Am I a Monkey?: Six Big Questions about Evolution Hardcover – October 1, 2010

The Introduction begins with: "Darwin completed the scientific revolution by extending to the living world the notion that the workings of the universe can be explained through natural laws", proceeding shortly afterward with, "More important yet [than evolution] is that Darwin discovered natural selection, the process that explains the 'design' of organisms".By "natural laws" the author, as prevalent, means the undirected (contrasted with goal-directed) laws of physics and chemistry by which "the workings of the universe" are generally explained, and he credits Darwin with, having "discovered" natural selection, explaining by those laws "the 'design' of organisms". One question can be: If organisms are instead found subject to goal-directed laws, are those laws not "natural"? Another question can be: Has Darwin really "discovered" natural selection?Or did he contrive it? It happens that the latter is the case, for a simple reason that has escaped researchers by "not seeing the forest for the trees". The concentration has been on the "design" (put inside quotes by Dr. Ayala) of organisms, inasmuch as organisms are evidently so formed as to serve the purpose, the goal, of their survival. And the well-known Darwinian contention is that this functional form results not from goal-directed forces but from undirected ones represented by "natural selection". But consider the mentioned function of survival. Organisms are not only formed to serve that function, but they also act in that direction. Like our bodies, live organisms are actively striving toward their preservation, survival. This is goal-directed and applies to all "the living world" mentioned at the start. This live activity, aiming at survival, can correspondingly be held to be as "natural" as any other worldly occurrence.Furthermore, each organism is, in its aim at preservation, known to individually adapt to circumstances within its capabilities, as do our bodies adapt to the demands of the environment by strengthening corresponding functions. The upshot is that it is this goal of adaptation, not the accidental adaptation of Darwinism, which is responsible for the functional changes in organisms.To argue for the accidental, rather than aimed at, functionality of organisms the book's author engages in the familiar downgrading of the organisms' design. He complains (p.52): "From a designing or engineering perspective, it seems incomprehensible [a favorite word of Darwin] that a turtle and a whale should swim, a dog run, a person write, and a bird or a bat fly with forelimbs built of the same bones organized in similar structures. An engineer could design better limbs for each purpose". Hurray for the engineer! Aside from engineers likewise being the purported result of aimless forces, it should be interesting to see them design live creatures with the same wondrous capabilities. Dr. Ayala also complains (pp.76-77): "Consider the human eye. The visual nerve fibers...form the optic nerve, which...creates a blind spot, a minor imperfection but an imperfection of design, nevertheless". How so, with the blind spot not perceived by us?The author regardless ends with an apologetic for faith in a God who oddly would be a purposeful Creator of the world but not purposing the nature of his creations. The apologetic also presents dubious defenses against criticisms "that God could have created a different world, without catastrophes" (pp.79-80): "But that would not be a creative universe, where galaxies form, stars and planetary systems come about, and continents drift. The world that we have is creative and more exiting than a static world." Or: "a world of life with evolution is much more exiting; it is a creative world where new species arise, complex ecosystems come about, and humans have evolved".Too bad that humans of previous ages or those of lesser interest in the formation of the universe have not seen how more "creative" and "exiting" this world is than one without catastrophes. Perhaps a better explanation of misfortunes in the world is in understanding them as conditions that challenge our responsibilities for our choices in life.

Great for people wanting to make full-blown evolution consistent with their non-fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

“Am I a Monkey?: Six Big Questions about Evolution” by Francisco J. Ayala; John Hopkins Press; © 2010; 83 pages, hardcover.An average-speed reader could probably finish this book in under two hours. But it deserves more time, perhaps a 20–minute read to cover a chapter and a night or two to digest and ponder the concise biological arguments laid out in the first five chapters.Chapter 1 on “Am I a Monkey?” describes the evolutionary history of pre-hominids and hominids. It also introduces the potential of DNA evidence on top of the fossil evidence. This concise explanation could easily be used in a secondary biology class and it is generally better written than many high school texts.“Why is Evolution a Theory?” is Chapter 2. This is an explanation of the difference between everyday use of “just his theory” from the solid scientific theories of the atom, solar system, etc. Again, this is written with scientific authority and is yet accessible to a bright student from middle school up.Chapter 3 is “What is DNA?” Here we detect that this is written in 2010. Ayala lays down the genetic code as rather strict. Today we know that the stop codon can sometimes be just one nucleotide, and that there are epigenetic factors that cause variation in this dogma (DNA to RNA to protein). In Chapter 1 and again here, he pays attention to the FOXP2 gene that functions in speech. Today we know that this protein (called forkhead box P2) is a “transcription factor” that controls the activity of other genes by binding to the DNA of those genes through a region called the forkhead domain. Ayala was correct that it is involved in language, but language is now known to be a far more complex polygenic system.Eight black-and-white drawings, diagrams and phylogenies follow this chapter and precede the next.“Do All Scientists Accept Evolution?” is Chapter 4. The answer is yes, the overwhelming majority do indeed, and it forms the framework of much biology research. He uses the Darwin finches example from the Galapagos Islands briefly, and the fruit fly radiation in the Hawaiian Islands in more detail. Here he likewise asserts that molecular studies have an advantage over comparative anatomy in precision, universality and multiplicity. Here I will dissent slightly since much DNA has not been associated with physical features, and evolution works on the anatomy and physiology of a critter, not its dormant or unexpressed DNA. Indeed, a small percentage of our DNA is merely sequences that viruses have implanted in us and which we transfer without effect. There is far too much molecular biology being done by biologists who know absolutely nothing about the life history and general biology of their critter, and it is becoming problematic. However, in 2010 this over-enthusiasm was rising and his is a general summary, not a debate.How Did Life Begin?” is Chapter 5 and it is a good short introduction to the “RNA world.” Again it is a good concise reading for secondary biology students and up.Final Chapter 6 moves on to “Can One Believe in Evolution and God?” and he admits this is not a strictly scientific chapter. His main theme is that the bonafide questions of religion are outside of science and the bonafide questions of science are outside of religion. I would summarize it as questions of “function” are science and questions of “purpose” are religion. He does provide a nice narrative time table of when major denominations signed the “Clergy Letter Project” and other statements supporting evolution. Indeed, although he does not mention it, the late Matsumura of NCSE surveyed the major denominations and found over 80 percent had no difficulty with the concept of evolution being compatible with their religious beliefs. A weakness is that many small independent denominations with ministers of far less seminary training were not surveyed. This chapter is NOT for use in the public school classroom.

This is the best book I ever read on introducing "The Evolution Theory" and solving the "Evolutionist vs Creationist" conflict. I am not saying the question had been answered. However, I am obliged to praise the author for his excellent writting and organization skill of teaching effectively that much in just 83 pages. Neverthless, I must warn potential readers of lower than High School level of scientific knowledge that they will find it hard to go through the first five jargon filled chapters (already 5/6 of the book). I suggest you to go to a book store to read the first few pages of each chapter before you buy it. In short, recommended!p.s. To encourage those people of faith with strong avoidance of "Evolution Theory" to pick this book up, let me give you the stance of the author by quoting a passage in the last chapter/question for your reference.David Hume set the problem succintly with brutal directness: "Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then evil?" Evolution came to the rescue. pg77