This is the best refutation of the creationist nonsense I have run across.Maitland Edey and Donald Johanson are also co-authors of [b:Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind|189311|Lucy The Beginnings of Humankind|Donald Johanson|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172549027s/189311.jpg|183010]. Edey and Johanson have painstakingly, but most engagingly, delineated the evidence for evolutionary theory from Darwin through the molecular evidence of Vincent Sarich. Along the way we learn of Mendel's peas, Crick's DNA studies, and of T.H. Morgan, the discoverer of genes and their link to heredity. Morgan unwittingly provided the mechanism for Darwin's natural selection speculations. He was a natural skeptic who refused to believe Mendel's hypotheses. He painstakingly anesthetized hundreds of thousands of fruit flies and viewed them through a microscope to track changes in eye color which revealed mutant variations.

The chapters on Darwin are fascinating. Darwin made important inferences from five major observations: (1) species have great potential fertility; 12) populations tend to be stable; (3) food resources are limited and remain constant; (4) no two individuals are identical; and, (5) variation is heritable, i.e. offspring tend to resemble their parents. These observations led to his major brilliant inferences: (1) there is a struggle among individuals for resources; (2) those with ''good" or "best" characteristics tend to survive (natural selection); and (3) natural selection results in marked changes to a population. The two biggest challenges to Darwin's theories at the time were "blending" (any change introduced into a population would be blended into extinction very soon,) a theory effectively refuted by Mendel; and Lord Kelvin's assertion that the earth would have been too hot for too long for evolution to have occurred. Nuclear physics has, of course, proven him to be wrong.

The final chapter speculates on the future successful adaptability of humans. Generally, the most successful species are those that adapt easily, inhabit a fairly wide niche, and those that are the most generalized. Man's brain provides an ability to adapt to almost any environment; indeed, to some species, "obligate parasites," are organisms which can survive only in concert with their hosts; e.g., the louse that lived on the heath hen died when the last heath hen died in the 1930s. Are humans the parasites of the earth? If the earth dies so shall we, so it would seem logical that we not "abuse the host." If our intelligence enables us to so change the environment for our short-term comfort, or through nuclear holocaust destroy our surroundings, have we perhaps overspecialized on the brain and over-manipulated ourselves right out of existence? ( )

This book is enjoyably readable. It was extremely helpful to me with addressing questions about the processes of evolution and genetics. Its discussion of RNA and DNA clarified much about the process that I did not understand. The narrative introduces the people, the ideas, the work, the problems as they build development of evolutionary science. I very much recommend the book. ( )

A very exiting review of the science that supports evolution. ( )