Customer Reviews

Evolution Under the Microscope

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

In this book, Swift brings some order to the rather fraught and emotive debate about the validity of the theory of evolution. One of its particularly helpful contributions is to separate out two forms of evolution, and to narrow down the field of controversy: the first type of evolution is that resulting from gene separation and gene mixing; the second is evolution resulting from genuinely new genetic information being produced through mutations. The two types of evolution are considered and analysed from the viewpoint of molecular biology, whereby inheritable changes in an organism or species require new macromolecules to be generated and coded in the DNA.
Swift reveals the surprising amount of variation in a population which can result from the processes of gene mixing and separation, even to the extent of a population diverging into separate `species'. There is substantial, documented evidence that this form of evolution (which some call `micro-evolution') happens. Swift's presentation is helpful, because it identifies considerable common ground which objective evolutionists and non-evolutionists can agree on. (It so happens that practically all the commonly quoted examples of evolution in its broadest sense turn out to be cases of micro-evolution, including Darwin's finches, peppered moths and resistance to antibiotics.)
The real controversy, of course, is whether genuinely new genetic material can be generated in an evolutionary way by mutations (`macro-evolution'). Swift looks at this in terms of molecular biology, and insists on investigating how the various macromolecules necessary for life in the cell could have evolved. Swift argues that, if an evolutionary developmental path is proposed, it must be supported by an explanation of how the necessary molecular machinery could have evolved - not simply by pointing out gradual physical changes on the outside. Given what we now know about the operation and structure of proteins and other macromolecules in the cell, Swift argues in detail that it is impossible for macromolecules to have evolved in a series of small steps. He is not saying that because the cell is so complicated it must have been designed; he is instead explaining and illustrating why the very large and specific molecules (such as proteins) in cells could simply not have evolved.
This book brings new research and knowledge to bear on arguments which were put forward in the past when the facts were not known. Swift's presentation is refreshingly objective, courteous and detached. The first few chapters, on the history of the development of modern science, could be skipped without missing any of the key arguments. At the end, although Swift has presented a strong case for why evolution appears untenable, he appears resigned to its continuance simply because there is no prospect of an alternative theory of origins - at least, no naturalistic alternative. His analysis is sensible and sound; but it does not flatter the scientific community.
I would recommend that this book be read not only by non-evolutionists who will agree with much of it, but by evolutionists who may not: I found myself wishing to read a similarly objective, detailed and courteous response by an evolutionist to the arguments from molecular biology presented by Swift, rather than simply forceful statements of disagreement or dismissal.

The author of this book set out to give a scientifically objective treatment of the theory of evolution and certainly did a wonderful job. This book is definitely written for biologists and other scientists even though a scientifically educated layperson can get a lot out of it. Since I am a chemist, who has also taught biochemistry, I had no problem understanding and accepting his assertions about chemistry and biochemistry since they are consistent with my own training and experience. The biology sections were more dificult, but even there, I could follow his arguments. The author did a great job of pinpointing the aspects of current evolution theory which are supported by factual evidence and which are not. Specifically, he showed how morphological changes and even the formation of new species can arise from the segregation of an existing pool of genes (microevolution).

The author quite effectively explains the main problem with current evolution theory - the production of new genetic material to generate the biochemical apparatus needed to generate new morphological structures. He also gives
an excellent treatment of the origin of life problem and the deficiencies of the current evolutionary explanations.

I especially hope that this book is read by biologists since it also is quite free of the polemics that one finds in many other books on both sides of this topic.

Science is meant to be based on facts. This book is very thorough in its research and presents its arguments in a very logical manner. This book is a definate need for all scientists as it challenges us to take a fresh look at the facts.
This has got to be one of the most clear and precise book on the history and science of evolution to date, and Mr Swift's challenge to the science community is, are all the facts there?

The best book I have read up to now about evolution!
In the first few chapters the author gives a concise overview over the history of natural science and the involvement of the church, including it's misconceptions.
He then summarizes the development of the idea of evolution, which culminates in Darwin's theory of mutation and selection. All the arguments for evolution are made, to a point that I was wondering why I bought the book. Arguments that are made in biology textbooks for decades are repeated so that this book seems not to fulfill itﾕs promise 'to make a distinctive and valuable contribution' and that the author would 'expose funcamental flaws in the overall theory of evolution'.
But in the second half of the book this masterpiece of an analytical mind shows that it is well worth it's price.
It is awesome to read how, one by one, the 'convincing arguments' for evolution are analyzed and shown to be flawed. Especially the recent new findings in cell biology and genetics shows the impossibility of complex live to have evolved from 'simple' cells. The author also dips briefly into the issue of prebiotic evolution, debunking the common perception that, given enough time, self-replicating molecules could have risen spontaneously.
The authors shows that evolution of living matter from non-living matter could not have occured.
I just wish the author had dealt in more detail about Popper and science philosophy in general.
There are many books where you cannot wait to finish it early, so that you might know the outcome.
This book is different. The closer I came to the last chapter, the slower I read. I didnﾕt want to finish this book - I wanted to continue to read more about the facts behind the theory of evolution.
Great piece, with deep insight - a lot of biological and chemistry facts - written in easy to understand English for the scientific layperson, who is interested in evolution

Review. Swift, David W. 2002. Evolution under the microscope. Stirling University Innovation Park: Leighton Academic Press.

The book's main thesis is that random processes are inadequate to explain the informational content of biomolecules. Examples include the origin of cytochrome c, actin, rubisco, hemoglobin, and others. The importance of non-random amino acid sequence for folding and molecular interactions is described. The problem of the origin of genetic information is commonly discussed in the context of the origin of life, but this is not the main emphasis here (although a chapter is devoted to it). The need for new genes to arise during evolution means that the problem of information is not confined to the origin of life. New proteins must interact with existing proteins in useful ways, a point often overlooked. This effectively eliminates chance as an explanation for the origin of new protein-coding genes. This is not a new insight; many scientists have come to similar conclusions, although the problems remain unresolved. The author apparently accepts the geological time scale and the reality of natural selection, but concludes that most evolutionary change is due to reshuffling of genes rather than to generation of new genes. He does not attempt to relate the evidence to religious faith, but does suggest the evidence points to some kind of designer. There are a few errors in the book, so one should read with care, but they do not significantly detract from the force of the argument. The book, albeit with some shortcomings, deserves more attention than it has received.

While the spirit of this book is quite similar to "Darwin's Black Box", the well-connected web of facts goes much deeper.

This work is so extraordinary that I looked it up again on amazon.co.uk, thinking that since you can actually BUY the book from them for 10 pounds, it being published over there, that there should be lots of nice reviews, but there is only ONE review (?)

Therefore I am especially thankful to Professor Emeritus Dr. Lodge for evidently importing the book personally so as to make it available over here for $25 USD. I probably would not have paid $70.00, the next-best-price, so this charitable offer made the difference for me. You can easily find his personal-page-opinion by Googling on << SWIFT LODGE EVOLUTION MICROSCOPE >>

Large italic print on the back cover of this book claims that it contains:

"A clearly-written presentation of a major problem with evolution"

Most of the book is indeed clearly-written. Swift explains the standard text-book account of protein synthesis very well and illustrates it with excellent diagrams. However, the alleged "major problem with evolution" turns out to be little more than a sophisticated version of Astronomer Fred Hoyle's graphic but long since discredited attempt at equating the evolutionary explanation of life as we see it with a "Whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747" .

Life depends on proteins and they are assembled as linear chains of the 20 amino acid building blocks. For a protein of length "n", the number of different sequences that are possible is easily calculated as 20 raised to the power of n (20^n). This quantity is what one protein researcher termed the "Evolutionary scare number" and the chance of a specific sequence arising spontaneously via the random selection of each amino acid residue is 1 in 20^n.

In presenting his version of Hoyle's argument, Swift attempts to leave his readers with this:

PAGE173:"Finally, a brief comment is in order about the suggestion that large multifunctional proteins might have been built up by combining functional domains. Whether or not this has occurred, the important point to note is that domains are generally at least as large as small proteins - typically around 150 amino acids, but often larger. We have already seen that proteins of this size are very improbable structures, so there is no need to discuss this option further in the present context."

The "logic" of this "brief comment" is very revealing. Swift's conclusion is that there is no need to discuss the "suggestion" that large proteins evolved via the concatenation of smaller, independently evolved, sub-units. His reason for this is that the scare number 20^150 makes the spontaneous appearance of the sub-units far too improbable. Consequently, Swift invites us to accept his implicit assumption that only "typical" small proteins can be candidates for the sub-units. He emphasises this as an "important point to note" and moves rapidly on to his conclusion.

However, just three pages earlier on Page 170, Swift reminds us that the small protein proinsulin folds into a stable 3D shape and is only 86 amino acids long. His "brief comment" invites us to conclude that evolution is somehow prevented from using proteins as short as that as sub-units for concatenation. Any suggestion that such atypical oddities somehow don't count is rather like arguing that because average house size is now 5 rooms, two-room flats are impossible and our ancestors could never have lived in caves, igloos, tents or, like chimps, in nests made of a few twigs. Evolution has been famously "opportunistic" in adapting existing structures for new roles as the environment changes. To suppose that Natural Selection is incapable of, as one famous phrase puts it, "tinkering together such contraptions" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature and demonstrable history of the process.

Recent advances in the mathematical modelling of protein folding have been spectacular and Trp-Cage (the shortest known protein that folds spontaneously into a stable 3D shape) is only 20 residues in length. Also on page 170, Swift acknowledges the current existence of short unfolded proteins that act as hormones, transmitters and regulators. He then tries to suggest that only folded enzymes can be concatenated to form larger enzymes. Again, Natural Selection sees no such constraint. There is nothing in nature that prohibits the combination of unfolded short proteins to make a longer one that does fold. In terms of the house analogy, such a restriction would be like saying that a row of separate but adjoining high-street cottages could never be "knocked together" to form a large trinket and souvenir shop. Such an action would completely change the function performed by the cottages in response to the arrival of large numbers of tourists whose ancestors never had the money or access to a suitable transport infrastructure to visit the area.

The shortest known protein that can be seen to be biologically active is Lambda-bar. It is of length 2 and it inhibits protein synthesis in e-coli bacteria when they are invaded by the Lambda virus. The corresponding evolutionary scare number is 20^2 = 400 and that many proteins would hardly cover the head of the proverbial pin let alone a whole planet.

In support of his central Hoyle style fallacy, Swift correctly argues that gene duplication and subsequent evolution of new functions is "unlikely". However, the yeast genome has recently been sequenced and it shows strong evidence for 53 gene duplications leading to the hypothesis that the whole genome was duplicated at some time in the past. This was a "highly unlikely" one-off event but it does seem to have happened. HOX genes are highly conserved and they also strongly indicate multiple gene duplications. There are many other examples. Winning a lottery is "unlikely" but winners do exist. The life-forms we see are all winners descended from long, long lines of winners. That's how evolution by cumulative natural selection works. Swift would have his readers conclude that "Unlikely" really means "Impossible". The evidence and theoretical considerations demonstrate otherwise.

Finally, a brief comment is in order about genes not being able to acquire new "useful" information. Swift seems not to know that antibodies in his circulation are proteins that are "matured" in their ability to bind to disease causing organisms. The process that achieves this remarkable feat involves the cumulative natural selection of random point mutations to his DNA. Swift insists that such a mechanism is "impossible".

So the reality (as indicated by the evidence) is that the scare numbers don't scare, "unlikely" gene duplications often result in new functions and our antibody DNA constantly acquires new information for use in the fight against disease.

I've been watching the whole ID/evolution debate for several years now, and am quite impressed by David Swift's presentation in this volume: It is a top-notch showcase for normal human reasoning in address of the oft-obfuscated problems surrounding the universal application of Darwin's theory of evolution.

After over 400 pages of thorough research discussion, this scientist said:

"The popular perception is that increased scientific knowledge inevitably closes the gaps in our understanding, and progressively removes any need for non-natural explanations. However, biology is a clear example - perhaps it is the only example - where our increased knowledge has served to widen the gap rather than close it. Success in uncovering the molecular mechanisms of biology ... does not explain how biology (began). In fact, the more of molecular biology we uncover, the stronger does the case for (intelligent) design become."

An excellent resource for the thoughtful reader.

Dieses Buch lohnt sich: David Swift's Evolutionskritik ist gelungen, soweit ich das als Nicht-Biochemiker beurteilen kann. Swift setzt nicht auf "Showeffekte", sondern pr?sentiert auch die ?berzeugenderen Aspekte des evolution?ren Denkens.
Nur der Bereich "Intelligent Design" kommt in Swift's Buch etwas kurz: Von ca. 410 Seiten behandeln etwa 10 Design.
Ein wesentlicher Pluspunkt des Buches ist, dass es vom US-ID-Movement unabh?ngig ist - nur Behe ("Darwins Black Box") wird einmal kurz erw?hnt. D.h., dass Swift insgesamt sicher ziemlich unabh?ngig zu seinen Schl?ssen gekommen ist, ein Eindruck der sich mir auch beim Lesen immer wieder best?tigt hat.

Ok, I do think criticism is important. I think all scientific ideas must be continually criticized and be subjected to increasingly stronger checks for their validity. On the issue of evolution, though, books are invading the market with an old idea, that of evolutionary design. Not surprisingly, most of the opposition to the idea is proposed by physicists, or biochemists, unable to see the forest on the trees around them. Bottom line of all these critics is that the high complexity of the biological world, specially at the molecular level, demand an intelligent design behind it.
This, nevertheless, is no more than a different philosophic way of looking at the issue. Once one adopts a more reasonable scientific interpretation of the world, that in which, by doing science we are IMPOSING our explanations on it, not necessarily observing the truth, the problem vanishes. Complexity is in our minds, not in the world!!! It is our incapability of interpreting the world, not it's intrinsic characteristic! The source of complication is in the structure of our brain, in our way of thinking.
Whatever is the right interpretation (which we most surely will never know), the heuristic power of the theory of evolution and it's ability to explain the world around us can't be denied. And the old, entrenched idea we are still trying to get rid of is not evolution, but creationism itself...or wasn't the world flat 500 years ago? And now, the same people that once denied scientific explanations of nature's phenomena are grasping to molecular complexity (since animal diversity is already explained) to try to propose a 2000 year old idea. Molecular complexity is creationism's last stand.