridicule a reality you have trouble conceptualizing?
Is not magic just undiscovered science? It seems airplanes were magic until they were not. Smart phones were magic until they were not.
I dont think "God spoke and it was so " will stay magic for too much longer. After all, He did stay that there was nothing that would not be revealed.
All magic needs is a little patience. Give magic a chance, would you?
You wont regret it.
shjcpr · 23 April 2014
Eric,
Game on!
Dave Luckett · 23 April 2014
shjcpr · 23 April 2014
Scott F,
I hope hou dont realyy believe he stuff in that video you linked to. Geez. His own little talk went right over his head.
Does he think that anything that resides in his mind is not real??? Were the Wright brothers imagining of human flight fantasy. They simply actualized the reality that was formerly residing between their ears.
Tribbles of course exist. They are currently residing between that guy's ears. Who knows, with a little help from some creative scientists, they'll come out of their noodly residence and pay you a visit.
So yeah, the number 2 is quite real and lives in lots of places. Viva le 2.
Bobsie · 23 April 2014
Dave Luckett · 23 April 2014
I think shjcpr is mainlining from here: http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
Either that, or it's an uncannily accurate recapitulation of his concepts.
DS · 23 April 2014
shjcpr wrote:
"Tribbles of course exist. They are currently residing between that guy’s ears."
Same with god. She only exists between your ears.
Let me ask you a question. Do you get extra credit for winning an argument, or is just having one enough?
fnxtr · 23 April 2014
eric · 23 April 2014
eric · 23 April 2014
eric · 23 April 2014
Scott F · 23 April 2014
Helena Constantine · 23 April 2014
prongs · 23 April 2014
One counter-example destroys the hypothesis. Consider Alchemy (turning lead into gold). Thousands of practitioners, throughout the centuries, sought the magic formula to transform lead into gold.
Science undiscovered? Nay. Alchemy is magic that can never become real science, nuclear reactors notwithstanding. Although it may be possible to transmute lead into gold inside a nuclear reactor, the economics and the yield are prohibitive. No science will ever make abundant gold out of lead. (And if it did, gold would become almost worthless, about like lead.)
So our new friend is wrong. Magic is not science undiscovered - as history shows us so abundantly. And neither is creationism science - as every test has found it wanting.
Scott F · 23 April 2014
Henry J · 23 April 2014
To sum up: effective error correction is a necessary part of science.
Rolf · 24 April 2014
Dale · 24 April 2014
I thought Robert Byers was only allowed one comment on a blog entry and that we were forbidden to respond to him because that would be feeding the troll.
In any case, he, like all other Creationist bigots who come here, is a pathological liar. He lies because that is what he does for entertainment here. Most normal people play computer games like World of Warcraft for that.
Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic
shjcpr · 24 April 2014
Hmm. Curious where my last post went. It was posted but is no where to be found. Evidence of its existence has been recorded, however.
Is this what we should descrive as a form of "benign censorship"? Plausible deniability?
ah, must be a case of "quota filled". No extensions? No gimmies? No bonus time?
Catcha later, people.
eric · 24 April 2014
KlausH · 25 April 2014