This book contains a wealth of facts, compiled during Darwin's life on matters which were highly controversial at the time. His prior book, Origin of Species, provided the scientific framework for thinking that mankind might, in some way, be a descent from the animal kingdom. For personal reasons, there was some doubt, at the time, whether it would ever be diplomatic to admit such a thing to the human beings themselves, right in their very faces. The title which Darwin placed on this book showed how easy it would be to imagine that the fundamental distinction was closely linked to the question of whom an individual might choose to have sex with, given the great parallels to a wide range of behavior in the animal kingdom. I have looked in this book for evidence that philosophy is a set of ideas adopted mainly in relation to sex, but the philosophy of the fittest for that kind of activity seems to be a bit more modern than Darwin. On a scale of stillborn to born with a brain, Darwin was definitely born with a brain, but it didn't make him crazy enough to suggest that which we may imply ourselves. There are a lot of facts in this book, compared to the number of suggestions, but it shows a considerable amount of thought.

A beautiful, historical account of a great naturalist's work. It is important to keep in mind that the book was written 129 years ago, though, since the use of the language would not be considered "politically correct" nowadays.

Darwin was someone "who viewed life on earth in terms of an evolutionary framework grounded in science and reason" (taken from the Introduction by H. James Birx). It is difficult to believe that an educated person would misinterpret his ideas as being sexist or racist. Only the ignorant (or a creationist in disguise) would attempt to discredit the work of one of the greatest minds of all times by giving it the wrong label. Reading Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin Dangerous Idea" (highly recommended) might help to put it in the right context.

While I would never presume - as some reviewers might - to misstate what is said in this classic volume and then presume to suggest that "now you don't need to read the book," I will say that this is an excellent edition of a classic work. All who have any interest in the history of Darwinian evolution and particularly the historical views of the evolution of man will find this fascinating reading, particularly if the context can be juxtaposed with what has been discovered since Darwin's time. Of course, times have changed, our hopefully less euro-centric views have been altered and there has been considerable progress through the generations since the original publication by Darwin, and that makes the progress of human knowledge all the more fascinating, as well as the insight Darwin obviously possessed in his day. This one's a "must-read" for anyone interested in the history of science.

It is my impression that the evaluation of Dr. Dawkins's book very much depends on whether the reader agrees with his views on evolution (or, rather, whether there is evolution or not - to put it very simply). I am not a specialist, so my opinion has very little to do with the scientific merits of this work. As a non-specialist, I want a book of this type to be accessible - but not patronizing. And this is where Dawkins excels. His ability to put complex biological concepts in plain layman terms is amazing.

In this book, however, the reader might get lost in technical details; simplicity is sometimes sacrificed for completeness - not bad as such, but for a popular book...

And - is it my impression or does the author admire himself more and more with each next book? There are many more personal anecdotes and unashamedly biased statements in "Mt. Improbable" than, for example, in "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker". Sometimes becoming a star does not improve your style.

I agree with those who claim that Dawkins fails to persuade the doubting Thomases; it is not just that he *is* too partisan for such a mission - he *acts* too partisan. But for those wondering how on earth could a wing or eye develop through an evolutionary, Darwinian process - this book provides many useful and, on the whole, convincing and understandable answers.

Climbing Mount Improbable is another of Richard Dawkins' popularly-accessible defenses of Darwinism. Dawkins discusses in detail the evolution of wings and eyes as well as the intriguing mutualistic relationship between figs and the wasps that fertilize them, and these more highly zoology-focused chapters are where he is at his best, which might be expected considering that he is a zoologist. He does an excellent job of exposing us to the diversity of wings and eyes throughout the animal kingdom and of using that diversity as an illustration of the power of natural selection. However, there are a number of weaknesses in the book which prevent it from being the sort of airtight argument for Darwinism that he seems to want it to be. He spends a lot of time discussing computer simulations of the evolution of things like spider webs and insects which serve ostensibly to show that random mutation and natural selection is enough to produce what we see in nature today. But these programs are inevitably gross oversimplifications of the matter (he seemed quite proud to note that his insect-generating program used a total of 16, count 'em, 16 genes) and their imitation of natural selection often consists of nothing more than the user picking the specimens in a generation which most resemble the ones which occur in the wild--this obviously biases the whole process and makes it seem like whatever point it is that he's trying to make with these programs (he doesn't make even that very clear) he's arriving at it in part by circular reasoning.

In discussing the wing, the eye, and the fig, Dawkins purports to be taking the most impressive adaptations in biology and showing that they've all been reached by, as he puts it using the apt metaphor on which the book is based, a gradual slope up Mount Improbable. In the case of the eye, he concentrates on the evolution of its shape and does a solid job at that. However, it seems like the evolution of photocells with light-detecting pigments and the development of the proper neural pathways to interpret signals from the eye would be considerably more substantial achievements than the eye simply attaining the shape it has today, and Dawkins leaves these issues out. Also, Dawkins never really gets around to addressing the issue of how complicated protein molecules like hemoglobin could have come into being through only random mutations and non-random natural selection, an question which, as Dawkins himself mentions, a number of people have some problems with.

All in all, a lot of Dawkins' writing, especially the final chapter on the fig, is quite fascinating and worth reading in its own right. However, as a defense of evolutionary theory, this book leaves a lot of mighty large holes open and consequently seems unlikely to convince the skeptics.

How improbable is evolution? This is the main theme of this installment of the Dawkins saga. Dawkins uses the metaphor of looking high above at the peak of a mountain, to equate closely with how man peers at the "miracle" of creation and assumes that it could never have started off in some primordial form and slowly transformed through an evolutionary process. Throughout his book Dawkins dispells this myth by showing that through tiny steps, i.e. small modifications, the goal of reaching the top of the mountain can be achieved through such a process. Many examples are used in the book, the best of which are those concerned with the evolution of the eye and of wings. It is a favourite creationist argument to say "What good is half a wing?" and "Where are the intermediate eyes?". Dawkins in great detail answers these and many other questions through numerous examples in nature and studies in recent scientific literature. As another reviewer has observed, this book is less "argumentative" than one of its predecessors _The Blind Watchmaker_, however as always Dawkins is extremely informative and tackles the big questions that are always on peoples minds when dealing with the collossus of science: evolutionary theory.

For the skeptics of the Biomorph experiments:

When you try to model a system, you always have to intervene to define the parameters of the model! With nature, the parameters are defined by the physical world (melting point of water etc...) In a computer model, these parameters have to somehow be defined by human intervention. This is the "creation" that is taking place and it doesn't detract from the validity of the rest of the experiment. (Of course the rest of the experiment MAY be flawed, but then this would be a different issue.)

This program succeeds in it's aim - to demonstrate that randomly occurring mutations in generations of breeding organisms can, in a sequence of small steps represented by artificially selecting from a range of descendants, eventually result in significant "designoid" transformations. Unfortunately, because of the element of "artificial" selection, it will certainly be taken out of context by creationists by claiming that this is the current state of evolutionary theory, whereas if fact it provides only one limited view of half the theory! The theory also requires that the randomly occuring mutations be selected strictly on the basis of breeding success, which is about as far as you can get from random!

Unfortunately I think that Richard Dawkins has shot himself in the foot by choosing to issue something that only demonstrates the (relatively insignificant) random element of evolution, not the more important "selection by fitness". Get ready for a torrent of desparate creationists jumping on this opportunity to mis-represent the facts and convert the never ending supply of gullibles to their superstition.

Many are familiar with Richard Dawkins and his famous "Biomorphs". These are computer generated creatures that supposedly are the result of the natural process of evolution as simulated by Dawkins. Type into your search engine his name and the word biomorph for more information on his research. The point of the research of course was to prove that God does not exist. This is somewhat of a life quest for him. He has even been nicknamed by some, "the evangelical atheist". In light of the results of his erroneous conclusions I must publish this article.

Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins as he viewed his computer screen as the program was running:

"Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen. I can't remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possible. With a wild surmise, I began to breed generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect. My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance. . . Admittedly they have eight legs like a spider, instead of six like an insect, but even so! I still cannot conceal from you my feeling of exhultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes."

Dawkins made the same error that has become quite common in the field of evolution and abiogenesis (the supposed natural beginning of life) and it is perfectly understandable. The error in this instance is seen in the phrase, "I began to breed...". Where is that "I" in real life? It cannot logically be assumed to be nature itself in view of Dawkins' personal intervention into the experiment. Also I might add here that it does not matter at what point he intervened. The point is that HE intervened. Intelligent life intervened and tainted his experiment that set out to prove that intelligent input is unnecessary in a natural process that concludes with life. Now, regardless of anything else we must all admit here that in this experiment intelligent life intervened. Agreed? Anyone who cannot see this does not need to go on until he does. I am talking about the above experiment and nothing else. Did intelligent life intervene? Yes___ No___

So then it was Dawkins himself who decided which creature or beginning life form was to receive the mutation. Where is this intelligent input in real life?

Furthermore how did Dawkins know which was the better choice as he selected from some images and chose to reject others? (e.g. whichever child looked most like an insect ) Did he know what he was looking for? (I am not suggesting dishonesty here). Where is this knowing in real life? Who or what knows what is in the future in the natural world? Dawkins knew what was best and tainted the experiment with that knowledge which is unknown in the natural world. According to the theory, creatures adapt to the present environment, they have no knowledge of the future. Dawkins does have knowledge of the future because he already sees the product of evolution. Remember we are reconstructing the past not the future. Did Dawkins have knowledge of the future before he intervened? Yes, of course he did, just as we have knowledge of the future of our children after they are grown and we look back in time as Dawkins did. "Hindsight is 20-20". So the question is where is this foreknowledge in the real world?

Dawkins directed this experiment from beginning to end. Where is this overall direction in the real world?

Maybe Richard Dawkins would be better nicknamed a Creation Advocate.

I can just see hundreds of nerds transfixed behind their computerscreen googling over the one thing coming from another thing. All you need is a piece of paper and a pencil, and you can do the same thing. Dawkins does not use the computer well, neither does he explain his use well. A small change in a program, can give dramatic differences, a large change can give insignificant differences. There is no rule of small steppiness involved here, much as Dawkins likes to twist the regular meaning of words to have it be so. Also Dawkins has failed to simulate intelligence in the program. Much as Darwinists like to deny intelligent design, simulated intelligence is actually required for any lifelike computerprogram. That means a sophisticated use of the computer's randomizer function. In the computerenvironment only the randomizer has the power of decision. The rest of it works in a preordained fashion so to speak, one would get the same results over and over, if not using the randomizer function. Alternatively a sophisticated use of the computerclock would also work, if the clock strikes irregularly. Dawkins has cheated, because he has introduced symetry in the program. All the forms would look awful without symetry, all the forms just reflect the lifelike nature of symetry. If you buy this, you would support turning science into a commercial enterprise, and deny peer-review.

I actually read this book 5 years ago. It's a book full of imagination! Of the numerous scientific books I have ever read, this is the one that I will never forget. It evoked a series of mental images in my mind. Compare with many biology book burdened with citations and experimental data, this tiny book frequently provides fresh insights by using thought experiment in biological reasoning. I am looking forward to reading it again, with new surprse and definetely, enjoyment.

...Dawkins never claims his "biomorphs" to bebiological, their sole purpose is to show how small changes over aperiod of time can make huge changes in the end product; no more, noless. He turns trees (yes, just the shapes) into grasshoppers, and dragon flies, and satelites (yes, satelites, which are never claimed to be biological). His "quasi-biological forms" (see the forms?) do an excellent job of making his point, and you shall never convince this 'skeptic' otherwise.

I started reading this book with the anticipation that I might find a new and useful framework of scientific discovery in the 21st century. No such luck. Where the essayists recount scientific advancements, the book is serviceable but redundant for those who have read other generalized accounts of the scientists' work, but where they comment on the science, they either mirror the conclusions of the scientific literature in question or are simply laughable.

Peter Coles' essay on Albert Einstein's contributions to science and his subsequent rise to enormous fame is interesting in how it regards Einstein as an icon in pop culture. It is also useful as a brief primer on the theories of special and general relativity. However, the essay's conclusion on the nature of Big Science suffers from incorrect premises. Coles notes that as research into fundamental physics becomes more esoteric, it also becomes more expensive: "The further science reaches beyond the general public, the more it relies on their taxes." That is a problem not with the nature of science, but with the morality of taxation. He, as well as other essayists in this book, attempts to link the discoveries of modern science with weapons of mass destruction: "The public responded to Einstein with unqualified admiration, but Big Science later gave the world nuclear weapons." Big Science may have proved it possible to unleash the power of the atom, but nuclear weapons were bought and paid for by Big Government entirely with tax dollars. No scientists without the coercive power of Big Government behind them could ever have funded the Manhattan Project, nor can I think of a reason why they would want to.

Merryl Wyn Davies, in her rant against all aspects of biological determinism, correctly points out that fundamentalist Christians are not the only people in the world who have a problem accepting evolution by natural selection. Indeed, science has a proud history of tossing dominant paradigms out the window. Humans have generally modified their belief systems to account for new facts, or risk rendering their cultures irrelevant. Her essay is the story of a culture that has fiercely resisted the facts and meaning of natural selection with all of the means at its disposal. I wish the proponents of this culture the best of luck in their fruitless endeavor. Unfortunately, since the current methods of education and educational funding are subject to political manipulation, this controversy is not going to go away any time soon. Davies rails against the concept that natural selection necessarily reduces humans into unthinking slaves to their genes. She is wrong. Humans are unique among all living things in that we can act in ways that are not entirely consistent with the dictates of our genes, even if we don't always so choose.

Peter Coles weighs in again with an essay on the drive to discover a unifying theory of quantum mechanics and gravity, including some of Stephen Hawking's specific contributions to this effort. Again, the essay is an excellent primer as to the nature of the theory being sought. Coles rightly places Hawking in not the pantheon of scientific revolutionaries, but as someone who simply made important contributions to an esoteric field of inquiry. Hawking's fame seems to be as much for his readable popularizations of his work as it is for his heroic struggle with ALS. Coles speculates that science, contrary to Hawking's claims, may not find an ultimate meaning to the universe even if a complete mathematical theory of the universe is discovered. When that happens, he says, humanity will have to rely on philosophy and metaphysics to find that meaning. I counter that philosophy and metaphysics will likely prove as successful at finding ultimate meaning as they've ever been; that is, not very. The idea that the universe may not have an ultimate meaning seems not to have entered his mind.

Which brings us to Ed Sexton's recounting of the insights of Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. Sexton successfully rebuts criticism of Dawkins' "ultrareductionist" theories, wherein the gene, not the specie or even the individual organism, serves as the level at which natural selection works. As in Peter Coles' essays, Sexton does an admirable job in summarizing Dawkins' arguments. However, apart from an interesting account of the storms of controversy generated by the book in some quarters, there is little here that was not covered by Dawkins himself. Most of the controversy resulted from a reading of the theory as it might apply to human behavior and culture, which was an interpretation that Dawkins not only did not make, but explicitly disavowed.

Ziauddin Sardar's essay on scientific criticism gives an excellent insight into Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which appears to be the first (and if the other works discussed are any indication, the only) critique of the scientific method that's not either a thinly veiled socialist rant or a futile appeal to ought instead of is. The method of scientific discovery is unchanged, but Kuhn correctly pointed out that since science is a human endeavor, the scientific process is not a sterile intellectual pursuit. Rather, it is subject to all of the wrong turns, lack of resources, and social conflict that plague most human endeavors (as any honest scientist will attest). The beauty of science as a search for truth is that it is largely self-correcting. Anyone who either despairs or delights in all of the controversies in which scientists are embroiled at any one time would be well-advised to wait and see what finally shakes out.

The subtext of the book sems to be that scientific discoveries and advancements may have negative impacts on culture. Indeed, the methods and conclusions of science can and have been perverted to destructive ends and can be terribly destructive of prevailing modes of thought. However, that is certainly not the fault of science. One can alternatively argue that individuals in certain human cultures may be deluding themselves. A blurb on the back cover laments that "Philosophy, it seems, has lost metaphysics to Big Science." And with good reason, if these essays are any indication of the state of postmodern philosophy.