Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

'its just a theory' -- blah blah. Yea. Well, read this, reflect on it--THEN let us discuss it. Amazingly, most creationists have never really read up on evolution to discover how the mechanics of it really work. As Richard Dawkins shows us, it isn't just "random chance".

If you fear this book, get it and read it anyway so you at least know what you are railing against.

Another great book from a great writer and thinker. This book will be a pleasure to read for all thinking people. However, it will NOT please those who believe in talking snakes or the Flat-Earth Society.

I bought "The Blind Watchmaker" because I wanted to read something from the "other side", having read several books with a Christian leaning (that basically just try to trash evolution, without offering anything realistic in return). I wanted information about how evolution explains how we got here (and maybe also why Christianity or other creation-based views have it wrong). I did find some very good stuff, but - as with all other religious books that I've read - whatever the evidence, the author interprets it in line with his beliefs, even when an alternative seems more reasonable. The book contains a believable and understandable explanation of the mechanics of how evolution could have produced us as we are now. But it sheds no light on the question of where the spark of life itself came from. Where did self-awareness come from? It's like building a car - follow the steps and it's done. But it won't go anywhere without a driver or fuel.

All in all, a good read - if a little blind its acceptance of the author's own beliefs as gospel (:-)), to the exclusion of all others. But I guess that's normal for a book trying to convince people of something.

Read the bible (written by anonymous 8th century people called Peter, Paul, Luke, John, and others), and then read The Blind Watchmaker (or any book by Richard Dawkins). One is absurd and the other is perfect sense.

I'd love to see a college professor in the US offer a course that required the reading of these two books only. Perhaps it would raise the American standards for Science (we're embarrassingly low in comparison to the other Industrialized Nations because we simply defend one book at the expense of the other without ever having actually read either in the first place.)

Read this book BEFORE you judge it. It's an incredible experience into reality that beats the bible (I know, I've read them both).

Many of the reviewers say how much they gained from this book. I didn't. I took college biology, but this book was way over my head. I skimmed a lot of the book, because the content was way too deep for me. I'm sure Dawkins is a brilliant biology scholar, but this book looks like a phD thesis to me. If you're into coadaptive genotypes, biochemical pathways, and episolon myoglobins, this could be the book for you.

from Shooshie
If reading Dawkins is an eye-opener for you, then you probably should sue the school which taught you about evolution. If he's entertaining, witty, and compelling, then you probably already belong to the church of evolution. If he is lacking in spirit, missing the point of life, or downright evil, then you're more likely a part of the older church which does not like evolution.
Dawkins only proves to me that science often mimics religion. It has believers who lock themselves in a dogma from which they evangelize to gain more believers in a 'my way or the hiway' forcefulness. They are not really attempting to look ahead, see possibilities, but to look behind and see victory.
I find Dawkins condescending and arrogant, something not appropriate for a body of knowledge so young and which is changing so rapidly. Evolution, to be sure, is a sound theory within its playing field. But there is nothing to indicate that it works alone or is the only guiding principle. Any attempt to say there is only falls flat as conjecture, no matter how much smoke you blow with fossils and changing luna moths.
The big trouble in most of the reviews, as well as in Dawkins apparent motives, is in the assumed linearity which places evolution and creationism as endpoints on a single continuum. First of all, Creationism is mythology. It may be a mythology which metaphorically describes something we as yet do not see or understand, but let's not even equate it with science as one of the two "big" theories. Secondly, evolution is proven in many examples. But as the guiding force for the creation and design of all that lives, evolution is as effective as mythology, and no more authoritative, no matter how subtle Dawkins little put-downs may be. It's a self-aggrandizing theory at this point, and anyone who wishes to look beyond it for something more is hooted down as a "creationist," a dreamer or believer in myths. Imagine if Einstein had faced this kind of peer review when developing Relativity, when he was a patent clerk before it was Relativity and he was Einstein. Suffice to say that it is very hard to get serious funding and support for studies which might set Evolution in the background as merely another process in the greater scheme of things. With people like Dawkins around evangelizing their favorite dogma as forcefully as a fundamentalist preacher on an AM radio station, it will take that much longer to get to what is probably the real truth.
If Dawkins' purpose was merely to explain evolution and show how it works, I'd give this book 5 stars. He's good at that and should be commended as a fine writer. But his underlying motive is to drive a nail in the coffin of Creationism AND any sort of thinking which could lead to theories which do not lie on the Evolu-Creatio-Linear-Continuum. Thanks to books like this, we'll be hearing 'pseudoscience' for a generation to come, every time someone attempts to find, test, and describe the workings of forces which use evolution as their process, and not vice-versa. Rather than properly expose some of the loose ends, unanswered questions, and potential doubts which plague evolution as a total-theory-of-everything, Dawkins attempts to gloss over them, hide them in his shallow analogies, or else he simply stands in front of them and says, "don't look here; we already have and there is nothing to see... keep moving on." For that, he gets 2 stars and no more.
Shooshie

This book discusses the arguements in favor of the theory of evolution, and is persuasive, IF you can get through it. If you can think in 9 dimensions (instead of 4), you can probably get through this without problems. I can't, but I still slogged through it, in spite of the fact that I didn't know what he was talking about.
In summary, if you're a genius, especially in mathematics, you can probably follow this. If not, get "Letter to A Christian Nation".

The Blind Watchmaker begins a scientific voyage into Dawkins' argument that the origin and evolution of adaptive complex life on Earth need not necessitate an intelligent creator. Dawkins fills his voyage with a myriad of analogies that allow laymen to comprehend the complex arguments for cumulative natural selection. His legendary analogies--usually more interesting than the points he tries to make with them--prevent the reader from being mired in scientific jargon, only to be swallowed by rhetorical excess. Dawkins attempts to justify his conclusions simply by stating the feasibility of his analogies, many of which show lapses in logic. The Blind Watchmaker succeeds in comprehensibility, but fails to provide a defense of Darwinian evolution. The Blind Watchmaker instead provides a series of analogies that dismiss arguments against Darwinian evolution and that cannot be extrapolated beyond the point Dawkins attempts to make. As a student of science and a firm believer of evolution, I find that The Blind Watchmaker leaves the reader with a patchwork of ideas that fail to unify into anything of consequence at the end of the book.

Nevertheless, Dawkins does have his good moments. You might find most non-fiction science-related literature to be a bore, not because the material is difficult to comprehend, but rather the material does not relate to anything of significance in your life. Dawkins structures most of his arguments into analogies, which are interesting not only because of the point he tries to emphasize, but also because of the analogy itself. The reader is left in awe by the elegance of the varying examples of biological design Dawkins mentions throughout the book.

Using a well-illustrated and easy-to-understand analogy, Dawkins distinguishes between single-step selection and cumulative selection. No doubt you have heard of the analogy that given enough time, an infinite amount of monkeys could write out, word-for-word, the entire Shakespeare anthology. Dawkins chooses to replicate a less daunting version of this analogy on his computer, using the phrase "methinks it is like a weasel." Initially, he programs the computer to come up with 28 random characters. After hundreds of tries, none of the sentences come close to replicating the phrase. Dawkins defines this type of selection process as single-step selection, in which each selection process does not continue a previous selection process. Dawkins then changes the computer program slightly. The computer begins in an identical fashion, listing a series of lines each with 28 random characters. The difference now is what the computer does next: it chooses the line that it thinks most closely matches the target phrase "methinks it is like a weasel." Then, the computer uses this line to `breed' more replicates of the phrase, where each character has a certain chance to mutate into another random character. The computer then chooses from the offspring of the initial selection, and the breeding continues. Dawkins is able to reach the target phrase in 41 generations. Dawkins' above analogy is a good way to define cumulative selection. However, Dawkins essentially uses this analogy and others as proof of the power of cumulative selection, which is entirely false.

While Dawkins' arguments strike us with awe at the immense biodiversity on Earth, much of the first half of the book is dedicated to the refutation of arguments against evolution. Absent from Dawkins' writing is a well-defined argument for evolution. To be fair, Dawkins does define the basic mechanisms of evolution, albeit in a long and indirect manner. What he does not do is consistently make these mechanisms a central theme of each chapter. The least intellectually satisfying portions of the book, however, lie in the latter half of The Blind Watchmaker.

In his chapter, "puncturing punctionalism," Dawkins launches an unnecessarily vicious attack on Eldredge and Gould, scholars who represent the school of punctional equilibrium. Dawkins wholly misunderstands the implications of Eldredge and Gould's theory by trivializing punctuated equilibrium as an identical concept to Darwinian evolution and then dismissing the implications--hierarchical selection and species sorting--of punctuated equilibrium as a separate issue. Perhaps Dawkins lapse of logic can be excused; what cannot be excused is Dawkins' justification for this vicious attack. He argues that the public's faith in evolution was damaged by the apparent challenge of Eldredge and Gould to certain mechanisms of evolution proposed by neo-Darwinian scholars. Dawkins summarily dismisses Eldredge and Gould as a threat to the progress that has been made by neo-Darwinism. Whether intentional or not, Dawkins line-of-thought dangerously isolates Darwinian evolution from the necessary innovation of continuous research and experimentation.

Dawkins sets out to prove that the biodiversity we see today was not the result of a conscious watchmaker, but rather a blind watchmaker known as natural selection. Even though this review dwells on many of the flawed or highly debatable portions of The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins does demonstrate that he has good points. In his arguments by analogy, Dawkins does illustrate the power to create biological complexity through natural selection. Dawkins, however, in his attempt to appeal to the masses, often presents a reductionist view for the sake of reductionism. Dawkins fails to accurately represent the origins of life and misunderstands the purpose of punctuated equilibrium. Dawkins could have salvaged the book in the concluding chapters of The Blind Watchmaker; instead, the concluding chapters quickly degrade into a rant against everyone who does not agree with him. The Blind Watchmaker ultimately does not succeed because in his attempt to design analogies for the complex events he tries to describe, Dawkins fails to recognize the limits of his own analogies. If evolution is a journey without direction, then the writing style of The Blind Watchmaker demonstrates this all too well.

I am an atheist, scientist, and believer in the evolutionary process. So, all of this will obviously color my impression of the book. Overall, I hated it. It was probably mildly groundbreaking in the late 80s or early 90s when computers were still a rarity, but the author's discussion is incredibly simplistic (and inaccurate every now and then). I work in genetics and microbiology, so I found some errors in the book. They are really in the details and it may have more to do with the fact that we know more about genetics today than we did in 1996 when the book was updated. It also supposes way too many things. If I believed in the religious view of how this earth and all its inhabitants came to be, I wouldn't have read much past the second chapter because he starts out chapters with "suppose A lead to B . . ." and ends the chapter with a statement, as if he's proved something. That is the main reason I didn't like this book. This book was recommended several times in others I've read, so I went into it think it was something really great. I think it would be a somewhat interesting read for someone that has no idea about evolution, science, or technology, but I am sure there are better written, more up-to-date books available (I hope!).

Clinton Richard Dawkins (born 1941) is an English ethologist and evolutionary biologist, as well as an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford. He has written some of the most creative and challenging defenses of evolutionary theory [e.g., Climbing Mount Improbable,The Selfish Gene] of anyone other than the late Stephen Jay Gould. He more recently wrote The God Delusion. [NOTE: page numbers refer to the 339-page 1987 paperback edition.]

He wrote in the Preface to this 1986 book, "This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it it solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet... The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up..." (Pg. ix) He adds, "I want to persuade the reader... that the Darwinian world-view ... is the only known theory that COULD, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence." (Pg. x)

He begins by stating, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Pg. 1) He states, "Natural Selection... has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the BLIND watchmaker." (Pg. 5) He adds, "although atheism might have been LOGICALLY tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Pg. 6)

He explains, "If you are curious about the bombadier beetle... what actually happens is as follows... it squirts a scaldingly hot mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydroguinone at enemies. But [they] don't react violently together unless a catalyst is ADDED... As for the evolutionary precoursors of the system, both ... are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombadier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around." (Pg. 87)

He argues, "What use is half a wing? ... Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground... the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude airfoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help... From here, there is a continuous series of graditions to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings." (Pg. 89) He adds, "How did ears get their start? Any piece of skin can detect vibrations if they come in contact with vibrating objects. This is a natural outgrowth of the sense of touch. Natural selection cold easily have enhanced this faculty by gradual degrees until it was sensitive enough to pick up ... AIRBORNE vibrations... Five percent vision is better than no vision at all. Five percent hearing is better than no hearing at all. Five percent flight efficiency is better than no flight efficiency at all." (Pg. 90)

He suggests, "This whole book emphasizes the overriding importance of natural selection. How then can we now emphasize the randomness of evolutionary change at the molecular level?... [No evolutionist] thinks that complex working organs like eyes or hands have evolved by random drift. Every sane biologist agrees that these can only have evolved by natural selection. It is just that neutralists think... that such adaptations are the tip of the iceberg: probably most evolutionary change, when seen at the molecular level, is non-functional." (Pg. 271-272)

Although to this reviewer, Dawkins spends entirely too much time discussing a computer program purporting to illustration the cumulative effects of "random changes," this is an extremely creative, intellectally-stimulating book, that [along with his 'Climbing Mount Improbable'] is absolute "MUST READING" for anyone studying contemporary evolutionary theory.

The goal of this book is to explain how evolution works, but rather than using fossils or DNA evidence, it instead gives explanations of the process of evolution on features of animal species and parallel analogies that help reinforce the author's argument.
This book presents a well rounded look at evolution and evidence for it by going over bats (and how they see the world via evolution), eyes and so forth. First, he explains what evolution is, but rather than giving a definition, he describes it using examples and analogies (e.g. a sieve) as well as an example explaining how evolution works on several animations he designed and how multi stage selection works when going from gibberish to a sentence from Shakespeare. It builds beautifully from the first chapter with the analogy of the blind watchmaker, and how evolution does not end with a goal in sight but rather builds and improves off of what it has to work with. There are many good explanations of how evolution works in several species and Dawkins applies his blind watchmaker metaphor to explain these.

Overall: Evolution as a blind watchmaker is beautiful analogy and one nicely explained. Read this if you want to learn more about what evolution is and how it not "progression" but a complicated flux via multi stage selection processes.

Clinton Richard Dawkins (born 1941) is an English ethologist and evolutionary biologist, as well as an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford. He has written some of the most creative and challenging defenses of evolutionary theory [e.g., Climbing Mount Improbable,The Selfish Gene] of anyone other than the late Stephen Jay Gould. He more recently wrote The God Delusion. [NOTE: page numbers refer to the 339-page 1987 paperback edition.]

He wrote in the Preface to this 1986 book, "This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it it solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet... The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up..." (Pg. ix) He adds, "I want to persuade the reader... that the Darwinian world-view ... is the only known theory that COULD, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence." (Pg. x)

He begins by stating, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Pg. 1) He states, "Natural Selection... has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the BLIND watchmaker." (Pg. 5) He adds, "although atheism might have been LOGICALLY tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Pg. 6)

He explains, "If you are curious about the bombadier beetle... what actually happens is as follows... it squirts a scaldingly hot mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydroguinone at enemies. But [they] don't react violently together unless a catalyst is ADDED... As for the evolutionary precoursors of the system, both ... are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombadier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around." (Pg. 87)

He argues, "What use is half a wing? ... Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground... the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude airfoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help... From here, there is a continuous series of graditions to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings." (Pg. 89) He adds, "How did ears get their start? Any piece of skin can detect vibrations if they come in contact with vibrating objects. This is a natural outgrowth of the sense of touch. Natural selection cold easily have enhanced this faculty by gradual degrees until it was sensitive enough to pick up ... AIRBORNE vibrations... Five percent vision is better than no vision at all. Five percent hearing is better than no hearing at all. Five percent flight efficiency is better than no flight efficiency at all." (Pg. 90)

He suggests, "This whole book emphasizes the overriding importance of natural selection. How then can we now emphasize the randomness of evolutionary change at the molecular level?... [No evolutionist] thinks that complex working organs like eyes or hands have evolved by random drift. Every sane biologist agrees that these can only have evolved by natural selection. It is just that neutralists think... that such adaptations are the tip of the iceberg: probably most evolutionary change, when seen at the molecular level, is non-functional." (Pg. 271-272)

Although to this reviewer, Dawkins spends entirely too much time discussing a computer program purporting to illustration the cumulative effects of "random changes," this is an extremely creative, intellectally-stimulating book, that [along with his 'Climbing Mount Improbable'] is absolute "MUST READING" for anyone studying contemporary evolutionary theory.

Clinton Richard Dawkins (born 1941) is an English ethologist and evolutionary biologist, as well as an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford. He has written some of the most creative and challenging defenses of evolutionary theory [e.g., Climbing Mount Improbable,The Selfish Gene] of anyone other than the late Stephen Jay Gould. He more recently wrote The God Delusion. [NOTE: page numbers refer to the 339-page 1987 paperback edition.]

He wrote in the Preface to this 1986 book, "This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it it solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet... The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up..." (Pg. ix) He adds, "I want to persuade the reader... that the Darwinian world-view ... is the only known theory that COULD, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence." (Pg. x)

He begins by stating, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Pg. 1) He states, "Natural Selection... has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the BLIND watchmaker." (Pg. 5) He adds, "although atheism might have been LOGICALLY tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Pg. 6)

He explains, "If you are curious about the bombadier beetle... what actually happens is as follows... it squirts a scaldingly hot mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydroguinone at enemies. But [they] don't react violently together unless a catalyst is ADDED... As for the evolutionary precoursors of the system, both ... are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombadier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around." (Pg. 87)

He argues, "What use is half a wing? ... Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground... the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude airfoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help... From here, there is a continuous series of graditions to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings." (Pg. 89) He adds, "How did ears get their start? Any piece of skin can detect vibrations if they come in contact with vibrating objects. This is a natural outgrowth of the sense of touch. Natural selection cold easily have enhanced this faculty by gradual degrees until it was sensitive enough to pick up ... AIRBORNE vibrations... Five percent vision is better than no vision at all. Five percent hearing is better than no hearing at all. Five percent flight efficiency is better than no flight efficiency at all." (Pg. 90)

He suggests, "This whole book emphasizes the overriding importance of natural selection. How then can we now emphasize the randomness of evolutionary change at the molecular level?... [No evolutionist] thinks that complex working organs like eyes or hands have evolved by random drift. Every sane biologist agrees that these can only have evolved by natural selection. It is just that neutralists think... that such adaptations are the tip of the iceberg: probably most evolutionary change, when seen at the molecular level, is non-functional." (Pg. 271-272)

Although to this reviewer, Dawkins spends entirely too much time discussing a computer program purporting to illustration the cumulative effects of "random changes," this is an extremely creative, intellectally-stimulating book, that [along with his 'Climbing Mount Improbable'] is absolute "MUST READING" for anyone studying contemporary evolutionary theory.

I'm fascinated by evolution, its one of my current favorite topics which kind of leads me back to reading one of the best known evolution writers, Dawkins. This book takes its name from Paley's Watchmaker analogy and tries to show that using evolution the abundance of species we have can get here not because they were created by a creator but by natural processes. The book started off good and has some good parts, but it also is pretty uneven, for example Dawkins has a way of getting off track and rambling on about a topic which doesn't really add much to the discussion. This book is at its best when Dawkins is talking about actual biology and using real examples, for example the chapter on bats sonar design is excellent and very informative.

I mentioned real examples because early on in this book Darwkins spends a chapter talking about this computer program he wrote, one where he takes straight lines and using "genes" the lines branch off a certain direction, he goes on and on about how using this simple program with natural selection, with himself being the selector, he created a group of insects. He calls these biomorphs and I think throughout the book he references his biomorphs far more than actual animals which is really annoying. I realize that he is using this as an example, but to a creationist does the fact that he created insects on his computer really prove evolution is true? Furthermore he mocks using clouds for the likeness of animals, but clouds look at much like insects to me as his biomorphs.

I was also pretty annoyed with Dawkins straw man dismantling of punctuated equilibrium, which basically said that since we can bread cows for milk, evolution and modification are always taking place and therefore, punctuated equilibrium is incorrect. I'm not very familiar with Gould's reasoning for PE, but I can't imagine he didn't take dog or cow breeding into account before he proposed it. This book does make me want to finally get around to reading one of Gould's books.

Even with all these complaints, this book was decent and worth a read, I'd probably recommend a different evolution book for a first time reader. As for Dawkins, I'll continue to read him, I at least have to try The Selfish Gene before giving up.

In this rightly called classic book, Richard Dawkins unveils nothing less than the
Secret of life, the principle that encompasses all forms of living things, human, animal, plant, bacterial and even, if any, extraterrestrial. It is a principle that explains why we exist and why we are as we are. That principle is Darwinism.
Darwinism is a cumulative process based on step-by-step transformations (mutations) which arrive by chance. But, the cumulative selections (survivals) of the mutations are not random and are responsible for the existence of life's complex design.
The process (the `watchmaker') is blind. It has no long-term goal, no purpose. The selections are always short-term. But, it is the evolutionary change over the immensities of time which produced what we see around us.
The basic factor in cumulative selection is the property of self-replication. Mutations are `errors' in replication, which can become dominant because they produce fitter specimens (mutants).
All cells of living bodies contain genes (genetic material). But the selection is made on bodies, not genes.
The stuff of genes is DNA (a chain composed by 4 organic molecules). DNA itself is not durable, but its patterns are. Chromosomes, long strands of genes, are passed down generation after generation.

Richard Dawkins also tackles passionately other important aspects of Darwinism.
In the ongoing dispute between `gradualness' and `punctuationism' (sudden evolutionary bursts, like the swelling of the human skull), he cleverly cites J.B.S. Haldane: `something like the transition from amoeba to man goes on in every mother's womb in a mere nine months'.
Natural selection is not only destructive (survival of the fittest). It can also be constructive through gene cooperation, for instance in the `tracking' of a changing environment.
Other items are macromutation, the problem of speciation, sexual and asexual reproduction, sexual attraction and selection (`living and the struggle for survival are only means for one end: reproduction'), embryology, and the reasons why Darwinism is still not universally accepted and even attacked (for religious, ideological or political purposes).

There is, however, one crucial point that the author couldn't solve (for the moment) and for which he can only give some hints: how did the process eventually start on earth?
A convincing try was made by the Dutch scientist S.T. Bok in his book `De oorsprong van het leven' (The origin of life'. Unfortunately, his book has never been translated.

This book is a must read for all those interested in life on earth, because `Darwinism is the bedrock of all human disciplines, for all human works are products of the brain.'
And, as another great Darwinist, G.C. Williams, has said more provocatively: `natural selection, albeit stupid, is a story of unending arms races, slaughter and suffering. It is a law of nature and its immorality has to be accepted and, at least, to be thought about. `

As a long-time biologist, horticulturist and now biology teacher I have been meaning to read this "for a while", (about 15 years or so). I finally got a chance to read it while commuting back and forth to work as part of preparing to teach evolution and biodiversity to my high school class. Evolution has long been a fact with as much or more objective evidence than almost any other scientific "theory". All legitimate biologists recognize evolution, most believe it as the driving force in the development of all biological processes just debating the actual mechanisms on populations of organisms. Our recent ability to use DNA to compare organisms has only confirmed this many times over. While I have studied evolution many times and understand the parts, I don't think I really understood the big picture properly until I read this book. Now I can say I not only understand it, but "get it".

I can relate to many of the the various small criticisms on the style, the length and the authors attitude being less than perfect. This may be enough so that other books might be a better choice for some readers. However, for me these problems were vastly overshadowed by the clear mastery of understanding Dawkins demonstrated, and his ability to transfer this so effectively to me.

This is an excellent book that is lucidly written and very convincing, and it was the first comprehensive and philosophically consistent presentation of Darwinism that I've read. Before this book I had not researched the theory of evolution to the point of truly understanding the evidence and how it was supposed to be working. After I read this book, I understood, and the evidence for evolution and the understanding of natural selection finally came together in my mind. His philosophical and descriptive arguments are clearly organized and described in a very logical manner.
His presentation and refutation of improper understandings of evolution, such as saltationism and Lamarckism along with his excellent description of natural selection effectively removes the most common misunderstandings that people have of evolution. He then proceeds to explain the two essentials of the theory, genetic change at the molecular level and natural selection. The first is blind and random, the latter is most definitely not and is why we see the incredible complexity among living organisms that we do. Genetic changes that "naturally" aid an organism over time, under changing conditions and competition for resources, to successfully live longer or reproduce more offspring will be favored over those changes that do not and will spread through the population. This is natural selection at work. As explained by Dawkins this is an extremely slow process from the human perspective which is used to dealing with months, years, and lifetimes less than a century. Given enough time, these effects of evolution will lead to increasing diversity and complexity in nature.
He then describes the effects of the arms race and sexual selection on species. The arms race is responsible for the continuous advancement of both predatory skills and the ability to evade predators. The result is the unremitting escalation of the of the predator/prey relationship among species. On the other hand, sexual selection is responsible for what we would consider the more odd aspects of species morphology and behavior. Both concepts, as with the prior material are explained very clearly and thoroughly.
Dawkins is a gifted writer and presents his material in such a compelling and fascinating manner that I could hardly put the book down. It is extremely thought provoking. This book was my official introduction to the details of evolution and lit a fire within me that continues to this day of a deep curiosity to the history of the evolution of life on earth. It is an excellent introduction on evolution and is great for those who don't understand it. Many people just can't see how evolution can produce such complexity and appearance of design in living organisms. This book describes how it can, and if you find yourself in that state of mind, I recommend this book.
The weakest argument regarding evolution is Dawkin's evolution of species within his computer program. This was extremely unconvincing to me, as a 2-D world made of bits of zeros and ones on a computer screen has very little in common with the 3-D world of chemistry and biology we inhabit. On close scrutiny the analogy falls apart, as most such analogies do.
Dawkins is also an avowed atheist, and can be a little overbearing in his overt and covert linking of evolution and atheism. For this reason, those of faith in a supreme Being will be greatly challenged even possibly upset by this material. I was challenged in that regard immensely, and although I consider myself to be agnostic (largely, though not exclusively as the result of the study of evolution) Dawkin's arguments certainly have contributed to my atheistic tendencies. But don't let his position lead you to believe that evolutionists are necessarily atheists, many are not, and both sides have good reasons for their respective positions. I believe the question to be ultimately insoluble, although atheism is well supported scientifically, philosophically, and historically in my opinion.
The Blind Watchmaker is very engaging and is an excellent read.

In The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins succeeds admirably in showing how natural selection enabled scientists to do away with heavily religion based theories such as purpose and design and does so in a way which is informative and accessible for the layman.

Dawkins has taken Darwin's theory of evolution and explained it in a clearer way than even the original text managed. He demonstrates how the idea of natural selection not only explains conclusively the development of all life on Earth but also does away with the need for further explanations.

Never one to be afraid of an argument, Dawkins restates the objections that have been put forward by opponents of the theory of evolution and explains the fallacy behind each one. The development of those popularly cited examples of organs that supposedly could not have evolved naturally, most notably the brain and the eye, are scientifically explained by Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker demonstrates how every organ in existence is capable of evolving to its current state through small mutations over long periods of time, with each mutation leaving the organ inherently `better' than it was before.

So while Dawkins doesn't attack religion in any particularly venomous way, in The Blind Watchmaker he does set out to show that it is, as a concept, unnecessary to the understanding of the development of life on Earth. As such, this book will not be to everyone's ideological tastes although, as a reading experience, it would be thought provoking for anyone.

Richard Dawkins is a rare author in the scientific field, he is an exceptional thinker but also a great communicator who, with The Blind Watchmaker, makes evolution and its impact on science in general understandable and fascinating to the average interested reader.

Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" is a fire works show of a book. Sound thinking and deep insight jump out from nearly every page. I want to say a little something about the subject matter and then about Dawkins's style.

I have very little background in Biology or Natural Science and I consider this book to be a superb introduction to Evolutionary Theory. Dawkins lays out the problem beautifully in Chapter 1, writing "Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation. We want to know how they came into existence and why they are so complicated" (pg 1). He goes on to define the way in which living things are complicated as "improbable and... specifiable in advance" (pg 8). It takes a little unpacking to get at what that means but he does a marvelous job. He then goes on to talk about the kind of explanation this book is about: "how the complicated things came into existence in the first place" (pg 13). The end of the chapter describes the structure and function of the eye and chapter 2 is about the structure and function of echolation in bats. These are examples of complicated things, organs in this case, that deserve a special kind of explanation because they are improbable and have a certain function. Chapter 3 introduces us to the idea of Cumulative Selection. Chapter 4 is on the plausibility of a fine grade of functional intermediates in the evolution of complex organs and then about some cases of convergent evolution. Chapter 5 is on genetics. The final chapter, Chapter 11, addresses alternative theories such as Lamarkism, Neutralism, Mutationism and Creationism.
The thing that really stands out for me about this book is the thoroughness and perspective that Dawkins brings to his subject. This is not just a compilation of facts but a series of arguments, with supporting evidence, and alot of consideration of alternative viewpoints. The book is very broad in its coverage of Biology and also of the Philosophy that is related to this subject matter. I don't think this book could have been written any better. The reasoning is rigorous, the book is comprehensive, it addresses all kinds of criticisms, and it is written in a tone of immense curiosity, wonder, appreciation and passion for understanding that is engaging and exciting. Too good!
...

Clinton Richard Dawkins (born 1941) is an English ethologist and evolutionary biologist, as well as an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford. He has written some of the most creative and challenging defenses of evolutionary theory [e.g., Climbing Mount Improbable,The Selfish Gene] of anyone other than the late Stephen Jay Gould. He more recently wrote The God Delusion.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1986 book, "This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it it solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet... The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up..." (Pg. ix) He adds, "I want to persuade the reader... that the Darwinian world-view ... is the only known theory that COULD, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence." (Pg. x)

He begins by stating, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Pg. 1) He states, "Natural Selection... has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the BLIND watchmaker." (Pg. 5) He adds, "although atheism might have been LOGICALLY tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Pg. 6)

He explains, "If you are curious about the bombadier beetle... what actually happens is as follows... it squirts a scaldingly hot mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydroguinone at enemies. But [they] don't react violently together unless a catalyst is ADDED... As for the evolutionary precoursors of the system, both ... are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombadier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around." (Pg. 87)

He argues, "What use is half a wing? ... Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground... the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude airfoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help... From here, there is a continuous series of graditions to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings." (Pg. 89) He adds, "How did ears get their start? Any piece of skin can detect vibrations if they come in contact with vibrating objects. This is a natural outgrowth of the sense of touch. Natural selection cold easily have enhanced this faculty by gradual degrees until it was sensitive enough to pick up ... AIRBORNE vibrations... Five percent vision is better than no vision at all. Five percent hearing is better than no hearing at all. Five percent flight efficiency is better than no flight efficiency at all." (Pg. 90)

He suggests, "This whole book emphasizes the overriding importance of natural selection. How then can we now emphasize the randomness of evolutionary change at the molecular level?... [No evolutionist] thinks that complex working organs like eyes or hands have evolved by random drift. Every sane biologist agrees that these can only have evolved by natural selection. It is just that neutralists think... that such adaptations are the tip of the iceberg: probably most evolutionary change, when seen at the molecular level, is non-functional." (Pg. 271-272)

Although to this reviewer, Dawkins spends entirely too much time discussing a computer program purporting to illustration the cumulative effects of "random changes," this is an extremely creative, intellectally-stimulating book, that [along with his 'Climbing Mount Improbable'] is absolute "MUST READING" for anyone studying contemporary evolutionary theory.

After drowning myself into scientific data and theory trying to disprove the guy upstairs, I got pulled out of the water and revived back to life after reading, "The Blind Watchmaker." Although I still do not hold to any Creationist doctrines at the moment, the plausibility of Darwinism as the only explanation for life in the universe is opprobrious to say the least. In refering to the existence of DNA, Dawkins states: "....somewhere within the laws of physics has to be a self-replicating mechanism.." I wasn't too convinced of his scientific faith after reading this section of the book. He ties himself in more knots while pleading the reader to accept the enormous amounts of data each cell carries and copies as mere random variations which give rise to more complexity. Unfortunately, the arguments float around like a feather in the wind and are not persuasive. Finally, without any theological beliefs, I can't understand why Dawkins constantly mentions the Christian deity in his book to state his beliefs. It is as though his argument is, "I don't like the God in the Bible, so he doesn't exist and I can prove it with natural selection." I applaud Dawkins for his genius in scientific inquiry and understanding. However, "The Blind Watchmaker" hasn't made any footprints in the journey to disprove a Creator. Furthermore, most of his analogies and metaphors still infer large improbabilities that the reader can't possibly take as ultimate truths. I guess humans will be debating the topic until we self-destruct ourselves, but nobody in science, philosophy, or religion has a monopoly on the truth. It was an excellent read though, and enabled me to incorporate other examples, analogies etc.. whenever I discuss the matter.

This book should be required reading by everyone. Especially at a time when states like Kansas are making evolution (which is NOT a theory, but as Dawkins shows, proven science)not a requirement for education. Kansans are in effect deselecting themselves in the intellectual evolution of the human race. The Blind Watchmaker could save them from themselves if they were willing to learn.
Intellectually we are in a state of evolutionary flux right now. Certain of our race have made the discovery that the supernatural, spiritualism, religion, gods, goddesses, devils, witchcraft, astrology, feng-shui, parapsychology, and the like exist only in the minds that wish to embrace them, with no basis in empirical reality, and this is Dawkins' best point, that with the proof in front of us, their likelihood of existence is mathematically calculable and approaches impossibility. Those of us who have made this discovery have used science to elucidate it, like shinig a flashlight on a statue in the dark. We might not be able to see all of it at once, but if you shine the light around (in other words glean evidence from different branches of science), the statue's shape becomes clear. As Dawkins brilliantly shows, all science relates to other science (we're talking true science here, not UFOlogy, et al) and when all the evidence is linked, the easily calculable mathematical likelihood of a designer is so vastly minute that for beings that live only decades, it qualifies as unassailable. Ultimately time will be the judge, as with all evolution, and someday the spiritual faithful will be deselected (such as is happening in Kansas as you read this), and will join the dodo, giant sloth, and wooly mammoth. It isn't going to happen quickly, of course, hence the argument goes on. We live in a fascinating time right now, a time during which this great intellectually evolutionary transition is in full turn, and both sides can be seen. I welcome into the fold of free-thinking those who have emotionally and intellectually evolved, but I do not seek to convert those who are under the curve, because as Dawkins shows, time and evolution will do that

Dawkins has written the best book illustrating science to the public that I have ever read, and I have read hundreds.How can chance operate to create complex systems? This question recurred to me again and again although I thought I understood the theory of natural selection. My knowledge before Dawkins was half-baked. After Dawkins's tour through wonderland, I feel confident enough to teach the subject, and teach it I have to some creationist friends whose knowlege of Darwin before me was not even warm.
Part of the wonderland is the creation of Dawkins own mind. Who would think of a virus as a copy machine with one blueprint to copy (itself) but no paper? Its entry into a cell is like opening a paper warehouse to such a machine!
This is no easy read. Your boots need to be on for rough terrain, but you never slog through swamps. Everyone who is fascinated with science but find most explanations boring or overly technical will love this book. This is the way science ought to be taught. And you creationists out there who want to argue, try arguing against the facts presented here. Your views will be challenged.

This is Richard Dawkins' most accessible book on evolution. I always had the feeling that, having composed this most erudite layman's guide to the theory of evolution, he must have imagined that he would then be able return to his daily academic research. But even he must have underestimated the persistence of the deniers. (Why do non-scientists not work themselves up into a fury of denial over quantum thermodynamics, for example?) In effect, he has had to write the same book several times more.
One central problem is the use of the word theory. Theory in science does not refer to some unproven or un-provable idea (like faith) but to a specific process. Evolution is a scientific law and the fundamental unifying process in biology without which nothing would exist. What non-biologists fail to appreciate is that the arguments among biologists concerning evolution are not about its existence, which they all accept, but about its principal mechanism, natural selection, and the magnitude of its role in driving evolution. The fact that everything changes, evolves, over time should be self-evident to any thinking being. If life remained static then we could predict the future exactly because nothing would have changed. Anyone who fails to notice, during their short lifespan, that changes are occurring all around them and beyond would be lacking more than just an education. What evolution does is to take the process one obvious step further: If things change over time, then given enough time they can surely change into something different. In biology that means `descent with modification' and speciation. Richard Dawkins eloquently states that it is far more plausible that what we see now has descended from something else, something simpler, rather than having been put down now in its current perfect and unchangeable form. The best analogy is language. Few people would argue that the English language, for example, was suddenly spoken by the people known as the English in its current form without ever having been modified in the past, let alone having descended from other languages, and without the quality of being able to evolve in the future. It is forever changing and evolving like everything else. That is the nature of the universe.
It is a shame that Richard Dawkins has been vilified for stating the obvious. For those among us who still grasp at vestiges of the myths and superstitions of our pre-Enlightenment ancestors this book will remain a torment. For the rest of us who use our senses and observe, it will be an elegant and enjoyable explanation of why we see what we see, made even more so by the spectacular advances in our understanding of evolution at the molecular level (DNA) that have occurred since the book was written.

I am afraid that Prof. Dawkins will win no converts to "Darwinism" with this book. He is a strident writer who expresses little patience with those who cling to religious dogma. The audience for this book is those among us who would tend to want to have a materialistic explanation for biotic phenomena, but have not been lucky enough to get lucid instruction in the philosophical underpinnings of the theory. Dawkins gives you just that, with a sense of humor thrown in for good measure. He is a little more fond of strawmen than I would like, but he uses them as rhetorical devices and makes no effort to conceal the fact that they are strawmen and not fleshed-out representations of opposing positions.
Some readers might be put off by Prof. Dawkins' rather shrill put-downs of the ideas of some of his fellow evolutionary biologists. In most cases, however, these cutting remarks are balanced by compliments elsewhere, which leads me to believe that he is doing some serious kidding around to make the narrative interesting and to honestly express his passion about the topic.
I felt that Prof. Dawkins made a very strong argument against the necessity for an intelligent designer behind the production of biological complexity. His primary emphasis is on the role of cumulative changes in the development of complex structures. The "ID" crowd understand neither the primacy of natural selection in the evolution of complex structures nor do they really understand how history is different from the mere passage of time. As many playful potshots as Dawkins takes at S.J. Gould, they are both on the same side on this topic.

An easy read this is not. Not for someone looking for an introduction to evolutionary theory.

By comparison, I found the "Origins of Species" by Charles Darwin (which I had finished prior to reading this book) easier to follow. Simply because Darwin's version is less saturated with modern technical details, which simply were not available in his time.

Anyone not already familiar with some basics of modern biology might have trouble following Richard Dawkins' logic.
Havins said that the mental strain is well worth it if one wishes to get a well rounded understanding of the subject. Should the reader is willing to make such effort the book will be educational, and convincing account of the modern take on the evolution.

I've deducted a star because I found the last chapters somewhat tedious. They relate to various competing paradigms in evolutionary theory and taxonomy. There probably is no way to make the subject any more interesting, and the topic had to be covered to give a fuller view - but it was a struggle to get through those chapters.

Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Also, he is one of the leading figures of evolutionary science worldwide.
In addition to his obvious understanding for evolution, Dawkins has a writing style of his own; coherent, vivid, passionate, and amusing.
Dawkins has a grasp on virtually all the concepts the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection has to offer. He is a neo-Darwinist, and he devotes a great part of the book explaining the philosophy of neo-Darwinism.
The writing style is very engaging. I could not stop reading once I started.
He initially introduces the concept of "hierarchial reductionism" as a method of understanding complex systems. He then turns into explaining how cumulitive change can result in the apparent complexity that forms of life on earth harbor. The classical example of the "eye", once introduced by Darwin himself, is explained.
Dawkins is also a computer programmer. He builds the "Biomorph" program to simulate evolution. A couple of chapters are also devoted for showing that a user for the program cannot possibly anticipate the "lifeforms" that can emerge by small "random" changes.
Although mutations are random, the whole process of evolution is non-random. Natural Selection is a non-random process. That is what Dawkins stresses upon during the last few chapters.
One of his great themes throughout the book is that biological systems, unlike human artefacts, emerge with no need for a "master plan". He challenges the analogy of Genomic DNA to a "blueprint" and rather uses the term "recipe" to illustrate the code DNA carries. He argues that the cells of an embryo, each harboring a defined set of genes, is only interacting with the few cells within its physical proximity. The final body plan is an emergent property of the small local interactions. There is no grand design.
The final chapter of the book compares Darwinian Evolution with "Doomed rivals", namely, Lamarckism, extreme mutationism, and most importantly creationism.
A great read. Dr. Dawkins is the Shakespear of Biology.

From other people's responses, it would seem texts on evolution a la Darwinism seems a bit like VEGEMITE ( you love it or hate it ).
However Dawkins does an excellent job, in the context he creates, of explaining the mechanisms of a current version of this theory. I feel it is a lucid account, but takes careful reading and even re-reading. He describes useful analogies to illustrate subtle points, is quite careful in defining his meaning of terms, the limits of analogy, and the boundaries of what Darwinism does or does not explain.
Is the idea of influences outside living individuals determining which reproduce surprising? Can one accept that the expression of DNA code specifies characteristics which affect survival? Do you agree that such material, if inherited, will similiarly affect descendants? Are biological mechanisms capable of producing some genetic variation in offspring? Which genetic differences produce which phenotypic alterations? Are all differences sufficiently relevant to reproductive success? How plausible is the concept that small quanta of change accumulating over a vast timescales, with environment determining grades of reproductive success at each step, lead to the wonderful complexity and diversity that we see in life?
These questions are a taste of many that are presented to the reader.
Clearly evolutionary theory stirs up feelings about human origins in particular. No doubt there are varied sensitivities to the topic of our origins each depending on preconceptions, expectations and implications. There is certainly a brutality to the "not every child wins a prize" aspect of natural selection, and it's mechanistic flavour. But maybe it's a reasonable likeness of natural events for the purposes of description. I think it shows an interesting alternative script for distant events.

I've seen this book in bookstores for awhile, but I just recently picked it up and took a look at it. I'm glad I did. Dawkins wrote this book to show that natural selection is the "blind watchmaker." Using the exmples of the eye and bat sonar, Dawkins has some pretty persuasive arguements and explanations to show that complex life developed without an ultimate design or designer. Along the way he explains the subtlies of the theory of evolution via natural selection very well. At the end of the book he shows that other scientific theories simply don't make sense. He also points out that, even though other scientists have different theories, they ALL base their theories on the evolutionary process that Darwin formulated. The only problem I had with Dawkins was his tendency to veer off on some tangents. Granted, he needed them to explain some point or another, but when he finally got back on point I needed to re-read the section to figure out what the point was. A minor quibble at best.
So if you're interested in learning more about evolution and natural selection I recommend this book to you. Come with an open mind and you won't be disappointed.

As someone who confesses that he has not yet read Darwin's books, I can still say that I think Dawkins has done an excellent job of explaining why the principle of natural selection can account for the development of adaptive complexity in species. Although he is sometimes offhand in his comments, I found Dawkins a great writer. For better or worse, he knows when not to digress into a topic that will take him away from his main discussion. But sometimes it did come off as a little glib.
As to the obvious controversies that have arisen from his assertions in the book (probably mostly from advocates of creationism), I feel this way: by definition you can never disprove the existence of God. (Even Dawkins says this.) But I for one can appreciate the power of Dawkins's description of cumulative selection. I think it's brilliant, whether or not a higher being is ultimately responsible for it. The only thing he doesn't explain--probably because no one yet knows--is the origin of life itself: how cumulative selection could have gotten started in the first place in order to lead to self-replicating molecules such as RNA and DNA. Yet even here I think the book allowed me to think of a plausible explanation. Dawkins posits that self-replicating molecules were also subject to natural selection. Perhaps a random event (such as a spike in heat or acidity or whatever) occurred in a certain region of the earth early in its history. Perhaps that event promoted self-replication long enough to allow molecules to develop from single-step replicators to replicators that used cumulative selection. Again, no one knows--this is just the most extreme case to show why it may be so hard to recreate the necessary conditions for molecular cumulative selection to start. It may also turn out that new potential replicators are too inhibited by our current environment (temperature, already existing life, and so on) to "catch on." My point, however, is that Dawkins does a superb job of laying out the theoretical framework for these questions.
Dawkins even makes a falsifiable prediction: that life elsewhere in the universe, should we ever find any, will have developed according to cumulative natural selection.
Another amazing thing about this book is the number of pages on which I found themes that could spawn entire science fiction novels. The ultimate irony of the title, I think, is that if Dawkins is right, even a watch found in a field can be said to be the product of natural selection, having been built using the human brain and body--themselves built by natural selection.
I have not read The Selfish Gene yet, but I am actually glad I read The Blind Watchmaker first. I think it is important to know about natural selection before reading about genetics. I hope Dawkins writes as well in The Selfish Gene as he does in The Blind Watchmaker.

Dawkins is always informative and interesting, but I wish he had an editor that would bring him back from tangents and subjects that take him from his main objective. He has a lot of info on biology and DNA that can be extremely informative and entertaining, but he gets a bit off the track worshipping Charles Darwin and pushing evolution like it's another religion.

In his section on classifying fossils, he claims that maybe it is good that we don't have a complete fossil history of all animals because it would be difficult to categorize all those fossils. What??

Most of the book describes the beautiful complexity of cells and molecules in all living beings and trying to theorize that it all came about through evolving without any "intelligent designer" involved, just "natural selection" (the best features always win out over features of lesser values). I love his theory that since DNA and cell structure is the same in animals, fish, trees and all living organisms then that is proof that everything evolved from one source (or maybe one intelligent designer?).

I think that science WILL eventually prove that life started on its own from a chemical mix, lightning, etc. or landed on earth from someplace in the universe. That's really the only way to put an end to speculation of an "intelligent designer".

Here, Richard Dawkins provides excellent insights into the physical processes of evolution, explaining in detail how DNA mutates, generates copies of itself, and explains how the laws of natural selection take over. Dawkins writes with passionate clarity and provides all the information anyone could ever wish for in order to understand the mechanisms of Charles Darwins' theory of evolution.
A previous reviewer made a valid point in saying that it requires faith to believe that natural selection alone will conduce the existence of human beings. Science has proved that evolution exists in the sense that finches' beaks have been observed to evolve over time, yet finches beaks and human beings and consciousness are obviously a different kettle of fish.
Can Richard Dawkins' theory of cumulative selection explain with affirmation that natural selection will conduce the existence of human beings? The answer is obviously no, and faith is required to believe that the watchmaker is blind. But that doesn't detract from the fact that 'The Blind Watchmaker' is an intoxicating, passionate, and at times witty affair written by a man who possesses as much vigor and focus as a religious evangelist.
A highly recommended book for anyone interested in an in-depth explanation of the processes of natural selection.

I am frustrated by the arguments in other reviews here that it requires "faith" to rely on natural selection as an explanation for the development of life and ultimately consciousness. This sort of comment belittles scientific thought and tries to collapse it into the same sphere as religious thought.
Dawkins himself has had much to say on the question of whether science is "just another religion," and this "faith" business is just a way of rephrasing the accusation. It muddles Dawkins' point, which is this: if we can reasonably explain the origins of life given the laws we know to exist, such an explanation, even if impossible to definitively prove, is preferable to an explanation that relies on the supernatural, because the latter is (in Dawkin's words) simply rephrasing the problem. I think this is an excellent distinction; to say that, for instance, evolution and Special Creation both require "faith" because neither is 100% proved, is dangerous sophistry of the worst kind. Though neither is absolutely proved, one is a reasonable supposition, and the other is not.
Dawkins' point is to render God tautological -- at least with regard to biological questions (he bows out of cosmological discussions, claiming that is not his area of expertise). Whether Dawkins succeeds completely in his aim in "The Blind Watchmaker" can be debated -- I think he skirts a bit too quickly around some of the questions of probability, particularly the issue of whether, even allowing for accumulation of small change, the frequency of beneficial genetic mutations is sufficient to give natural selection the raw stuff it needs to work with.
"Blind Watchmaker" is a good introduction, both to the theory of evolution in general, and to Dawkins' refreshingly unapologetic, strident manner of writing. But much more reading must be done by anyone who wants to grasp all the issues encompassed by evolution.

It was a sure bet that creationists would hate this book, rather than look past Dawkin's nettling personality to learn something from it..Dawkins has simply taken billions of years, multiplied them by trillions of opportunities, and reached an end product called "us"..Additionally, common sense should tell us that the physical world is hardly the perfection we would expect from a perfect designer; Life forms are still born with defects, random mutations abound, and a perfectly formed human being would have never fallen from grace in the first place..Reminds me of Desmond Morris's admonition; "We arent fallen angels, we're risen apes!" Dawkin's is a first rate scientist by any reckoning, and I suspect that he would, in a moment of candor, admit that no one knows everything---just what we've been able to wrest from the earth in the way of material information about our world. For a less acidic, but equally negative, treatment of design, one should read Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". Miller is a christian, but he pulls no punches about creationism and manages to draw real science away from the fundamentalist camp even further.

This is a classic exposition of evolution for the layman. Particularly good is Dawkin's explanation of how complex beings can have indeed evolved over time. Some sections are more difficult than others. It has always annoyed me that authors of books containing a significant amount of information on molecular biology do not provide you with drawings of such matters as replication and transcription. Dawkins often does this to you: page after page of dense print without a single diagram. To solve this problem I purchased "Molecular Biology made simple and fun", by David P. Clark, and Lonnie Russell. It's a 500 page book that covers a lot of ground and contains at least 300 drawings of how all of this stuff works.
Dawkins spends almost no time attacking the creationists. I would suggest that other books such as Kitcher's "Abusing Science" be read along with Blind Watchmaker, to get a better feel for the evolution vs. creationist controversy.

Having turned into a Richard Dawkins fanatic, I decided to read another one of his books. I chose the "The Blind Watchmaker," because it was proclaimed as his most detailed book for the reasoning of why evolution says there is no intelligent design.

It is co-narrated with his wife, Lalla Ward, making the audiobook version a delight to listen to. In terms of technical and scientific reasoning for evolution and a lack of intelligent design, this book is packed with it! More so than any of the other Dawkins' books I've read in the past. This is definitely the de-facto book in the argument against intelligent design.

It is a highly technical book, filled with scientific jargon that veers towards a graduate level textbook on evolution. Some times I would have to take a week break or so to allow myself to digest the information. I'm not gonna lie, some technical parts of the book will put you to sleep, and you will feel like skimming them.

Despite that, it is still a decent read to understand the science behind evolution and why intelligent design sounds completely absurd.

In all honesty, its not the best Richard Dawkins book, "Selfish Gene" and "Magic of Reality" are much better, but then again, the topic this book covers needs to be highly technical, which excuses that.

Previous reviews are sufficient to allow the prospective reader to get a clear enough understanding of the general theme of this book, so I won't waste anyone's time by addressing such issues. However, I do feel that it is necessary to point out that all of those who have berated Dawkins have done so because of his disregard for foolish creationist doctrine. They even call him bigoted because his well-argued thesis reveals the gaping holes in their own belief system. The goal of any true scientist is to observe the evidence available to him and make sound conclusions based on that evidence. Dawkins does this wonderfully. How is that in any way bigoted? Is it as bigoted as calling someone a bigot who does not believe the same thing as you? If you are an intelligent adult capable of separating fact from fiction who would like an introduction to evolutionary theory, this is a excellent place to start. If you prefer fairy tales, keep believing that the world is only 6,000 years old and your god created all of life on this flat earth in the center of the solar system. History will view you in the same way that it currently views those who called Galileo a heretic and those who refused to accept the earth's spherical shape.

Next to The Selfish Gene, this is probably Dawkins' most impressive and worthwhile book. Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection remains under fire from those determined to find a ghost responsible for human beings and the rest of life. Dawkins answers the obstructionists with clear logic and good science. He directly addresses the big compound question of who we are and whence we came. It's a daunting task, not only because of the tenacity of resistance to the answer. Dawkins asks readers to open their minds to envision vast stretches of time and conceive of the collection of minute changes that must have occurred to arrive here from such remote beginnings. His writing ability gently leads readers along the many steps necessary to come to an understanding of how life works.
His choice of Paley's 1802 publication "Natural Theology" to outline the roots of obstructionist attitudes is excellent. Although he wasn't challenging Darwin [who wasn't born yet!], Paley's logic and arguments are still used by those who resist being toppled from their divine pedestal. Dawkins begins his presentation by explaining "the watchmaker" is nature's blind forces of physics acting in an environment that could give rise to life. He spends time addressing the issue of complexity, its meaning and its application to the forces of life in contrast to inert matter such as rock.
Dawkins follows this analysis with examples of "design" [or lack of it] in nature compared with design by humans. From bats through bears to Boeings, Dawkins lucidly explains the differences between nature's "decisions" and those of engineers. Evolution, no matter how illogical it seems to the human witness, doesn't foresee the result of changes. Our brief existence demands answers within our lifetimes. Dawkins posits that we need patience, that nature works too slowly [with some exceptions - see Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch for an update] to provide quick, simple answers to how life works.
His chapter Accumulating Small Change addresses the issue of change in a novel fashion. It also counters the frequently raised challenge that "statistically, life can't evolve through random change". Here, Dawkins introduces a computer program which takes us through the evolutionary process in accelerated steps. He shows that while life is constantly changing, these changes occur within certain constraints. "Randomness" is hemmed in by such limits as weather, antecedents and valid physical structure. Giant pterodactyls and miniature bats appear vastly different to us, but their fundamental structures are nearly identical. Evolution, then, relies on tiny steps of cumulative selection. Little changes tested in life's cauldron. The survivors ultimately become polar bears, flatworms, kangaroos, us.
After a wonderful chapter, "Puncturing punctuationism" demolishing Stephen Gould's iconoclastic attempt to erode Darwin's thesis, Dawkins moves on to examine other, competitive ideas of how evolution operates. Since many of the ideas discussed in "Doomed Rivals" have been utilized by the obstructionists attempting to counter Darwin, this conclusion is one of the most valuable sections of the book. Starting with the premise that no-one conscious of life can deny evolution, he goes on to examine how various thinkers have addressed its mechanism. Lamarck, who understood life changed through time, still inspires adherents. It's an easier system to understand than Darwin's natural selection. Its premise of acquired characteristics remains wrong, however, no matter what new versions of the idea are forwarded. Dawkins carefully examines the ancient and modern proposals on acquired characteristics, respectfully disposing of them as good common sense, but bad science.
This book is vital to those wishing to develop a feeling for understanding our place in the universe. Our society is so imbued with the concept of divine origins that we've found it too easy to override the life around us. Dawkins book realigns humanity with the rest of life on this planet. If we read and understand him, perhaps we'll regain the respect for our surroundings we lost when we first conceived of gods. If we aren't the result of a spirit's whim, then perhaps we can address the future more realistically. Read this book and see for yourself.

.....that the Watchmaker in question was blind and moreover, that any reasoning person could see that. Given that my own immune system could attack and destroy my own body at any time, given that every single one of us has cancer cells floating around our own bodies, given things like cystic fibrosis and other unpleasant genetic ailments that can affect the body not even counting the various accidental calamities that can render our bodies inoperable from without I have always been of the opinion that not only was He blind but also inept to boot. Realistically then, Dawkins' book should not have been required to be written but sadly the uncritical and gullible, like the poor, are always with us and so Dawkins does a sterling job bringing Darwin's theory to a mass audience.
Those below who gainsay him betray their intellectual backwardness. No DNA added by mutation ? Gene duplication for one, halfwit. The same thing that gives XXY chromosome people. Sheesh, the sheer blatant ignorance of some people. All mutations subtracting DNA ? Yeah, all BAD mutations subtracting information that makes sense, when they improve an organism it's more than likely going to involve addition of genetic material. Hey, I'm only surmising but you are making blanket statements on a few decades of sporadic experimenting that only come up with defective mutants, give it a few billion years and a planet-wide laboratory and who knows ? But we won't let a little common sense speculation stop us will we ? Same goes for symbiosis which all critics seem to ignore; funny, when our cells have bacterial organisms, our DNA shows viral sequences and the immune systems cells are slime molds by any other name. We are pathogenic colonies it seems, something evolution and selfish gene theory can explain but any form of Creationist bunk cannot.
I've only read a few holy books but I know damn well that there isn't one of them that mentions evolution, genetics, the timespan thus far of the universe or any of the myriad things scientific investigation has revealed to man to be the case. When a religious system can explain these things in a coherent framework then science will give it a fair hearing but Creationists are deluding themselves if they think Dawkin's theory is rendered invalid by any science which requires "magic" to make it work, especially that particular form of magic capable of also absolving the sins of humankind. Dawkins will be displaced when another scientist can offer a better scientific mechanism for evolution. Until then his theory stands and whatever occurs the Watchmaker is still very fallible and wholly Blind.

+++++

This book (first published in 1986) by Richard Dawkins (born: 1941) explains and "fine-tunes" for the general but educated reader Charles Darwin's (1809-1882) Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

This is not a definitive guide to evolutionary theory and the author explains this immediately: "This book is not a dispassionate scientific treatise. Other books on Darwinism [that is, Darwin's Theory of Evolution] are, and many of them...should be read in conjunction with this [book]."

What are the purposes and aims of this book? They are numerous and some are as follows:

(1) "To convey...the sheer wonder [or mystery] of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it."
(2) "To remove [the mystery of (1) above]...by explaining the solution."
(3) "To persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence."
(4) "To destroy [the]...myth that Darwinism is a theory of [random or blind] 'chance'."
(5) To help readers make the "leap" in logic that "complex [biological] 'design' [can] arise out of primeval simplicity" and that this complex design is not due to a "supernatural deity."

(6) "To resolve the paradox" that even though natural selection appears to have an ultimate goal (like a watchmaker whose goal is to make a working watch), it, in fact, does not. That is, "natural selection is the blind watchmaker."
(7) To help the reader answer questions like the following: "Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step?" or "Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself?"
(8) To underscore the importance of animal genetics (DNA, RNA, protein, genes) and animal embryology.
(9) To explain gene and environmental adaptation interaction.
(10) To explain that "events that are...called miracles are not supernatural, but are part of a spectrum of...improbable natural events."

(11) To explain the importance of geological time that is measured in eons or "thousands of millions of decades."
(12) To explain "that we don't need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe."
(13) To explain that "all animals and plants and bacteria, however different they appear to be from one another, are astonishingly uniform when we get down to molecular basics."
(14) To help the reader realize "that only natural selection can drive evolution in adaptive directions."

Dawkins in his very readable writing style fulfills all of these goals and, as well, he explains much more.

There are two aspects of this book I especially enjoyed:

(i) Dawkins selects certain anti-Darwinian arguments and analyzes them using the principles he has developed to show that they could not be true. In this way, the reader gets to practically use the information that Dawkins has introduced us too.
(ii) This book is filled with examples of various animals (including humans) that have undergone evolutionary change. These examples provide concrete validity to Darwin's theory.

The last chapter of this eleven chapter book is my favorite. It deals with rival theories to Darwinism. Such theories as 'mutationism' and creationism are analyzed and commented on.

There are three ways to improve this book so as to make reading it easier. First, Dawkins, when he presents unfamiliar terms initially, defines or explains them in his narrative. After this he assumes, when he presents these terms later on, that the reader will remember their definition accurately or take the time to look in earlier chapters to refresh his or her memory. For myself, this assumption was false. Thus a glossary at the end of the book would have been most helpful. Second, Dawkins explains everything in word pictures. I felt that clear, labelled drawings would have made key concepts easier to understand and decreased the amount of wordiness. Lastly, most chapters contain numerous elaborations, recapitulations, and digressions. I felt that each chapter could have been broken up into sections to accomodate this, thus allowing the reader to follow the discussion more easily.

Dawkins says that "even if there was no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory...[then] we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." I disagree with this statement and was surprised that Dawkins made it. The only reason this theory is preferred is that there is scientific evidence for it. Accepting a theory on the basis of no evidence is called (blind) faith.

Finally, Dawkins speaks of possible life elsewhere in the universe. Thus, once you read this book, I strongly recommend the book "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe" (2000) by scientists Ward and Brownlee.

In conclusion, this is an excellent book that makes Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection understandable. The single most exciting idea that you can take from this book is that the diversity of life we see around us is not incredible, but inevitable.

+++++

Dawkins has proved himself to be a venerable writer by fragmenting even the tenuous theories that form the construct of Darwinism.
He offers some very exciting, novel and at times humorous analogies to the principles of evolution that will allow the reader to delve deeper into Darwin's theories - further understanding the implications and manifestations of concurring with the ideologies, which draws you to question the whole concept of evolution or its intricacies (which Dawkins will ensure you do not ignore). This can do a few things for you: agree further, become puzzled and choose to stick with what you thought before you read his book, or just heck it all because it all sounds rediculous to you.
It is likely that if you pick up this book you're either already Darwinian in thought or the opposite, and are looking for statements or whole chapters to rebutt. But whether you're with or against Dawkin's, he will push you to a corner, strap you down with sarcasim and offense (if you disagree with him, because he really doesn't think you should) or give you some positive stroking and nurture your understanding even more - which is highly entertaining.
i will not go into the details of his book because that's all part of why you would buy it - to make your own discoveries.
This is a throughly enjoyable book that you would like to keep for future references (to antagonise creationists). Dawkins also offers some carefully placed and very apt reflections of some blatently riduculous but proliferate and mostly condoned ideologies of our specicist, passive and conformist society - which you might love or hate, sometimes even though you may be with him most of the time.
A scientific and journalistic masterpiece which even Darwin would rise from the grave to throw his two cents.

I greatly enjoyed this book, which is a splendid introduction and defence of neo-Darwinism. Like the best of SJ Gould, the book has real flavor because its author has a strong point of view; but just Dawkins' writing style - clear, bold, beautiful - should make it a classic of the popularization genre.
However, the strong view also points to bias, in Dawkins' case a combination of strict genetic determinism and an obsession with computer analogies. Frankly, computer simulations and pseudo-discovery stories, which over-rated magazines like WIRED promote and hype ad infinitum, are boring: so many of these books on "complexity" etc. just repeat the same stuff. Unfortunately, a lot of that seems to have originated with Dawkins, who at least does it better than most of his copiers.

When I tell friends and family that I am reading (and enjoying) books on natural selection and Darwin I often get challenged that 'God' explains the major gaps in the theories proposed. What I appreciate about this book is that it does not stop with that answer and strives to hypothesize and explain the origin of life and the complexity that has manifested itself in the nature around us. It challenges the reader to understand organic and inorganic chemistry and the fundamental properties of materials that would allow us to explain how it all transpired.

Ironically, this curiousity and desire to learn was forged from an upbringing in a strong Christian family. From my perspective, the fact that 'God' had graced us with the gift of thought and ability to reason was always very natural to the church's teaching of striving for the truth. This is not the same lesson that my 'near fundamentalist' siblings took from a similar upbringing. I am fearful about the religious stories that shape our behaviors today. More often than not religion is a reason not to learn and creates contempt for new ideas and people who articulate those ideas.

This book challenges the reader to learn and dig deeper. It does not ignore the other schools of thought and in fact lays them out with a suitable level of respect. I look forward to uncovering more books about science that embark on this same type of teaching method for complex topics.

Evolution does not attempt to achieve a certain design, or even certain features, but depends largely on the chance of circumstances. The reference to making watches is an answer to William Paley's argument of last century. Paley noted that if we were to find a watch, we could not say that it randomly came together, much like a rock. The complexity of a watch, and the fact that its parts all function together, indicates that it had a designer. The analogy with lifeforms is thus obvious, ie, how could such complex entities come together randomly. The watch must have had a watchmaker, and similarly, life must have also had a designer. Dawkins argues that the watchmaker of life is evolution, ie, a blind process that does not attempt to specifically create any particular design.

Dawkins brilliantly and logically demonstrates how incrimental changes, when selected by Darwinian "survival of the fittest," result in the incredible diversity of life we see today. I find the comments of the above critics to be astounding and can only conclude that they must not have been paying very close attention as they read. Dawkins answer to the "10% of an eye" problem, especially, is a real homerun, and is worth the cost of the book all by itself. My only quibble with this book is the same problem I have with the work of a lot of atheist scientists. Dawkins makes essentially the same mistake of the anti-science creationists - thinking that what is true of religion must also be true of sciene. When Dawkins joyously disproves the existence of God, he steps out of the bounds of science and into religion. Just because God does not guide evolution with a steady hand does not mean that there is no God outside of creation. Our science could never detect such a God. If Dawkins insists on telling people that to believe in evolution they must disbelieve in God, then he should not be surprised when parents refuse to have evolution taught to their children in public schools.

Published ten years after The Selfish Gene, this book is just as enlightening and entertaining as that first book by Dawkins. More examples of evolution in the natural world, and more evidence that evolution has indeed shaped the diversity of living things, past and present, on the earth. Very well written, it's a pleasure to read. One criticism of this and especially The Selfish Gene: Dawkins seems to think that there's no or very little selection at the level of the group, and that natural selection takes place at the level of the individual or even his or her DNA. However, I think it's clear that there is a good deal of selective pressure at the level of the group or tribe, and even to some degree at the level of the entire species. If a group of animals dies, that includes every member of the group, so it stands to reason that there should be some selection at the level of the group, even if that selection runs counter to the immediate goals of the individual within that group. In spite of this criticism, any curious person should give this, and The Selfish Gene, a read. Author of Adjust Your Brain: A Practical Theory for Maximizing Mental Health.