Animals and Evolution Books

When he was very young, my son continually begged me to teach him to dive. Once I considered him old enough, he got that training and went on to be come a very good diver. In the meantime, however, he was always very frustrated and disappointed. All I could do was discuss it with him and buy him books similar to this one.

Aimed at the younger reader - though not too young, this book explains all about the Shark and does so under a series heading of "Great Creatures of the World." I was delighted to see this magnificent and much maligned fish given such status alongside other equally magnificent creatures in the same series.

Some excellent photographs and diagrams - but most of all, this is a book from which the younger generation will learn something positive and I fully recommend it.

NM

This textbook provides a good overview of social evolution. It is written in simple, easy-to-understand language and is accessable to most readers. However, there are some topics covered (with accompanying photographs) which may shock or offend some readers--many experiments have been conducted on animals to provide the information covered in this book and some of them are not pleasant to read about.

This is a unique collection on an interesting subject. As in any edited volume, some chapters are better than others. I was surprised by the low paternity assurance of some studies, and the insights into human evolution and anatomy are fascinating. For example, why are human penises so much larger than in other apes? And why are human females menstrual rather than estrual? I wish the copy I read was mine and not in a library.

First things first: "Sperm Whales: Social Evolution in the Ocean" is a marvellously written in-depth account of every aspect of the sperm whale. I just loved the enthusiasm with which mr. Whitehead has written it. His professionalism is undoubted and his academic level is very high. But above all: he can write!
Some background info on myself: I am Dutch, English is not my mother tongue. I graduated from university, so I am quite capable of reading academic texts. I love reading English and have read quite a lot of books in that wonderful language. I have recently become more interested in marine life in general and marine mammals in specific.
What makes "Sperm Whales: Social Evolution in the Ocean" such a good book? I am not a marine mammal specialist, but I still considered the book quite readable. I admit it was not an easy read. Especially chapter 6 "Sperm Whale Societies", which is about concentrations, groups and social units, I thought very difficult and rather dry. The high level of references sometimes disturb the fluidity of the text. The book was very interesting and packed with information. In a fascinating way mr. Whitehead took me into the depths of the oceans along with these amazing animals. His level of writing is very academic, but his enthusiasm about these animals is reflected by almost each and every sentence. I highly recommend this book to all marine mammal enthusiasts.

This book belongs on every serious biologist's bookshelf -when it isn't on your desk, in your easy chair, in the clutches of your students, etc. Not as "easy a read" as Mayr's more "popular" books like the wonderful ONE LONG ARGUMENT, this was and is a definitive statement on key elements of the evolutionary synthesis. Get it & read it!

The title of this book is a little misleading, as if the book dealt with a single "terrestrial invasion," most likely the invasion of the land by vertebrates. In fact, the book focuses on more recent invasions--by snails and crabs and sandfleas--where the data is more plentiful, and only a single chapter addresses the vertebrate story. A thorough examination of the osmoregulatory issues involved in land colonization occupies much of the first half of the book. The author also spends a good deal of time on the microclimates of tide pools, estuaries, beaches, salt marshes, rivers, etc., to get a feel for the problems and opportunities faced by small organisms at the edge of land and water. His thoughts on the vertebrate case are somewhat iconoclastic--he eschews the popularly held notion of drying ponds forcing aquatic creatures up onto land, preferring instead to look closely at the conditions in certain very stagnant, anoxic, flooded swamps in present-day South America. He makes a good case that the adaptations of the creatures inhabiting these swamps (the Chaco in Paraguay, I believe) hold the key to understanding the preadaptations to terrestrial life among vertebrates. In short, the "ecophysiological approach" of the title is sound, illuminating and refreshing.

Dessalles is a specialist in telecommunications, but this book explaining the evolution of language is largely a combination of linguistics, evolutionary biology, and behavioral ecology. The book does not presuppose that the reader know either linguistics or evolutionary biology, which means that much of the first two-thirds of the book will be mostly familiar to those acquainted with these areas. An exception is Dessalles' discussion of protolanguages, which is an interesting evolutionary interpretation of pidgin languages. Dessalles interprets these languages an evolutionary holdover of a previous hominid species that invented and used such languages before the emergence of syntax. This is a just-so story, of course, but a useful one that could lead to interesting future research.

My one problem with this book is that Dessalles does not offer an overview of his message at the beginning, thus forcing the reader to go through a couple hundred pages before being introduced to Dessalles' answer to the question "Why We Talk." Dessalles sets the stage for his theory by noting that if A communicates something to B, and if B benefits from A's communication, then A is an altruist whose genes should disappear unless the communication helps A as well. Conversely, if the communication helps A but not B, then B should evolve to ignore the communication. The fact that both speaker and listener in human societies are prevalent, both must gain. How can this happen?

Dessalles' answer is one that is common for phenomena when there is no clear benefit to the behavior one is attempting to explain. It is "costly signaling" of the type made famous by Zahavi. By communicating eloquently and ostensibly truthfully, the speaker generates a reputation as a high-quality political ally and mating partner. The listener, who must have evolved a critical faculty in the ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood, benefits from the information received, and the speaker gains the reputation as coalition partner. Humans use language, he concludes (p. 363) "because a fortuitous change profoundly altered the social organization of our ancestors, who found themselves faced with the necessity, if they were to survive and breed, of forming sizeable coalitions. Language then arose a way in which individuals might show off their value as members of these."

This theory is questionable, because language is too complex and too costly to have evolved merely as a mere signaling device. Dessalles compares conversation in humans to grooming in chimpanzees. Like conversation, grooming serves virtually no useful purpose, but the act of grooming acts as a social bond. However, chimpanzees were not obliged to evolve extremely complex and costly physiological accoutrements permitting effective grooming, as humans had to develop to facilitate the capacity to communicate linguistically.

The correct answer as to why we speak is doubtless more directly linked to the fact that our species is the only social species in which there is extensive cooperation among unrelated individuals, and this cooperation requires that individuals be capable of making compacts involving complicated promises, and to coordinate plans in competition with other human groups occupying the same ecological niche, involving the hunting of large game. I am not satisfied with this answer because, while it is clear that the language capacity is a key element in the development of human hegemony in the past 10,000 years, it is not clear why it was so key to human success over the course of the Pleistocene.

One plausible sequence of events was that early humans, having developed sharp tools and the physical capacity to kill at a distance using projectile weapons, so lowered the cost of punishing lying , cheating, and other anti-social acts that it became possible to ensure that communication could be highly veritable. At this point, the value of a complex language would likely have increased by several orders of magnitude over the usual situation for social species, where there is virtually no means of punishing false and misleading messages. From this point, the coevolution of culture and genes led to the full development of the human linguistic capacity, allowing for a degree of human social organization permitting long-term spatial diversification and population growth.

Dessalles does an excellent job in developing the relevant theory and presenting the facts concerning human evolutionary history and linguistic competence. I am less happy with his answer, and strongly suspect this has to do with the tendency of linguists to minimize the importance of honest transmission, and the role of altruistic punishment in ensuring truthful transmission, the latter be the key to explaining why we speak as we speak, and not some less complex and less meaningful way.

Outstanding work from cover to cover, especially for the age group in mind.

If you want to understand the human evolution, you might read the original though. Of course, there are some misunderstandings, then you might read considering the historical influence and personal conflicts of Charles Darwin. Essential for researchers on sexual selection.

Just as "Origin of Species is misunderstood, I believe "Descent" to be also, although the latter is a more entertaining read. "Descent" fails to concentrate on man without deviating. It is a book of observations and study. It concentrates on how animal life, has, by sexual selection, brought forth the variety in the species we see today, through millions of years. Darwin covered his beloved pigeons in depth in "Origins" and continues at length on many other bird species in "Descent". I agree with him that all the different types of birds we see today probably came from one ancestor of the pigeon. This is called variation of kind. We see this in just about every living creature and flora. The problem arises when the next step is taken, the rise of one species turning into another (reptile to bird). Throughout the book Darwin does admit to this fact, but he still maintains that it must be, with much difficulty. He does hint to nature having some "power of thought", where does this come from? How does nature make these choices? Why did Darwin focus so on the black tribes: their practices, looks, sexuality, if he did not believe them a lower race? Of course he only hints at this, and his belief of evolving from apes is scant, but obvious. Does not the use of race to distinguish only separate? His theory on idiots as somehow lower is also disturbing. And what of the rudimentary parts and vestigial organs. As we progress in our scientific study we understand more on their uses, and there may be much we will never understand. In the end he gives a poor argument, and a convoluted book.

There is no doubt there is a tremendous amount of work that went into his book. It is a difficult and painful read, although there are many interesting and detailed observations. One does need to know his enemy. Darwin is not the originator of "evolution." There are many who came before him, since the dawn of time. He was influenced by numerous men of his time, some being more radical. Darwin was nothing new, he just maid it "hip." What he started has turned into the secular humanism the world has adopted. I don't think he meant for this disease to spread like it has. From his writings I understand him as an agnostic, but doubtful. I believed he struggled with the possibly of a deist. It is safe to say it was his only ambition till his dying day to prove "evolution" as proof of our existence. What of the missing fossil record?, he new they would be found. He was a confusing man.

150 years later and there still has been no intermediate fossils found to prove the case. In fact we are discovering more that validates creation.

Why don't we see a scale or a feather erupt occasionally on man? Is it because it is not in our DNA, and never was?

The theory of evolution caused Darwin to loose his faith and his experience has been repeated in countless lives. Evolution is an acid that eats away at the mind, a cancer.

One only needs to open the pages to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", to understand the futility of the evolutionary theory. The engines of life at the molecular level are so complex that there leaves no other possibility than a creator of the universe. There should be no excuse.

Wish you well
Scott

This book is totally boring and idiotic.
Only a fool would believe that our ancestors were gorillas. If you believe that we descended from gorillas and/or lizards, you probably also believe that The Earth revolves around the sun.

The Earth is stationary, just like it seems. The sun revolves around The Earth, just like the moon (except hotter). Use your noodle. It's common sense.

The Lord created The Earth (and the heavens) out of sawdust, clay, dinosaur bones, and mud. He did so in six days, and slept on the seventh day. This occurred 6000 or 7000 years ago. Evolution could not have occurred in such a short period of time.
Wake up, you've been duped.

The 'Descent of Man' is really the better of his two earth-shattering books.He unleashed 'The Origin of the Species' book for the scientific rebels and christian theologians to chew on and debate.And then came ,'Descent of Man', and the book continues to fire mass debates everyday.The other great thinker of his day,was Karl Marx.And both men had their writings misunderstood and exploited by ruthless montebanks.I read some of the reviews for the 'Species' book.For the record,Hitler was an 'Anglo-phobe' and hated anything that was British.Hitler saw the writings of Darwin as 'English-Jewish Non-sense'.Hitler felt that his Aryan people were the true 'children of God',and uniquely seperate from other human pagan races. Hitler was an uneducted insane Christian,who almost enslaved the world with his 'Kernwaffen' and almost imposed his self-styled christian views on the planet.After 150 years of discussion,this Darwin book has freed the minds and hearts for all rational people. And this book continues to irritate the filthy apes that live in darkness and fear.

Just as "Origin of Species is misunderstood, I believe "Descent" to be also, although the latter is a more entertaining read. "Descent" fails to concentrate on man without deviating. It is a book of observations and study. It concentrates on how animal life, has, by sexual selection, brought forth the variety in the species we see today, through millions of years. Darwin covered his beloved pigeons in depth in "Origins" and continues at length on many other bird species in "Descent". I agree with him that all the different types of birds we see today probably came from one ancestor of the pigeon. This is called variation of kind. We see this in just about every living creature and flora. The problem arises when the next step is taken, the rise of one species turning into another (reptile to bird). Throughout the book Darwin does admit to this fact, but he still maintains that it must be, with much difficulty. He does hint to nature having some "power of thought", where does this come from? How does nature make these choices? Why did Darwin focus so on the black tribes: their practices, looks, sexuality, if he did not believe them a lower race? Of course he only hints at this, and his belief of evolving from apes is scant, but obvious. Does not the use of race to distinguish only separate? His theory on idiots as somehow lower is also disturbing. And what of the rudimentary parts and vestigial organs. As we progress in our scientific study we understand more on their uses, and there may be much we will never understand. In the end he gives a poor argument, and a convoluted book.

There is no doubt there is a tremendous amount of work that went into his book. It is a difficult and painful read, although there are many interesting and detailed observations. One does need to know his enemy. Darwin is not the originator of "evolution." There are many who came before him, since the dawn of time. He was influenced by numerous men of his time, some being more radical. Darwin was nothing new, he just maid it "hip." What he started has turned into the secular humanism the world has adopted. I don't think he meant for this disease to spread like it has. From his writings I understand him as an agnostic, but doubtful. I believed he struggled with the possibly of a deist. It is safe to say it was his only ambition till his dying day to prove "evolution" as proof of our existence. What of the missing fossil record?, he new they would be found. He was a confusing man.

150 years later and there still has been no intermediate fossils found to prove the case. In fact we are discovering more that validates creation.

Why don't we see a scale or a feather erupt occasionally on man? Is it because it is not in our DNA, and never was?

The theory of evolution caused Darwin to loose his faith and his experience has been repeated in countless lives. Evolution is an acid that eats away at the mind, a cancer.

One only needs to open the pages to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", to understand the futility of the evolutionary theory. The engines of life at the molecular level are so complex that there leaves no other possibility than a creator of the universe. There should be no excuse.

The book was in good condition and arrived within a week. They notified me the day it was sent and I recommend this seller.

This book is well written and actually not bad as far as text books go.

For an eager young mind, anxious to understand more about the evolutionary theory, this book is both scientifically and intellectually disappointing. The book reads more like a commentary than a textbook, organizing theoretical thoughts from numerous publications. Its principles that are supposed to explain the "backbone of all biology" will leave you with more questions than answers. Even the questions that the author proposes, e.g. in Ch 3, are not adequately answered. I have many question marks scribbled in the margins of this book, not because of my lack of understanding, but because there is so little support for the propositions that they make.

For a book that is written against non-scientific "Intelligent Design" theories, this sure forces you to make a lot of assumptions in order to swallow the holistic picture down- and I'm not buying it.

I have used all three earlier editions of this text for my undergraduate 'Evolution' course (I am a college Professor of Biology) and have witnessed the various changes made over the years. The new version has updated much of the information on molecular evolution; the authors should be commended for their very thorough literature review. With the veritable explosion of research into evolutionary phenomena, this must be difficult indeed! The initial chapter on HIV still remains a wonderful introduction to your typically "human oriented" undergraduate and serves to generate interest in the topic early on. The phlogeny/evolutionary tree chapter was moved earlier to the "Introduction" part of the text; not sure why this was done. It was also nice to finally see mention made of reaction norms in the 'Adaptation' chapter (at last!), but there are still no examples of phenotypic plasticity from the vast botanical literature. The 'Evolution and Human Health' chapter is excellent for the medical student. Rather oddly, the important topic of speciation is near the book's end (Chapter 16) and glosses over the many fine examples from the plant evolution literature (polyploid speciation is virtually ignored, except for two paragraphs on p.159). My students are fascinated by the 'evolution of wheat' story, but don't look for that example of speciation here.

My primary complaint with this, and the preceding editions, is still the overwhelming amount of extraneous detail. How I wish I could use my editorial hand on this one! Does an undergraduate student really need over 20 pages on linkage disequilibrium? Are the final details of QTL mapping really necessary at this level of student education? Do we really need 4 pages on the 'fallacy' of the bell-curve (interesting advanced topic, but...) Also, there is an over abundance on phylogeny and systematics (useful for the future molecular systematist, but probably just confusing to the general biology major).

In any event, a great book, a little overwhelming, but well written and free of errors...I'll probably order the lastest (4th) edition anyway for the next 'Evolution' class...

There's not much to say. The book isn't confusing because the material is too technical--it's often confusing because the author doesn't go in enough depth; it's frustrating when a crucial concept is presented, such as Hamilton's Law, but no examples on its applications are put forth. I find myself frequently searching the internet to suppliment this textbook. It also doesn't help that the book doesn't come with a cd-rom, or any additional material, unless you purchase the teacher's edition...reading this textbook makes me yearn for Campbell.