Customer Review

286 of 365 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars And Just How Plausible is Darwin's Theory?, March 14, 2007
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain (Paperback)
NOTE TO READERS: This review was subjected to a negative vote campaign beginning December 29, 2007. There is a small cadre of Amazon reviewers and cohorts who vote down any review that is not a uniform attack on a book advocating intelligent design. Their express purpose is to try to dissuade people from reading the book. This is a juvenile tactic which undermines Amazon's whole voting system. Please keep in mind that the huge number of negative votes given to the bulk of reviews on this page do not reflect upon either the author or the book. Review follows.

Despite living a century before Karl Popper, the great philosopher of Science, Darwin understood that any genuine scientific theory had to include the possibility of falsification. He therefore suggested in 1872 that if any complex organ (or organism) existed which could not have evolved from successive small steps or "modifications" that his theory would "ultimately break down." The bulk of this book by Geoffrey Simmons is an attempt to do just that. In it he quickly surveys the plant and animal kindoms and finds numerous instances of living organisms with traits so unique and highly adapted that, he argues, they could not have evolved in short successive steps.

Repeating the many examples Simmons offers would be beyond the scope of this review, but in general Simmons suggests two versions of his critique to Darwin's theory. The first is the lack of fossil antecedents. In his discussion of bats, for example, Simmons notes that bat fossils can be found over a period of 50 million years but each fossil shows clearly defined bat characteristics, including echolocation abilities and unique tendons that allow bats to easily hang upside down. There are, he notes, no obvious predecessors which perhaps occasionally fell (darn those unevolved tendons) or flew into cave walls (better sonar next time...). Similar points are made about the dragonfly.

Simmons's second critique, far more common than the first, is that it is impossible to imagine successful intermediate steps for some plant and animal traits. He notes that many species are so highly adapted that they have symbiotic relationships with other plants or animals. Since these behaviors and accompanying physical characteristics are so closely bound together, one has a hard time imagining just how these relationships could have evolved independently. One example of this is the Mojave Yucca and the Yucca Moth. Although it is not mentioned in this book, the relationship between the two is characterized in popular literature as a "mystery" of the desert. But this is only a mystery if one assumes Darwin's hypothesis of slight modifications. Other examples Simmons offers include resident bacteria within humans that allow us to utilize vitamin K.

As I read through the book, I found myself wondering, "How would a biologist who accepted the theory of evolution respond to all this?" Having read some of the popular literature from this perspective, I can imagine 3 quick responses with varying degrees of effectiveness. As to the fossil record, at least a few Darwinists will respond that only a small portion of fossils are preserved. We could easily find a bat predecessor tomorrow and pointing to the lack of fossil predecessors in some species is simply a "Designer [not God] in the Gaps" hypothesis. (Simmons correctly notes there is nothing specifically Christian in the design argument, though many Darwinists will disagree--their views on this matter reflect more their ignorance of theology than their knowledge of biology.) This is a fair point, but it must be noted that they are placing their faith in a "Darwin in the gaps" hypothesis. More to the point, however, if Darwin is correct, we should expect to find mostly intermediate fossils since successive slight modifications would leave more intermediate than modern fossils, even if only a small portion of all fossils are preserved. We emphatically do not find this, and that point suggests the weakness of this argument. But other arguments raised by Darwinists could be more effective. It should be noted, for example, that natural selection as understood by Darwin and his followers is supposed to explain adaptation. Simmons, they might argue, is vindicating their own thesis in pointing to several dramatic adaptations. Moreover, Simmons does not "deny" natural selection as such. He merely suggests it is not fully sufficient to account for all the variation and uniqueness we find in the natural world. Readers can decide for themselves how effective Simmons's examples are in his chapter on adaptation. I personally found them persuasive, but am willing to consider alternative interpretations.

But perhaps the most powerful argument a defender of Darwin could offer would be to take the opposite approach to Simmons altogether. Where Simmons has pointed to hundreds of examples of uniqueness among plants and animals in the natural world, a Darwinist (not a term they like, but much nicer and more accurate than the descriptions they make of ID theorists) might point to similarities in the animal kingdom. The human genome, they note, is very similar to that of a chimp (90-98%, depending on which source you read). Indeed, our genome shares about half the DNA sequences of a banana. Positive proof, they might argue, for a single tree of life. But then again, it could be DNA sequencing is not a very useful measure. Here again, readers will have to decide for themselves how persuasive the argument from similarity is against the evidence marshalled by Simmons.

In the end, however, I enjoyed the book. Written for a popular audience, this book offers a whirlwind tour through the natural world and its many wonders. Whether or not you find evolution convincing as an explanation for all, or merely some, of what Simmons describes, this is a fun read. So if you want a popular introduction to one aspect of intelligent design, or if you are simply curious about the amazing diversity to be found in life on this planet, this book is a worth your time in reading it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 71-76 of 76 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2008 5:48:32 AM PST
Lufer says:
Mr Marshall,

As much time as you spend critiquing evolution, I would assume you (and Mr. Ward) more knowledgeable in biology than you so often display.

For the record, hyenas are not dogs. They actually share a closer kinship (i.e. more recent common ancestor) with cats. But evolution is a myth, right? I must be wrong then. There is no way a hyena is more closely related to a lion than a coyote. The "designer" simply opted to create a dog with cat blueprints. Either that or I'm simply making all this up and scientists really haven't taken the time and effort to work out those relationships.

Forgive me for butting in.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2008 5:51:27 AM PST
Lufer says:

Cindy, you are hopeless.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2009 10:48:50 AM PST
Wayne Robinson wrote:

> _rationally_ the best _design_ for a marsupial would be for the pouch to open backwards.

(emphasis mine)

Having been taught evolution in (a Soviet) school, since then taking the path of humanitarian arts, I'm now only beginning to explore the bulk of literature written in a culture where the debate is more fiery than over here, but I must say I'm very much agnostic with respect to evolution...

Posted on Aug 19, 2009 1:07:43 PM PDT
Trish says:
How does one tell a "missing link" from a "never existed link" or a "wishful thinking link"?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2009 4:14:47 PM PDT
You can either take some Ritalin and wish that the links that exist somehow go missing, or, read an excellent book that discusses in detail the age-old Creationist issue of 'missing links':

Posted on Apr 18, 2011 8:51:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 18, 2011 8:57:28 PM PDT
I have read numerous books by evolutionists which frequently deride critics of the evolutionist myth for being irrational. Yet this is my main criticism of this man made myth, it's true believers seem to be completely unaware of the most elementary principles of Logic. It is apparently not part of their technical training. Such principles as Insufficient Evidence, Refusal to Discuss, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, The Ad Hominem Fallacy, etc. All those who fail to accept this Atheist religion are fools, ignoramuses, malevolent, etc. By the way, the most important founders, more important than Darwin said it was, T. H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel. Herbert Spencer said it was a philosophy and it certainly is in many ways, a philosophy without an adequate Metaphysical foundation. If this myth is true, Logic just popped into existence and has no more Ontological significance than a tendency to have warts. But whatever objections I bring up, it will be dismissed as a "rant" rather than addressed.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next ›

Review Details



Location: Crestline, CA United States

Top Reviewer Ranking: 1,222