Skip to main content

Written in Stone – Brian Switek ****

It is interesting that Brian Switek starts his impressive look at our interpretation of fossils with a reference to the way the influence of a TV company called Atlantic Productions had made a scientific paper more like a TV documentary than science – as we had a similar complaint in our review of the book Dino Gangs, also steered by Atlantic Productions, being more like a shallow TV documentary and less like popular science writing. (Switek was also unimpressed by Dino Gangs.)
This is a powerful exploration of the way fossil discoveries have changed our understanding of the development of animals, taking us from the old idea of a chain of more and less advanced creatures (so we, for example, were further up the chain than the apes, and where parts of the chain are currently unknown there is a ‘missing link’) to a Darwin-inspired picture of a tree of life on which we are one of millions of twigs, with common ancestors, but rarely a direct connection to other existing animals.
The book is pitched at those who are already interested in the topic. I was amazed at the ignorance on a radio programme the other day when they were discussing American bison. They were told its Latin name was Bison bison (bison). The presenters were really surprised that a bison had a Latin name, and didn’t understand why it had more than one ‘bison’ in it. So a basic introduction has to be really basic. This is (perhaps thankfully) going in at a higher level.
After taking us through the discovery of the existence of fossils, and how they were interpreted through to and past Darwin, including a passable potted history of Darwin’s life and work, the book is divided into chapter on different types of fossil finds. There is inevitably one on mammals, but also, for example, on birds, whales and their predecessors and equally inevitably culminating in a chapter on human beings. Each of these is, in effect, a chapter of two halves. We start with the history of the discovery and gradual understanding of the fossil history, and segue into a description of a good number of fossil forms and how they can and can’t be structured into some kind of relationship.
For me the first part of the chapter was generally the most interesting bit. Switek really brings the historical context alive and immerses us in the sometimes petty squabbling, sometimes deep-felt beliefs that split the community investigating fossils (and still does to some extent today). This is inevitably a science that is feeling its way in the dark, dependent on random finds and requiring sometimes quite speculative interpretations of the evidence. It not only means that there will inevitably be points in history where the science has to back up and scrub away a chunk of its past, but also it’s easy to have two scientists both having good reasons to have opposing views about a fossil. The later parts of the chapters can occasionally descend into rather too many of those Latin names, discussing relatively minor differences between bones, something that is essential for the science, but doesn’t always make for entertaining reading.
By far the best chapter was the one on fossils from the same tree as humans. This was enthralling to read, in part inevitably because we have a special interest in these remains. It was brilliantly written and (in part because there aren’t too many appropriate finds) not overwhelmed in the later part.
All in all, a wonderful book for anyone who wants to get a real feel for how our understanding of fossils has developed over time and why science thinks the things it does about the development of animals on the Earth. Almost inevitably, because of the interpretative aspect of the science, there will be positions taken by Switek that won’t be agreed by every palaeontologist, but it’s hard to fault the insight that the reader is given into this remarkable science. Recommended.

Paperback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...

When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Steven Pinker *****

In the past I've found Steven Pinker's books hypnotic - I drift along enjoying the words and feeling I'm getting something deep from it without anything much sinking in. This one was different - it was sometimes a little harder to get your head around the underlying concept, descending as it tends to into infinite regression, but overall I did feel I'd gained a lot.  Pinker's focus here is 'common knowledge' which is when not only do we both/all know something, but we know that the other(s) know as well and the implications this has for human interactions. One entertaining thing to emerge from this is the ability to get into infinite loops of the 'I know that you know that I know that...' variety. Although we aren't mentally equipped to deal with more than a handful of iterations, we are told that a simple but limited interaction like a text exchange strictly needs the full infinite set to be definitive. For example, if you and a friend are tryin...