The Blind Watchmaker

[mike all together]

I was just wondering people's opinions on this book. I've done searches and have never seen a thread on it, just very brief mentions of it in the middle of threads.

Is this a good book to introduce yourself to the details of evolution? If not, what would you suggest..? As in a book that can explain it to a layman like me ;)

I've begun Watchmaker but am not too far into it yet. Just wondering if there's something that would be better to read first. I'll tell you one thing, the guy impresses me with the detail he goes into with his examples. I feel like I know more about bats' sonar than I or anyone ever should. :D

TIA,
mike

[Karalora]

I wouldn't say it's the best introduction to evolution out there, but it is a very good book for the layperson interested in the subject. Dawkins errs a bit on the side of reductionism in the way he phrases everything in the interest of genes, rather than individuals who carry those genes. If you can see past that, he does a remarkable job of explaining natural selection to non-scientists.

[Postcard73]

Hey Michael- the search function isn't working right now. You can check out the suggested reading list (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44461) in the Evolution/Creation forum for recommended reading. The list is in progress, and some of the books might not be for non-scientists; but you might find some info there. You might also try to go back through some of the old threads in that forum and see if there are other books discussed...

[arcangle]

I loved The Blind Watchmaker, but I've gotta admit that I preferred Climbing Mount Improbable, which is by Dawkins as well. Just seemed more digestible.


Lyn

[clark]

This seems to be more relevant to Evolution/Creationism, so I'm going to send it there. You'll probably get more responses there.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Karalora
Dawkins errs a bit on the side of reductionism in the way he phrases everything in the interest of genes, rather than individuals who carry those genes.

Just out of interest, why do you find the view of natural selection that centres on the individual more compelling than Dawkins gene-centric perspective?

[Doubting Didymus]

I'd also like to second the suggestion of Climbing Mount Improbable. I think it's the best of Dawkins work for laymen. Depending on just how much of a layman the reader is, however, Ernst Mayrs What Evolution Is, is a much broader view on the whole of evolution, rather than only the aspects that explain complexity (which is Dawkins' focus). Ernst uses a lot of biological terminology, and does not include all of it in his glossary.

[Albion]

I've seen copies of Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea," which is the companion to the PBS series "Evolution," being sold off very cheap in a couple of local bookstores. It's a coffee-table sort of book rather than being overtly technical, but it contains a lot of useful information and he's a very clear writer.

I'm always surprise when I read the Blind Watchmaker by how much stuff Dawkins managed to pack into that book.

[arcangle]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Depending on just how much of a layman the reader is, however, Ernst Mayrs What Evolution Is, is a much broader view on the whole of evolution, rather than only the aspects that explain complexity (which is Dawkins' focus). Ernst uses a lot of biological terminology, and does not include all of it in his glossary.

That's always my second recommendation. Love Mayr as well. Very clear explanations, and you're right, broader overview.


Lyn

[Oolon Colluphid]

Well, I’m probably somewhat biased because of this, but Dawkins was how I got into this whole evolutionary business. I read Selfish Gene after seeing Dawkins in Nicholas Humphrey’s series ‘The Inner Eye’, and snapped up TBW when it first came out in Penguin paperback. It is still the best book I know of for explaining the power of cumulative selection. Sure, it’s a bit out-of-date now, and sure, it is more gene-centric than some folks like... but it’s still a marvellous, clear and mind-expanding read.

As for the gene-centrism, I’d say that the problem is that, as Dawkins told it back then (1986), he has genes (meaning here actual DNA code) mapping to characters, with little mention of how complex it actually is. These days I -- and, I suspect, Dawkins -- would put it more like that which is inheritable -- the cumulative effect of different bits of DNA, all interacting with each other and the environment -- mapping to characters. Since such mapping is therefore rather harder to demonstrate simply, I think the 1986 version is still a handy, simplified starting point. As with all ‘popular’ science, the main thing to bear in mind is the simplification involved. There’s always a glossy surface, and it’s never that simple beneath that surface.

As far as other books are concerned, take your pick. Mount Improbable is also marvellous, but I’m not sure how easily I’d have understood it if I’d not already read TBM. It takes specific cases of complexity -- eyes, spider webs, fig / fig-wasp symbiosis, etc -- and explains how they could evolve in a stepwise fashion. And I have to admit to not properly following the fig case, not because of Dawkins’s lack of clarity, but just because it is horridly complex.

I’ve not read Zimmer’s general evolution book yet, but his other books, which I have, are excellent. Mayr’s is highly recommended it seems; it’s in my bedside pile. Gould is always a good read, and the differences / disputes between him and Dawkins are generally more matters of presentation than substance. And Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea is a bit more technical (ie not quite as easy a read as Dawkins), but very stimulating.

Basically, unless you’re aiming the reading at a creationist (who will struggle with Dawkins’s overt atheism), I’d always, rightly or wrongly, point people in the first instance to TBW. Or to River out of Eden, which is simpler.

The thing with Dawkins is that he has an astonishing knack for finding a metaphor to elucidate what he’s trying to convey. I still often think in terms of ‘animal space’; and if I’m trying to describe speciation, I find the idea of rivers of DNA (oh okay, of heritable traits) -- flowing down generations, rivulets getting separated, if they come together soon enough they can remingle, but with time the banks of the streams becoming fixed, etc -- truly wonderful. His ways of explaining stuff (heh, his memes ;)) linger in the mind far longer than any other writer on anything scientific I’ve read.

(That, of course, is Dawkins’s straw-man downfall: people get the metaphors, and assume the metaphor is the real thing, hence widespread complaints about genes being selfish, for instance. Genes can’t be selfish -- they can’t even think! You can’t take a gene’s eye view, genes don’t have eyes! :rolleyes: )

So yeah, buy Blind Watchmaker, read it, read it again... but don’t make it the only thing you read on the subject!

Cheers, Oolon

[Karalora]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Just out of interest, why do you find the view of natural selection that centres on the individual more compelling than Dawkins gene-centric perspective?

I don't. I find a view of natural selection that focuses on any one level of selection (gene, individual, population, species, etc.) less compelling than a balanced one that takes them all into consideration. Especially since genes no longer exist except inside individual organisms, working in concert with other genes.

[Angrillori]

I'm at work, so I don't have the book handy, but in The Selfish Gene, I remember Dawkins' definition of gene to be VERY broad.

The idea of both the population's traits and behaviors and the individual's traits and behaviors being methods genes use for survival and increased reproductive success seemed to make a lot of sense. (Especially using that very inclusive definition of 'gene.') Really, anything that changes in a population or an individual is at heart a change in gene frequency.

It ties well into my favorite (although not neccessarily the definitive) definition of evolution: change of allele frequency within a population.

On a similar note, I just bought a copy of "River Out of Eden," it sounds like it'll be a very basic overview of evolution. Is it something I can share with less scientific members of the family?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Angrillori
On a similar note, I just bought a copy of "River Out of Eden," it sounds like it'll be a very basic overview of evolution. Is it something I can share with less scientific members of the family?
Yes, that's exactly what it's for. It is part of the 'Science Masters' series, aimed at intelligent lay people -- that is, not even regular pop science readers. It's good, lightweight but thought-provoking fun.

Oolon

[cricket]

Michael Fornal, I love The Blind Watchmaker and Dawkins' other books as well.

[blindwatchmaker]

Need I say more?

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Angrillori
It ties well into my favorite (although not neccessarily the definitive) definition of evolution: change of allele frequency within a population.

I'm mostly on the level with the rest of your post, but I have to point out that thats a bit imperfect for a definition. After all, if we are defining 'evolution' in general, we don't want to restrict it to only the sort of evolution we've already seen. If we ever find life that came from a completely different origin (namely extraterrestrial, but its always possible we'll find something in the deep ocean), then it may very well not have genes at all, but uses some other method of passing on its traits.

Not only that, but there can often be changes in our DNA that isn't actually part of any allele, yet still have effects on us. Mutations in the regulatory regions are an example.

A variant that clears that little mistake is "change in the heritable makeup of populations over time". (I believe thats Futuyamas choice as well).

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus

A variant that clears that little mistake is "change in the heritable makeup of populations over time". (I believe thats Futuyamas choice as well).

Yes, I like that much better. Definitely fills those obvious loopholes.

Thanks!