Customer Reviews

Creatures of Accident: The Rise of the Animal Kingdom

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I read a lot of magazine and Internet articles about science and written in plain English for general readers. The science is usually vague and often inaccurate. Wallace Arthur manages to get across real science while avoiding jargon. For example, the old biology cliché "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is rendered as "development repeats evolution". This is followed by a few paragraphs of explanation. And he covers a number of topics which are important for understanding evolution that aren't generally included id beginners' books.

The most important of these is gene duplication. The machinery that manages our DNA sometimes makes extra copies of one or more genes. The duplicate copies may then undergo mutation and take on new functions while the old ones remain unchanged. A LOT of evolution involves gene duplication. Arthur doesn't say how gene duplication happens - that requires biochemistry - but it is important to know that it happens.

Another topic is development, from egg to adult. This is critical for understanding the evolution of complexity. Some genes involved in development, such as the Hox genes that Arthur mentions, are important in evolution. Copying of Hox genes is a major factor in the increasing complexity of animals; some more advanced books have charts showing the parallel between Hox gene duplication and increasing complexity. The interaction of genes and proteins is another important topic. And there are other topics, too much for me to cover in a short review.

Arthur frequently pauses to relate a current topic to what came earlier in the book, or to suggest what is to come. People who read a lot of science books are used to doing this for themselves and might be annoyed by Arthur's doing it. But for true beginners, this will probably be helpful.

Creatures of Accident provides only a beginning look at the natural processes that give rise to complexity. A number of other books - all more advanced - go into the subject in more depth. I have reviewed several of these and I recommend them. Click above on "See all my reviews" for more. There is also a brief summary in my Listmania list "Natural Processes That Promote Evolution". To find it, click on my name, above, and scroll down my profile page to that title. I will mention here that Sean B. Carroll's The Making of the Fittest is an excellent next book for someone who has read Creatures of Accident; a reader who has had a decent HS biology course might want to start with that book. Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful would be suitable for a college course, but is suitable for readers who are not bio students. Darwin in the Genome by Lynn Caporale looks at the evolution of those natural processes themselves. There are a number of very good books ranging from elementary to some suitable for graduate bio majors.

Creatures of Accident won't convince anybody that the ID claim is false; there's not enough detail for that. But it will give beginners a start to learning what evolution is really about. And that means the prospect of a lot of exciting reading ahead.

Arthur Wallace's book is an informal account of how biological complexity has arisen in the evolutionary history of life. The book is written in a conversational style and the individual chapters are short, giving the reader the satisfying feeling that he is `getting somewhere'. It is clear that Wallace, a professor of zoology, knows his subject well. While I agree with the author's thesis that the evolution of complexity can be largely explained through Darwinian evolution by natural selection (that is, without invoking additional mechanisms or anything supernatural or mysterious like an `intelligent designer'), I found the book generally disappointing in its lack of detail concerning the evidence supporting the account he proposes (which I feel could have been encapsulated in a brief essay instead of a full-length book). Wallace notes that a basic strategy for creating novelty and for building biological complexity can be expressed in just a few words: Duplication, Diversification, and Co-option- old genetic tools and morphological elements doing new tricks. Co-option (or `exaptation') is the process by which a structure or system with an original function adds or changes to a new function, a process which is enabled by redundancy and duplication. These ideas are not new, having been discussed in greater depth by a number of other evolutionary biologists and geneticists. While it is good to see them summarized succinctly in this book, there is a frustrating paucity of detail concerning specific examples of this evolutionary process. Wallace stresses the important role of alterations in developmental pathways as engines of evolutionary novelty, an idea which is also not new and embodied in the field of "Evo-Devo" (the study of evolution from a developmental perspective). However, discussion of Evo-Devo in the book is frustratingly limited (for readers seeking greater depth, I recommend Sean Carroll's book, Endless Forms Most Beautiful).

Wallace concludes that evolutionary history, at least in its broad strokes, is probably more predictable than has been acknowledged by other scientists stressing evolutionary contingency and divergence (e.g., S.J. Gould). Replaying the tape of life on Earth or on other Earth-like planets would probably yield similar (though certainly not identical) biological designs and would likely display similar evolutionary trajectories, at least on a coarse-grained scale. The fact of evolutionary convergence is often cited as evidence in support of this prediction (see Simon Conway-Morris's work for a rich account of evolutionary convergence). While I generally agree with Wallace's assessment, I found Wallace's case for evolutionary repeatability to be unsatisfying (for readers seeking a more persuasive and detailed argument for the repeatability and predictability of biological evolution see David Darling's book, Life Everywhere).

The author rightly dismisses so-called intelligent design (ID) as an explanation for life, biological complexity, and adaptation, claiming that the processes of divergence, duplication, and co-option occurring within a framework of Darwinian natural selection are sufficient to account for the evolution of biological complexity. While this may very well be the case (and I tend to agree), Wallace devotes little attention to how specific biological structures claimed by ID supporters to be "irreducibly complex" could have evolved via the strategies he mentions. Instead, he simply dismisses ID as "crass nonsense", without detailing precisely why it is so. In my opinion, it behooves the author to provide a much deeper critique of ID than he offers (for some excellent critiques of ID, see Young and Edis's Why Intelligent Design Fails, Perakh's Unintelligent Design, and Shanks' God, the Devil and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory).

Finally, Wallace describes himself as "a committed agnostic" with regard to God's existence and asserts that "committed atheism" is just as much of a faith position as is "committed theism". He cites Richard Dawkins as an example of a "convinced atheist". Dawkins may be "convinced", but he is not "committed", however. At least according to his most recent book, The God Delusion, Dawkins admits that he would give up his atheism if there were powerful evidence in support of theism. But Dawkins's atheism is hardly a dogmatic position- rather it is an intellectually honest and sensible one, which derives from following reason and evidence wherever they may lead. Wallace suggests that there is no evidence either for or against God's existence and that therefore the appropriate position is that of agnosticism. However, there is indeed evidence, both direct and background, which counts against the God hypothesis, thereby rendering the existence of God more improbable than not (for instance, one piece of evidence against the God hypothesis is that minds and intelligence are the derivative result of biological evolution- not primary- and that thought requires a physical substrate, e.g., a physical brain, in order to occur). How Wallace's "committed agnosticism" is not itself an example of "faith-based" dogmatism is beyond this reviewer's capacity to comprehend. Is there no evidence that in principle could sway him either way on the question of God's existence? Is Wallace a "committed agnostic" concerning the existence of fairies, ghosts, goblins, a host of pagan gods, and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? Does Wallace truly evaluate the probability that these extraordinary entities exist to be at 50 percent? If not, then what is the warrant for Wallace's "committed agnosticism" concerning the existence of God?

Wallace also blames Stalinist atrocities on the "faith of atheism". Overlooking Wallace's mistaken view that atheism (at least that which is the outcome of careful reasoning and an honest consideration of evidence) is "faith-based", Wallace's suggestion that Stalin's acts were done in the name of atheism is uncritical at best and misleading at worst. Arguably, the massacres of Stalin's reign were committed in the name of Socialist ideology, not atheism. His atheism (if indeed he was an atheist) appeared to be largely incidental, and not an essential motivation for his barbarous acts. At least Wallace's condemnation of atheism as the cause of Stalin's atrocities deserves a far more critical analysis than is offered in his book. And even if atheism was the primary motivation behind Stalin's acts (which is debatable), this does not thereby make theism or agnosticism any more intellectually defensible.

Creatures of Accident: The Rise of the Animal Kingdom comes from a renowned professor of zoology in Ireland who delves into the weighty-sounding science of 'evolutionary developmental biology' - and while it may seem like this book is for college-level holdings, it will appeal equally well to general public library collections with its easy introduction to evolutionary theory. From analyses of the structure of life forms and the complex methods of evolution which are neither predictable nor straightforward to conflicts between creationism and evolutionary theory, this book provides both general reader and science readers with an easily-understood set of explanations, making it a top pick for both public and school holdings.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

How often do we hear - or utter - the frequent complaint: "Why is life so complex?" However, as any evolutionary biologist would be pleased to remind you, this hasn't always been the case. Wallace Arthur takes up that fact forcefully in this book. Life began very simply and stayed that way for a very long time. Earth's population remained simple bacterial forms, some DNA stashed away in a protective enclosure, he reminds us, for over two billion years. Diversity, the foundation of the evolutionary process, seemed non-existent, yet this remains the core of biological teaching today. Arthur endeavours to set this record straight, doing so with an almost conversational delivery.

Keeping with the theme of simplicity, Arthur urges us to shed unnecessary philosophical thinking, opening with a chapter titled "Hand luggage only". The phrase recognises that most of us have preconceived notions of how life works. The core of that notion is that humans, just because they are complex creatures, sit somehow at the top of the evolutionary "ladder". The ability to think about life, which seems to be unique in our species, doesn't convey superiority. We are, after all, far outnumbered by the descendents of those simple organisms of long ago. Our species did emerge, and Arthur wants us to understand how. Instead of ladders, he uses the analogy of a lawn, level and with few disruptions.

Explaining life, to Arthur, is an exercise in pragmatism, not ideology. Using the cell as a starting point, his tour takes us to the embryo [he's a zoologist, hence the emphasis on animals instead of plants]. The embryo is a key feature in his theme, since it is here that cell duplication and diversification are best demonstrated. How does a fertilised egg know how to build a finished body from so elemental a beginning? The author explains how genes express proteins to guide the formation of organs and structure. Once it was thought that genes only expressed on one direction, but developmental studies now show that genes interact, even between distant cell hosts. Almost more importantly, he shows how, within limits, embryos bear evidence of their evolutionary roots. Complexity, arising from simple beginnings is a traceable process. Arthur shows how modern evidence allows tracking that path for such organs as nervous systems, hearts and circulation and other features.

In many ways, this is an admirable work. Arthur's chatty presentation makes one wish for a trip to Galway where he teaches to hear him discourse on this topic over a pint. He makes wonderful imagery in showing how our concept of "life" might need some re-thinking. What would a Martian arriving on a beach to discover a sand-castle think of such a regular structure? He returns to this idea in building his vision of complexity. Regrettably, he does this in a rather patchy manner, skipping about to address his topics. The novice reader will find this book something of a chore as a result. The book cries out for illustration - how many of his readers have seen graphics of the process of "gastrulation" which creates your insides? Why are trilobites important body forms? Although he provides a Glossary of terms, his "Further Reading List" is almost a joke.

Finally, almost lamentably, Arthur falls into the trap of trying to reconcile his studies with the notion of "creationism". Although he dislikes "creationists" as dishonest and abrasive, he concedes their numbers, particularly in the US. Instead, his final chapter is a declaration of his "agnosticism". He has already taken a swipe at Richard Dawkins over how "gradual" natural selection works. Here, he delivers what he clearly thinks is a telling blow, linking Dawkins' non-theism with a form of "faith". Declaring there's "no evidence either way", Arthur turns to John Maynard-Smith's observation that some fish with tails spotted like stellar constellations might be suggestive of a divine being. Since that sort of evidence hasn't appeared, the author thinks he can let the matter rest. It's a very insubstantial way to conclude what is otherwise a generally delightful read. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

I just finished this book yesterday. I completed it in two days, not necesarily because it was so exciting, but more so because it was written in a very easy to read, conversational tone--and I do mean a conversational tone, not an informal tone. The author frequently and intentionally repeats himself, refers to material that will come later, and interjects personal experiences--it all reminded me of a folksy college professor giving a lecture. Along with this non-scholarly approach, the book includes a glossary, but no foot or endnotes. On the other hand, the reader needs some background in at least popular magazine biology to be able to follow the book.

The putative point of the book is to explain how complexity in living organisms arises through evolution. The author gives a good explanation, but takes awhile getting there, due to his conversational tone. Basically, the explanation is that mutations lead to extra but unused body parts, which evolution can then experiment with, possibly producing greater complexity in the lineage. I had never read this explanation before, or at least not remembered I had, so I learned something. I might mention that the author makes a point that lineages can also de-evolve to lower complexity in this manner (de-evolve is my word, not the author's). He also makes the point that, say, birds differing only in beak types are of the same level of complexity, so are therefore not an example of evolution leading to greater complexity. (In fact, I suspect he would say that all extant bird species birds are at essentially the same level of complexity.) Thus the book makes a big point of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution.

The author states that he is an agnostic, not having much truck with either atheism or religious fundamentalism. He tells of visiting creationist websites as background before writing the book, and being appalled at how the websites mistate evolutionary theory. Interestingly, at one point toward the end of the book, the author says that some concept or other is no longer "just a theory", using the term as non-scientists and creationists do. I'm sure "hypothesis" would have been the preferred term, and was surprised to see the author's use of "theory" since he seems very cognizant of using terminology correctly in the rest of the book--for example being quite emphatic about the difference between agnostcism and atheism.

So all in all not a bad book, but one I suspect whose main point about how complexity in living organisms can arise through natural processes could have been dealt with in an article a few pages long in any number of popular scientific magazines.

I read science voraciously: Stephen J. Gould, Richard Dawkins, and I love a good book about the weird twists and turns of evolution. I consider myself very interested in the I.D. vs Evolution "debate" but I could NOT get into this book. The information is good, but I did not enjoy the writing style. I found the connections made to sandcastles and Buddhism forced and it was a challenge to stick through it.

Maybe just a bit too philosophical for my taste.

Yes, I can call this book "wordy" despite its thin appearance. At times, one is reminded of high school when the only thing that mattered was number of words. It's all been said before (and said better) and one searches for an original idea without success. Still, a summation of current evolutionary/development thought can be worthwhile. The author ostensibly takes on the ID crowd but the writing is anything but rigorous and nowhere did I see a point by point refudation of the specific tenets of ID.

The discussion of horizontal or vertical viewpoint of living creatures is not new although the latest fad of reducing humans to simply another bud on the Tree on Life is relatively new. The author thankfully does not follow this path but instead insists that humans are different - not from any design or purpose but through the mechanical means of Nature. We have no more knowingly directed our own evolution that has a snail or dinosaur.

The most interesting writing - and the heart of his argument - is the current state of developmental biology in reference to cell, embryo and maturation. The question of how genes "express themselves" thus building a complete adult is also questioned. He does not say it (although he should) that evolution is actually about gene expression since it is only through this practice that cell differentiation, organs and structure is accomplished. Included in this discussion are views on the advent of DNA, the cell, replication and finally, as a means to complexity, the growth of organmism beyond the unicellular stage around 500 million years ago. A chapter on religion and science as well as musings on extraterrestrial life add little.