I was disappointed both by the inaccuracies (for example, the population of Botswana at Independence in 1966 was slightly more than half a million, not 330,000 (it is now about 1.2 million); the people who live in Botswana are Batswana, not Botswanans; and Nelson Mandela is a Xhosa, not a Xhosan) and by the superficiality of the section on the Okavango. For example, Ian Scoone's work in neighboring Zimbabwe shows that, although overgrazing certainly can reduce biodiversity, semi-arid regions are more resilient than was previously thought. With adequate rainfall, the previous vegetation reappears in many cases. No mention was made of any of the positive steps taken by the Botswana government to protect the Okavango. I expected more from this book given the importance of the topic and the author's background.

Dr. Eldridge, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History, recently directed a huge display on the biodiversity of life. His book reflects the science behind this exposition. It begins with a description of the Okavango Delta in Africa, as a model of our own "Eden." Subsequent chapters reveal the wide variety of life in a text understandable to the layman, proceeding then to the dangers life on earth faces in the destruction of biodiversity, leading to the "Sixth Extinction." (Readers will already be familiar with the rain forest threats in the Amazon basin.) Five prior mass extinctions of life on earth have been experienced, the last being 65 million years ago, resulting in the extinction of the dinosaurs (save the surviving birds). The Sixth we face with the destruction of earth's biodiversity as Eldridge points out.

On the positive side, reading this book can spark the reader to think more about the implications of natural selection. It is a very powerful algorithm that reshapes the genetic makeup of populations. It has far reaching consequences in spite of, or perhaps because of, it's deceptive simplicity.

On the negative side, the author cannot help but try to make Punctuated Equilibrium a bigger deal than it really is. The author claims that until he and Gould introduced PE, scientists general considered evolution to occur at a steady pace over the lifetime of a species. This sounds like a strawman argument to me. There is nothing in Darwin's formulation to indicate that rates of change are constant, and anybody in the field would be aware of us without having to be 'reminded' by the PE boys. I also don't think that the relative rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record has ever been a real problem since Mayr. If signficant evolution can occur in small populations over short periods of time, then of course the probability of finding the corresponding fossils is really low. Eldredge & Gould could have explained this in a 5 page paper. But that's not how you get famous. You get famous by promoting a simple observation as some type of revolutionary idea.

I'm gonna back to reading Richard Dawkins. He once admitted that as a research scientist he was decent, but he felt his real contribution could be made by writing books for the general public. A remarkedly candid and honest statement from an amazing fellow!

Being a Christian I read this book with the intention of understanding what evolutionists believe more accurately. The snippets of quotes from creationist literature didn't provide me with enough material in context to understand scientific ideas (I didn't think). I was correct.

This book really explained some things to me that I didn't understand before, like how the Linnaean classification system fit within evolution and how punctuated equilibrium was explained. It also gave some answers to the creation scientists' claims (gaps in the fossil record, "kinds" reproducing, etc).

This said, I was actually very happy with the book until I came to Chapter 7, "Can We Afford A Culture War". For a paleontologist (who ostensibly is interested only in communicating "good science") to explain the role religions of the world have in saving the environment and how we can all live together in peace and harmony seems to me a bit of a stretch. I think he should have stuck to the subject.

The author is rightly disturbed by the way creationists discuss several different fields of specialty during a debate when the scientist on the other side of the issue can only discuss his or her specialty. Of course you wouldn't expect a biologist to discuss the fossil record - that's the job of a paleontologist. Yet this is exactly what the author does in chapter 7 - he plays the role of philosopher and theologian by explaining how outmoded the "narrow minded" evangelical Christians will continue to hold back the "true" religion of the universalist.

I would recommend this book to creationists and others sans that last chapter. I also like the new formatting style of leaving a line between paragraphs - much easier on the eyes.

The author's summary of evolution, along with his presentation of the historical evolution of that theory, presents the disparate elements in a very concise manner. The short text of the book (<200 pages) provides a clear view of where the theory of evolution started and where it is now. Any reader should appreciate Dr. Eldredge's understanding of the science along with his ability to communicate that understanding. Geared towards the "casual" scientist's interests, this book is a fine accomplishment and an engaging read.

At first, I was somewhat put off by the attacks on creationist dogma. Although its presence in the title is more distracting than the instances throughout the book, I felt the book's function as an overview of evolution would be more useful than as a rebuttal to the beliefs of a subset of the religious community. Presenting the facts clearly should be enough to defend evolution. However, seeing other readers' reviews, I'm reminded that a battle exists, and it must be addressed along with any presentation of the theory itself. While it would be correct to be put off by a book on physics or geometry that felt the need to address religious beliefs -- sciences that are inexplicably left alone by the religious community -- it's unavoidable with a book on evolution or biology. One area of science is demonized over others that follow the same principles. Because of this, evolutionists are forced to defend themselves, too often, not against their peers but against laymen.

As the external battle spills over to book reviews, I'm reminded of some of the benefits of excessive scrutiny pointed out by Dr. Eldredge. Although this scrutiny generally comes from scientists themselves in order to work out the thesis/antithesis/synthesis of ideas, external scrutiny may be no less productive to drive science forward.

Read the book. It's quick, thorough, and inexpensive. Above all, it's a very readable presentation of a very important science.

This is a reasonable book for someone who knows nothing about the history of extinctions, or evolution and historical geology, in general. Eldredge takes great pains to describe the phenomenon of extinction (background and mass) in the most popular terms possible. He also tries to inject some humanity into his narrative by introducing ideas and their originators at the same time. This is a game effort, but the scientists never really become more than names to the reader. One of Eldredge's goals is to introduce the absolutely uninitiated to the idea that Homo sapiens is not responsible for most extinctions in Earth history. For readers still hazy about the fact that our genus is only about 3.5 million years old and that life has been around for at least 3.5 billion years, this is a good lesson to pound across. For everyone else it will seem like a dogged repitition of the obvious. When one finished reading this book extinction will definitely be a lot less mysterious, but I don't think it will have been made much more interesting.

A bit of a mistitled work, it is actually a myth of all evolution and the way it works. Without calling the concept Punctuated Equilibrium, Niles Eldredge introduces the idea to the reader. Basically, it is a myth that evolution happens at a steady rate through time. Rather, organisms are stable for millions of years and then in a relatively short time (5 thousand to 50 thousand years) change very quickly.

The author also shows that this is the same for the evolution of human culture throughout human history. Relative stable culture, and then sudden rapid change. Modern culture seems to be the exception to the general rule. He didn't know why biological evolution and cultural evolution parallel each other this way, since the mechanisms seem unrelated.

There is also an introduction to the main players in the story of human biological evolution. A history of Neanderthal, homo habilis, homo erectus, A. aferensis, A. africanus and a few others is offered. The locations of the discoveries, as well as the people who made the discoveries and the situations under which the discoveries were made is covered in some detail. There are numerous skulls shown to scale that are very interesting. This is probably the most interesting part of the book.

A point that the author fails on is addressing the mechnisms of evolution. Are mutation and natural selection sufficient to explain punctuated equilibrium or are there other mechnisms at work here that are unexplored? The author also seems to dwell on speciation as a driving mechanism, but I fail to see how it is a mechanism at all. It is something that happens to a species (changing into more than one species), not a mechnism that changes species.

This is a book for someone who knows very little about evolution and specifically human evolution and would like a quick summary. You are probably better off to read a few chapters out of an intro anthropology text. I read Harry Nelson and Robert Jurmain's "Introduction to Physical Anthropology" immediately after Dr. Eldredge's book and found that it presented all of the same material, but in a clearer, visual way.

The best critic is one who earnestly seeks to study and understand the reasons someone holds a position. At the other extreme is the fanatic, the insecure caricaturist who does not even care to understand his subject matter before tearing into it. I'm sorry to say that this book is in the latter category.

Eldredge demonstrates no significant grasp of his subject matter (creation science, the interpretation of natural science data in a framework based on Genesis), the result being a work that should shame a freshmen college student, much less the co-author of punctuated equilibrium! He stoops to blatant falsehoods and absurdities, such as claiming no creationist scientist has ever published in a science journal. While admitting that they win all the debates early in his book, he chalks it up to theatrics, which is surely an insult to the intelligence of audiences at origins debates.

In one of his two quotes from creationary material in the entire book he claims creationists quote out of context - and then quotes a creation scientist out of context to support his claim. His other quote of a creationist is equally bizarre: taking a section of text in which the term "kind" of animal is used in the same casual context context we use in everyday conversation, he imputes a technical meaning to it based on the Hebrew term baramin that is rather obviously not applicable to even the more casual and uninformed reader.

Probably the most usable portion of his book is the section based on his own expertise in the study of trilobites. But anyone with an interest in this subject would surely be better served reading books more directly applicable to that specialty. His book closes with a chilling appeal to evolutionists to work together to suppress academic freedom and toleration for dissenting viewpoints under the rubric of "defending science."

Creation science could be well-served by thoughtful, informed critiques of its' models and theories. Some evolutionists do occasionally produce these and they are to be commended for rising above the fray and refraining from the kind of behavior characterized by this book. But as it is, I realized that if the co-author of "punk eek" could only do such a poor job of criticizing creation and defending evolutionism, the evolutionary worldview had indeed become indefensible. May the future offer better!

It seems like everytime I pick up a book by an evolutionist attempting to discredit creation science, the evolutionary proponent almost inevitably results to name-calling and ad hominem attacks to make a point. This book is no different.

Mr. Eldredge attacks creationists and creation science calling them names like puny, while attempting to bolster the case for his view in the process. If he would have interacted more with actual factual evidence and quoted from creationist literature, then shown where the evolutionist's disagree, he would have been more successful in making a stronger case for his views. This book lacked clear, concise and convincing argumentation, and relied more an mud-slinging and name calling to win the day. I believe this shows that evolutionary advocates are using every possible tactic to prevent creation science from being taught. They are afraid to admit the possibility that another view will compete with theirs and that people may be swayed by such an argument. Heck, Mr. Eldredge states in the beginning of his book that creationists usually win creation/evolution debates against evolutionary supporters. Yet, he can't make it sound as if the creation camp's argument is more factually correct and more sound, so he says that most victories are the result of theatrics and crowd-pleasing and also because evolutionary supporters are misinformed and do not understand the material as well as they should.

Yet, I do have to give Mr. Eldredge credit where credit is due. I do understand the arguments he is trying to make against teaching creation science in the science classrooms. Creation science isn't really science at all because you can't test any of the theories to see if they are correct and you can't measure them against any observable evidence. Creationists just have to say that God did it this way, outside of the set laws of nature, and that's the way it is. This is definitely not science and should not be taught to kids as science. Furthermore, as Mr. Eldredge argues our entire society is predicated on the findings and benefits that moderns science provides. He uses the examples of engineering plants and labratory science as two examples. These programs are a direct result of modern science and are related to the science of biological evolution.

Nevertheless, I think the situation in America has done a complete 180. In the early 20th century most of the American establishment was against the prospect of teaching evolution in the classroom. The 1925 Scopes Trial was the most public and virulent manifestation of such a situation. Yet, now the tables appear to have been turned. Instead of the having Biblical creationists bitterly oppose the views of evolutionists, you have evolutionists bitterly opposing and fighting against the views of creationists. I believe this shows how hyppocritical both sides have been and still can be today. The evolutionary camp has illustrated that it is no better or no more altruistic than the staunch creationists of the early 20th century. They will will fight, claw, scratch and complain that they should be the only model taught in the school system. Although I agree with the evolutionists that the model of creation science being espoused by men like Duane Gish is not really science and a result of fundamentalist Christian thinking, I do not believe this should eliminate creation thinking from being removed from the classroom. It is possible to present the idea that the Universe developed either by 1.)Random Chance or 2.)Intelligent Design simultaneously in the same classroom. Furthermore, it is possible to argue for intelligent design without getting overtly religious or faith specific; Just arguing against one system because it is diametrically opposed to your own will not cut it; Even worse, is engaging in this kind of activity and not providing any solid argumentation of defense of your view. The Bible does not have to be interpreted ultra-literally as most creation scientist do today. There are other Christian scientist's at work today who believe in the scientific data supporting the earth's age, they accept the fossil evidence as accurate. They do all of these while simultaneously holding the Geneis model as accurate. Just because some creation scientists hold views that are incompatible with this evidence, does not mean that the rest of the establishment should be punished or kept from the classroom.

I just finished reading another book on the subject, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Duane Gish and Eldredge's book is better, but not a whole lot better.

Both books fit into the same category, they too often wander off their intended point to bash the other side's opinion. One of the reasons I give this book 3 stars and Gish's book 1 star is that Eldredge says more to justify his views of evolution than Gish ever does to justify his views of creation.

As an example, Eldredge uses words like "pathetic" and "puny" to describe creationists opinions. I don't care if the opinions are puny or pathetic, give me the facts and leave out the creationist bashing. Eldredge speaks far too much in general terms about creationists (they tend to use the following arguments) and far too little with specific points. Gish at least looks specifically at certain points about evolution, liberally quoting evolutionary biologist and other scientists, even if he is off the mark more often than not. Eldredge seldom quotes creationists, he usually just talks about them.

In the end, most of what Eldredge says is pretty good information, but won't do anything to sway a creationist who is reading the book. Because it lacks weight (in size and content), it ends up being a comfort book for evolutionist and little more.

Regarding the complete lack of "transitional" forms in the fossil record, Darwin said in the 1850's:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." ---Charles Darwin, "On the imperfection of the geological record", Chapter X, "The Origin of Species", J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp. 292-293.

But 120 years later!

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which 'does' show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling." ---Dr. David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology". "Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin", vol. 50 (1), January 1979, p. 25.

Are there any "transitional" forms at all?

"... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." ---Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data." ---Dr. David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), "Rearranging our family tree". "Human Nature", June 1978, p. 45.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." ---Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" "Paleobiology", vol. 6 (1), January 1980, p. 127.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never 'seen' in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." ---Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Evolution's erratic pace". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p. 14.

For truly eye-opening information...the kind you were never allowed to hear in high-school and university, see "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton and "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Duane Gish.

There's been a common misconception among the public that creationists are blind, biased fanatics (creationists have always admitted their starting bias), whereas evolutionists are unbiased pillars of objectivity. As will be documented below, with extensive quotes from evolutionists' own literature, nothing could be further from the truth!

But don't simply take my word for it. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation - regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -*Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, page 31.

So here we have one of the world's leading evolutionists admitting what the general public was never told - that evolutionists have universally accepted a materialistic interpretation scheme as truth. All evidence stands or falls based upon it's fit with the dogma of evolution. Any data that does not fit within this hypothetical framework is discarded or explained away.

But let's not stop with Lewontin. Let's see what other prominent evolutionists have actually admitted. Is evolution truly fact, or faith?

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."-*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p. 33.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."-*L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."-*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him."-*Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."-*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."-*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory-is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."-*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it."-*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980).

"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."-*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with and even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

Interested in discovering mountains of additional facts and information you were never allowed to hear in high-school and college? Want to decide for yourself which side presents the more logical and scientific arguments of the two? I recommend checking out the answersingenesis and ICR (Institute for Creation Research) websites. Also, see "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics" by Duane Gish and "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells.

I read this book a while ago, and unfortunately lost it in a trade with a gentleman who had given me a creationist book to read. The book itself is very accessible, easily read and quite fascinating, particularly if you are interested in finding out just how creationists attack evolutionary theory. Yes, he supports evolution (he and Niles Eldredge presented the world with punctuated equilibria - of course he does), but he does give credit where it is due and does not completely treat creationists as ignorant or stupid - quite the opposite in some areas. However his frustrations do show thru in portions, as do his fears of creationism taking a greater hold in schools - mainly due to lack of understanding of the scientific process and/or scientific theory not only in the general populace - but within the science teacher population as well. The book also is useful for gaining some insight into the operation of scientific theory, and addresses some misconceptions. It is however, *not* a scholarly work - it lacks the depth and the volume one would expect for that. It won't convert anyone - I don't think that was the intention. It is a good introduction, quite "chatty" and informal. In that respect it succeeds.