Product Description
A brilliant book celebrating improbability as the engine that drives life, by the acclaimed author of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. The human eye is so complex and works so precisely that surely, one might believe, its current shape and function must be the product of design. How could such an intricate object have come about by chance? Tackling this subject--in writing that the New York Times called "a masterpiece"--Richard Dawkins builds a carefully reasoned and lovingly illustrated argument for evolutionary adaptation as the mechanism for life on earth. The metaphor of Mount Improbable represents the combination of perfection and improbability that is epitomized in the seemingly "designed" complexity of living things. Dawkins skillfully guides the reader on a breathtaking journey through the mountain's passes and up its many peaks to demonstrate that following the improbable path to perfection takes time. Evocative illustrations accompany Dawkins's eloquent descriptions of extraordinary adaptations such as the teeming populations of figs, the intricate silken world of spiders, and the evolution of wings on the bodies of flightless animals. And through it all runs the thread of DNA, the molecule of life, responsible for its own destiny on an unending pilgrimage through time. Climbing Mount Improbable is a book of great impact and skill, written by the most prominent Darwinian of our age.

Amazon.com Review
How do species evolve? Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most eminent zoologists, likens the process to scaling a huge, Himalaya-size peak, the Mount Improbable of his title. An alpinist does not leap from sea level to the summit; neither does a species utterly change forms overnight, but instead follows a course of "slow, cumulative, one-step-at-a-time, non-random survival of random variants"--a course that Charles Darwin, Dawkins's great hero, called natural selection. Illustrating his arguments with case studies from the natural world, such as the evolution of the eye and the lung, and the coevolution of certain kinds of figs and wasps, Dawkins provides a vigorous, entertaining defense of key Darwinian ideas.

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 3.5 based on 61 reviews)

Like a music box that keeps on playing the same tune

The beginning of this book is wonderful: astonishing examples of animal mimicry, convergence and divergence, and the marvels of spiders' web construction. This is the sort of biology I love, and Dawkins is one of the best writers of it.

But he can't keep it up for long. Almost at the beginning we start to see little hints that this is not just a book of biological wonders - well, the title really gives it away, but then there are things like that word "designoid", and soon we have another lesson on the biomorphs from The Blind Watchmaker. Finally he can restrain himself no longer, and we find ourselves among the usual Dawkinsian obsessions: natural selection is the solution to all problems, everything is possible if we divide into a sufficiently large number of steps, evolution is not random, design is an illusion, God would have to be impossibly complex, and so on.

He is really writing the same book over and over, changing the title and the details, but the message remains the same. The fascinating thing is that you could swap whole paragraphs from one Dawkins book to another and no one would notice. And yet each book is apparently written as if the reader has not read any of the others.

To use an evolutionary metaphor, Dawkins' books are like a virus which keeps mutating, changing its coat so we don't recognise it, while it keeps trying to inject the same essential message into our minds.
June 10, 2008

STILL AT THE FOOT OF MOUNT IMPROBABLE

I read CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE many years ago. I consider it Dawkins's best work. Since I accept the fact of evolution no less than he does, I have no argument with his explanation of the mechanisms by which improbable evolutionary structures evolved. It is his understanding of the nature of these mechanisms as blind and random that I find completely unconvincing. This review is an elaboration of why.
Among people who disagree with Dawkins's opinions it is common to point out that his views are no less fundamentalist than that of the Creationists he opposes. I am aware that he and his allies do not seem to understand what we mean by this. I shall clarify. In THE SELFISH GENE Dawkins writes that if mankind ever faces an alien race of superior technological development, the most important gauge that mankind has advanced beyond mere savagery will be the theory of evolution. He means by this, of course, the blind and random evolution he champions in his work. To be absolutely certain that thousands of years from now mankind will still believe in Dawkins's selfish gene theory signifies a dogmatic mindset. I think that Dawkins would agree that there was really nothing in THE SELFISH GENE, or in CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE, that was not already implicit Darwin's original version of the theory. In Kuhn's terminology, he was not trying to establish a new paradigm, just polish the one already in existence. In the interest of not being dogmatic myself, I try to be open-minded to the possibility that Dawkins might be right. But my conviction nonetheless is that he is wrong, and the evidence is really not with him.
Whenever somebody opposes the selfish-gene theory of evolution, there are always people who start ranting about how opposed true science is to the pseudo-scientific theory of Intelligent Design, as if these were the only two conceivable possibilities. It is true, as the ID people insist, that evolution is merely a theory; but gravity is merely a theory also. A theory is the best explanation scientists have for an observable fact, and evolution is just as observably factual as gravity. On the other hand, there have been several theories of gravity, which were all the best explanation thinkers had in their times for the fact of gravity. Physicists are quite confident that the current theory of gravity is unlikely to be replaced by a radically different explanation, but not many of them would dogmatically insist that this could not possibly happen. This is true because science and dogmatism are inherently antithetical.
In a brief review of THE SELFISH GENE I pointed out that Dawkins's theory implies intelligent design. I was being deliberately provocative but not facetious. Explicit in the idea of selfish genes is the idea of determinism. Given the properties of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules, and their original state of motion instigated by the Big Bang, determinism insists that nothing in the universe could have happened differently than it did. Although the indeterminism of quantum mechanics frees the universe from the clock-work determinism envisioned by nineteenth century physicists such as Laplace, since indeterministic events are blind and random, they would mostly just cancel out. A critic of this review pointed out that determinism does not mean predeterminism. What I am sure he meant by that is that it does not imply INTENTIONAL predeterminism. However, determinism clearly does mean that the events of the universe are predetermined by its initial state. Since consciousness is not an intrinsic part of the universe, the fact that the development of life intelligent enough to reflect upon its origins was a necessary consequence of these initial conditions is mere happenstance. That our existence is merely a fluke is so obviously true that to think otherwise is evidence of foggy-brained superstition.
Life relies upon the perfect meshing of highly complex and specifically-shaped molecules. Protein polymers can consist of hundreds of amino acids that must in turn fold up in unique shapes if they are to function correctly. Even just one mistake in this specific sequence means that the protein will malfunction. These proteins are in turn formed by far more complicated DNA sequences that, of course, had no idea that they were forming proteins. For even the simplest life to have formed in the first place, hundreds of these molecules had to have preformed so and interlock perfectly together in order to self-assemble into an unimaginably complex "gene machine" capable of extracting energy from its environment and replicating itself. This is the process that Michael Behe refers to as `irreducible complexity." We do not have to agree with him that this is proof of Intelligent Design, but if I ID and sheer coincidence were the only two possible choices, I would have to go with ID.
The popular explanations for how these complex molecules could have developed in a blind and random manner are frankly so laughably inept that I can scarcely believe they are intended seriously. For instance, one of them informs us that if we looked at the birthdates of thirty randomly chosen people they would form a highly specific pattern that would be nearly impossible to form by mere coincidence, and yet there it is. Of course, this pattern is not required to mesh perfectly with a random selection of birthdays of a different group of thirty people to perform a specific function. Another argument assures us that although a million monkeys randomly typing at typewriters would require far more than fifteen billion years to write one of Shakespeare's sonnets, if each correct letter the monkey happened to type was maintained in its correct position, the sonnet could be written within a few months (or whatever). This experiment has been successfully performed with computers taking the place of monkeys. If this is really supposed to be a model of how complex molecules form, it is obviously a model for Intelligent Design rather than selfish genes. Another argument is that in many cases complexity is often more obviously the result of random forces than a far simpler construct. For instance, a stone cut into the shape of a cube is far simpler than a stone shaped randomly by the forces of nature. There are two things wrong with this. One, the randomly shaped stone is not required to function perfectly with other randomly shaped stones to perform a specific task. Two, the cube could only have been shaped by highly complex organism. Better arguments than these must exist, but these are the ones available on the Internet for the public; these are the arguments that I hear from the students in my philosophy class who are sufficiently intellectual to be interested in the issue.
While Dawkins's explanations of how improbable organic structures, such as eyes and wings, are clearly brilliant, he does ignore the enormous biochemical complexity inherent in these changes. An example I often like to use is that of the fluke worm. In one phase of its life cycle the fluke inhabits ants that must be eaten by cattle. Since ants are naturally stay on the ground they would not ordinarily be ingested by cattle. In order to be sure that they get eaten, the fluke interferes with the ants' nervous system in such a way as to cause it to climb to the top of grass blades that the cattle will eat. This suicidal behavioral change would require several highly specific alterations in the ants' nervous system that must have occurred more-or-less simultaneously. This example is certainly not evidence for Intelligent Design. I at least would hope that a Supreme Intelligence capable of designing such complexity would not be responsible for something so bizarre and ugly. In fact, there is no better argument against ID than the existence of such parasites as the malarial plasmodium -- unless the Intelligence is sadistic and malevolent. But it is at least reasonable to believe that some primordial awareness must have been involved.
A universe that had no awareness of its existence would be essentially indistinguishable from non-existence. The fact that consciousness exists proves that this self-awareness existed potentially from the very beginning. Dawkins insists that this potential was accidental, while I am convinced that it was intrinsic. The overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with the notion of the intrinsic existence of consciousness. However, their disagreement often seems to result from the repulsion inspired by "creation science," which is clearly dogmatic faith rather than science. On the other hand, the fact that science is only capable of exploring the physical universe does not logically lead to the conclusion that only the physical universe has real existence. If consciousness does have intrinsic existence, then it follows that evolution is not blind, but proceeds along lines leading to a level of complexity capable of self-reflection. If this is true, then evolution is at a stage where we are required to be active participants, since most people are more inclined to hide behind comforting dogmatic belief than to struggle to greater self-awareness. Dawkins is wonderfully proficient at pointing out the dogmatism of religion, but blind to the dogmatism of materialism.

March 27, 2008

Dawkins' Plethora of Illustrated Examples of Gradual Evolution via Natural Selection

Climbing Mount Improbable may be treated as the sequel to The Blind Watchmaker but really reads more like a development of those thoughts. In fact Climbing Mount Improbable is an expanded transcript of Dawkins' Growing Up in the Universe, first broadcast in 1991 in five episodes, which was filmed during a series of Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (which have been held in London annually since 1825 first started by Michael Faraday). For those who have seen the series, Climbing Mount Improbable is that whole series plus five years worth of updates (this book was first published in 1996). For those who haven't seen the series, its worth getting because the series compliments this book wonderfully.

Climbing Mount Improbable is a collection of examples of gradual evolution via natural selection with a good load of illustrations and photographs to back it up. In terms of value for money this book is essentially a pinnacle in Dawkins' thoughts on evolutionary biology with the evidence to back it up and so for that reason really does offer a lot more than most books for the price.

Nobody does it better than Dawkins when it comes to presenting biology lessons of a lifetime. The fact that this book is based on the materials for a set of Royal Institution Christmas Lectures says it all about the quality of the information in the pages. If there is a biology book you are going to get then get this at all costs. It's both the foundation and the finishing touch on assembling the facts surrounding living things.

Dawkins covers ten chosen topics. Each topic is about evolutionary biology. The main theme of the book is about the illusion of intelligent design and how natural selection is the right approach to understanding the gradual development of complex organisms from simpler ones. The metaphor of the mountain with many peaks is used throughout the book to describe the process of evolution via natural selection. This mountain is what Dawkins calls Mount Improbable.

Chapter 1 "Facing Mount Rushmore"
This chapter deals with illusions in natural design such as seeing John F. Kennedy in a mountain face and comparisons to actual intelligent designs such as Mount Rushmore. Dawkins then examines mimicry in insects such as ants mimicking beetles and beetles mimicking termites, all explained by natural selection. Dawkins covers several designoid objects such as the pitcher plant and pots made by potter wasps and mason bees. Convergent evolution describes how specific environmental conditions can produce the same evolved characteristics in separate species. Millipedes copulate face to face. The wild cabbage has bred an amazing diversity of cabbage-like plants. The Chihuahua has eventually been bred from the wolf. Dawkins famous blind watchmaker program is then shown to produce a variety of computer generated biomorphs to illustrate how complex organisms form through heredity via natural selection.

Chapter 2 "Silken Fetters"
Dawkins describes in deep detail the evolution of the spider-web before going on to explain adaptive variations and in the web design.

Chapter 3 "The Message From the Mountain"
Dawkins gives a general rundown on how natural selection gradually works including mutation and the error of calling evolution chance. Dawkins gives examples including the evolution of the elephant trunk and the giraffe neck. The topics of macro-mutations and punctuated evolution are covered.

Chapter 4 "Getting Off the Ground"
Dawkins describes the evolution of flight. Magnitude and volume in relation to evolutionary constraints under the laws of physics is extremely interesting. Creatures that glide are illustrated. Dawkins answers why mammals are found in the sea if mammals evolved from fish and then proceeds to give examples of fish that have strange adaptations via natural selection such as the flat-fish.

Chapter 5 "The Forty-fold Path to Enlightenment"
Dawkins describes the evolution of the eye in vast detail. The evolution of the eye is often called impossible by some yet the solution is again found in the gradual process of natural selection. Dawkins then goes on to show how the eye has independently evolved in other species.

Chapter 6 "The Museum of All Shells"
Using just three mathematical variables of the flare, verm and spire Dawkins systematically develops complex shells. Then by adding another dimension of size and change of each possible variable Dawkins surprises the reader with an array of every complex form of life on the planet today. This is a real eye-opener... and an evolved eye at that.

Chapter 7 "Kaleidoscopic Embryos"
If you have ever wondered how those amazing jellyfish look so mechanical Dawkins explains it using the idea of kaleidoscopes and natural selection. This chapter then leads up to another surprise of how body parts evolve into their complexities from less complex designs. This is yet another brain raiser... and an evolved brain at that too.

Chapter 8 "Pollen Grains and Magic Bullets"
Dawkins illustrates and describes the symbiotic relationships between flowers and the insects they need to reproduce them, all developed via natural selection.

Chapter 9 "The Robot Repeater"
All living things are in fact hosts for DNA. DNA for wings is there so that wings can help DNA spread. DNA says copy me to copy me. That's it! This is the meaning of life in a nutshell. Shockingly simple but this is what has been at the heart of all biological questions since humans first asked "why we are the way we are?" using our emergent consciousness.

Chapter 10 "A Garden Inclosed"
Dawkins does the evolution of the fig via natural selection in a way that only very patient readers or professional biologists will appreciate. It's the book's example of tour-de-force natural selection. It is highly complex and requires several readings to even begin to comprehend it.

This book is a world beyond the question of whether evolution is real or not. Not only is this book dealing with the fact of evolution but its business is with the mechanisms of natural selection in all its forms as a real process that is observable, testable and verifiable. For people who are still unsure about evolution this book will not only convince but does so by going into the deep end and presenting what biologists know about this certainty of life.

The style of critical thinking is also something to learn outside of the book's topic. Dawkins writes likes it is the reader who is doing all the work, and they are if they can think through every step of his mountain climb. You will never see life the same way again. Everything, and I mean everything, you see will be subject to analysis. Dawkins has set his standards as high as Everest. You will stand at the summit with a refined critical mind and that is guaranteed.
September 25, 2007

Evolution of eyes, spiderwebs, wings, and clamshells

Many people find it difficult to understand how complex structures like eyes and wings evolved through random evolution. Dawkins does a thorough job here laying out just how evolution works. He makes it clear that evolution is not random--it is the accumulation of gradual changes, over centuries and millenia. Mutations are random; evolution is not. Dawkins is very good at explaining how each gradual change to a complex structure like an eye or a wing would have been useful enough to the animal possessing it to have contributed to its survival and producing more babies than its rivals. Those babies then become the starting point for the next round of evolution. The key word here is CUMULATIVE.

The book does get tedious in a few spots. I am less fascinated than Dawkins is by the details of the computer programs he uses to simulate certain types of evolution.

"Climbing Mount Improbable" is more or less a sequel to Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker," with additional detail. Although "Climbing Mount Improbable" is good, if you can read only one of the two books, I would suggest "The Blind Watchmaker."

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

June 02, 2007

There is current empirical evidence for evolution and speciation

I know this forum is supposed to be about the book, but I am so tired of people in the evolution vs. no-evolution debate claiming there is NO EVIDENCE (it's always in caps) for evolution. Can any of these people honestly claim they've done the research to support their claims? How many hours have they logged in research libraries? How many footnotes and bibliographies have they gone through and followed up on? I'm not saying there aren't issues with evolutionary theory and possible lines of argument. But the age-old "there isn't any direct evidence" simply is not true and it does a disservice to the debate to keep saying that. Here are just a FEW examples I've come across with minimal research:

First, the Grant's have done a 20 year, exhaustive, fasicinating study of the CURRENT evolution of the Galapogos finches. They have recorded measurable changes in morphology and behavior due to natural selection. It is not philosophy, it is not conjecture, it is in the data. Gigabytes of it.

Two, ACTUAL SPECIATION has been observed and studied in at least one species of fruit fly.

Microbiologists and pathologists (and anyone fighting disease today) can show you numerous example of evolution in action. MEASURABLE, QUANTIFIABLE evolution. Even if they didn't (and they did) does anyone out there think that antibiotics are becoming less effective because of intelligent design?

Several species of guppy's have been used to perform REPEATABLE, MEASURABLE expirements that demonstrate natural selection in action. This is a "real" experiment in a real lab, as if that's the only kind of science that means something; but still, if that's what people are complaining doesn't exist, they are wrong.

There is a journal devoted to covering evolution in action and the scientists that are observing it in nature and running experiments in the lab. You can read countless more stories (one of my favorite is the frog taking over Australia after 80 years of harmless-ness due to a favorable mutation).

The papers are all out there. The data is there. You just have to look (and be willing to look). And this is stuff I've come across as just a casual reader with an interest in evolution. I actually started out believing the DARWIN WAS IN CRISIS! Oh heavens! I read that there is was no evidence of evolution so maybe it evolution is just an unprovable theory (= philosophy). I actually believed that. But then I took the step that so many don't: I actually did some research - and it didn't take much. What a crazy idea.

So please, please stop saying there is no evidence until you have done the hard work of the research yourself and stop repeating cliche's from people with an agenda.
April 17, 2006

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
by Richard Dawkins

Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder
by Richard Dawkins

The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author
by Richard Dawkins

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
by Richard Dawkins

The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (Popular Science)
by Richard Dawkins