The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Richard Dawkins’ stated aim in this book is to present the evidence for evolution and he has assembled an impressive array of case studies from the natural world which support the theory of evolution. The book is well-written, as we might expect from Richard Dawkins, and has an impressive array of coloured photographs – more than we might expect from a paperback priced at £8.99 by the publishers.And yet – there are many places in the book where I felt uneasy. Dawkins says that people who do not believe that evolution happened (40% in the USA) are among those he is trying to reach. But he calls them “history deniers” (deliberately paralleling “Holocaust deniers”). How can he expect to persuade this section of his readership if he starts by insulting them?Then there is the “Invisible Gorilla” experiment that Dawkins describes (on pp14-15) Dawkins thinks this casts doubt on eye-witness testimony. However, the study was not about eyewitness testimony, it was about human attention. What it shows is that, if we are paying very close attention to one thing, we often fail to notice other things in our field of vision—even very obvious things. When witnesses appear in court, they are asked what they saw, not what they did not see. And if they have witnessed a crime or a road accident, then their attention will be focussed on that. It seems odd that a scientist like Dawkins should have missed the point of an experiment and drawn a faulty conclusion. Not to mention that science depends on scientists being able to report accurately what they observed – in other words, science depends on eyewitness testimony.Dawkins claims that the vertebrate eye (which includes the human eye) is badly designed (page 351f) Part of the problem is the comparison between the eye and a camera. The vertebrate eye is sometimes described as a “camera eye” but that is because it has a lens and a retina – the equivalent of a film in a traditional camera or a CCD or CMOS sensor in a digital camera. There the resemblance ends because the eye is part of a visual system which includes a large chunk of the brain, the optical cortex. The retina (unlike a camera film) begins the processing of the received light which culminates in the 3D, coloured, moving image that we all experience. No camera designed by a human has to assemble itself from raw materials as an eye does; no human designer has to solve the multiple issues raised by that part of the eye’s specification. The human eye achieves its most acute vision in the Fovea, roughly in the middle of the retina, where light falls directly on the light-sensitive cone cells. The fovea is where our brains focus their attention (as in the Invisible Gorilla above). If the whole retina had the same visual acuity as the fovea, we would need much more of our brains to process the information, so other brain functions would have to be reduced – unless we evolved even larger brains.(In passing, the diagram of the route of the vas deferens on page 365 is so crude and inaccurate as to be misleading.)On page 371, Dawkins describes the innards of a large animal as a mess, a shambles. This suggests he has never studied anatomy and physiology. The human intestines (which are responsible for a large part of the digestion of food and all of its absorption into the body) are a long tube (estimates vary from about 20 to 30 feet) which has to be packed into a small space: the abdomen. It has to be packed in such a way that it can carry out the muscular activity that moves food along the tube (Peristalsis). There must be no kinks or acute bends. So it is folded smoothly and neatly into the available space. It is covered by a thin layer of peritoneum which also lines the abdominal cavity. Peritoneum produces a fluid which acts as a lubricant and allows different parts of the intestine to slide against each other during peristalsis. The intestines have to be supplied with blood throughout their length, hence the need for arteries and veins, which come from the descending aorta and return to the inferior vena cava. They do not criss-cross in a maze, as Dawkins asserts; that would lead to them cutting-off each other’s blood flow. The mesentery, which Dawkins considers to be part of the shambles, is a double- layer of peritoneum which encloses the blood vessels and carries them to the right places to supply the intestines. The whole digestive system is so neatly packaged in relation to its function that, most of the time, we are quite unaware of the complex and vital job it is performing.The problem, of course, is that if Dawkins can be so wrong in passages which I can recognise as being wrong, is he wrong in other areas where my knowledge is not sufficient to identify his errors? In other words, can Richard Dawkins be trusted?

Other than risking dogma, I think that it would be appropriate to state that nobody who wishes to pass an opinion to others regarding evolution should be allowed to do so without reading this book first. Quite outstanding in every respect. Well written and illustrated and as hard to put down as a gripping novel. Probably his best.

As a Born Again Christian who is also a Young Earth Biblical Creationist, Richard Dawkins is no doubt an intelligent man, a great writer and good with his use of language and words. However, with all the examples of the alleged evidence of Evolution he used is actually not evidence at all. All these are, are simply simple changes within the genetic makeup (already exists) of the Organism, or species of animal which are adaption and have nothing to do with Evolution. For example, an experiment with bacteria changed a little. Forget exactly the whole experiment, but it was still bacteria. Surprisingly Dawkins does not attack creationists that much. Though he does call anyone who denies Evolution a 40 percenter or a History Denier, or biased. I.e. (I I am Paraphrasing here) There is no question that Evolution is true and all the evidence points to it. Problem is, is that makes that reasoning more biased in itself. His attacks are more towards Intelligent design than Creationists by consistently pointing to alleged design flaws in Gods design in nature in regard to Biblical Creation, as if to say I know it all. Listen to me because I know the history of the earth. Problem again is that there is lack of understanding why the design is designed that way. There is so much more to say. I admit there some good things he has said in light of Richard Owen for example who coined the word Dinosaur in 1841. However, Dawkins book does not remotely persuade me to believe in Evolution and knock my faith in Jesus. If you decide to read this book, be very careful. Science is to be questioned. Just because the majority of scientists believe in Evolution, does not make it anymore true. Science is not determined by political vote but by ones interpretation of the evidence.

A great book. Thought provoking and stimulating. To my mind, presenting compelling arguments for rational thought and encouraging us, as humans, to take control and responsibility for ourselves. Whilst there probably isn’t any supernatural force/god/mystical being rolling dice to decide our future, we live in a mind blowingly wonderful place that it extremely rare (if not unique in our galaxy) and Dawkins argues a very strong case for ways in which we can live together much more successfully!

One of the best books I've ever read! This book is great for anyone who is interested in evolution or is just looking to get a deeper understanding of it like I did! Dawkings offers some great explantions of some difficult concepts within evolution and expounds on the more simple ones. This book answered many of the questions that I had about evolution and biology such as: why and how are dogs tame? Why are male birds usually more interesting to look at with a multitude of colours, feathers and patterns opposed to the females dull Brown's and greys? How and why are some animals and plants domesticated to achieve different traits? These re just some of the questions that needed answering for me. The only problem I have with the book is that I am a younger reader (16) and I find some of the words worthy of frequent dictionary visits and some of the metaphors and expressions hard to grasp, so it is a bit difficult for a younger reader who will have to get their heads around some difficult uses of speech but apart from this, I would recommend this book highly! Great job by Mr Dawkings!