Skip to main content

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead. That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes.

Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová.

The first half of the book particularly captivated me. Dawkins starts by showing, for example, how the skin patterns of animals from tigers to insects reflect the history of their ancestors in terms of location, with some stunning examples of concealment. He goes on to take us through, for example, the tortuous evolutionary route that led to the tortoise and to the songs of birds. Perhaps my favourite part of all is the chapter on cuckoos and how members the same species can lay totally different looking eggs to fit with the host the specific female line tends to parasitise - and why the host birds can end up feeding a chick far larger than itself without hesitation.

Some of the later parts of the book are less immediately attractive because they are more about genetic history that does not have the same visual impact, so it becomes less of an illustrated book - and what comes through is more technical and less on the clear impact we can directly experience.

This is a book that continues Dawkins' long time assertion that organisms are vehicles for genes to replicate, hence his original bestseller The Selfish Gene. No one working in the field doubts the importance of genes, but there is now a considerable backlash against the intense focus on the genome, as typified by the 'new biology' described in Philip Ball's How Life Works. Given that Dawkins dedicates a whole chapter to attacking the idea that organisms use genes, rather genes using organisms, but doesn't really take on the idea that the genome is just one of many systems in the body that impact how life develops, and so will have an impact on where a particular animal 'comes from' (the focus of this book), it does make Dawkins look distinctly on the defensive.

To an outsider, it feels as if that Dawkins is in a similar position to that of many physicists at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century. They struggled with discovering that the physical world is far more complex than had been assumed. Similarly, those for whom genetics is as central to their understanding of life, as is the case with Dawkins, may well be feeling that this 'new biology' is a challenge to fight against, despite it seeming likely to be the correct path forward.

This being the case, this book is interesting for two reasons. One is the fascinating illustration of the legacy current species have from their ancestors past environment and lives, driven certainly significantly by genetics. And the other is the philosophy (or possibly sociology) of science aspect of seeing how a potential Kuhnian paradigm shift impacts the old believers.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

Vector - Robyn Arianrhod ****

This is a remarkable book for the right audience (more on that in a moment), but one that's hard to classify. It's part history of science/maths, part popular maths and even has a smidgen of textbook about it, as it has more full-on mathematical content that a typical title for the general public usually has. What Robyn Arianrhod does in painstaking detail is to record the development of the concept of vectors, vector calculus and their big cousin tensors. These are mathematical tools that would become crucial for physics, not to mention more recently, for example, in the more exotic aspects of computing. Let's get the audience thing out of the way. Early on in the book we get a sentence beginning ‘You likely first learned integral calculus by…’ The assumption is very much that the reader already knows the basics of maths at least to A-level (level to start an undergraduate degree in a 'hard' science or maths) and has no problem with practical use of calculus. Altho

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on