Why Evolution is True: An Examination of Coyne’s Book Science truly has unveiled many of the mysteries of the world, with many scientific discoveries provoking more questions than answers regarding the nature of our existence and life on this planet. Even so, evolution and the question of evolution continues to spark debate and intrigue. Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution Is True asserts that the evidence points repeatedly to evolution as a result of natural selection. The evidence that Coyne refers to is massive and originates from a wealth of data in an array of fields—from genetics to anatomy to virtually every sector of the sciences. Coyne makes compelling arguments that demonstrate why the subject of evolution is so fascinating even today, with all the strides in technology and the sciences that we have undergone. While Coyne firmly sees evolution as undebateable, anyone who possesses the faculties of critical thinking will be able to explore a more nuances argument or perspective on many of the things that he professes to be ironclad truths.

The first chapter, entitled What is evolution? involves Coyne explaining what evolution is in a succinct definition according to six tenets: “Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection” (2010, 3). As Coyne explains, this definition breaks down to six pillars: evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms of evolutionary change (2010). Coyne also makes meaningful points about scientific theory, asserting that scientific theory needs to be something that can be tested and make legitimate predictions that one can verify. One of the biggest arguments to this definition of evolution is that there’s no scientific evidence for this hypothetical “self-replicating molecule.” There’s literally no evidence for it that exists in science, only factors that suggest it may have existed 3.5 billion years ago. The ironclad evidence that Coyne constantly refers to is built on a definition that appears to contain pure speculation. As someone who was raised in a household with a primarily creationist worldview, this definition of life on this planet goes against everything I was taught. Evolution according to this theory really does depend on these slow, miniscule changes in all existing creatures. One could argue that if evolution were actually true, there would be thousands of times more evidence of transitional fossilized forms of these creatures than the complete ones. Much of what science refers to as transitional fossils or fossilized remains of transitional creatures are actually examples of creatures that have completely functional and fully formed parts.

The next chapter, “Written in the Rocks” is a discussion of Coyne’s belief that fossils offer lucid evidence for evolutionary transformations. Here in this chapter, Coyne discusses things like missing links, transitional forms and how birds originate, the colonization of land, originating from water, and the return to water by particular groups of mammals. Much of what Coyne discusses in this chapter appears to revolve around his argument that the fossil record shows clear evidence for evolution in that one can see species changing into more sophisticated versions of the origin species. “We should be able to see cases of evolutionary change within lineages: that is, one species of animal or plant changing into something different over time. Later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones. And since the history of life involves the splitting of species from common ancestors, we should able to see this splitting—and find evidence of those ancestors—in the fossil record” (2010, 27). The problem that I have with this notion is that it’s all interpretation. Everything that Coyne asserts as species transitioning in their development is still viewed through the perspective of human interpretation. The example he offers of 19th century anatomists who predicted that mammals evolved from ancient reptiles, and that fossilizations of reptiles should be uncovered that were becoming more mammal-like seems tenuous. From a creationist perspective, it doesn’t look like the change was gradual, as all the fossils uncovered are still fully formed. While one can’t expect the fossil record to answer all questions, one would expect that there would be fossils of reptiles who developed partially formed mammalian...

Yet again, there have not been any findings of incomplete fossils during the millions of years of evolution to support this theory of gradual development.
The following chapter, entitled Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos and Bad Design discusses vestigial organs, atavisms, and genes that don’t work properly and demonstrate the concept of evolutionary design. In this chapter, Coyne defines what he refers to as a “vestigial trait: a feature of a species that was an adaptation in its ancestors, but that has either lost its usefulness completely or, as in the ostrich, has been co-opted for new uses” (2010, 57). Coyne goes on to explain that all flightless birds evolved from ancestors who flew, and that their wings now have a new function: the wings provide them with balance and help to scare off predators. This seems like one of the more logical aspects of evolution: if a species doesn’t use or rely on a trait or ability, it would make sense over time that this trait or ability would cease to manifest and the body would reflect that. A loose example of this would be how early humans used to climb trees more often (not recreationally as they do now) as a survival strategy and to escape from predators (Collins, 2012). It’s likely that their skin was more rugged and callous to act as a buffer and shield from the friction and elements it was in constant contact with. Since humans don’t require such a buffer or such limberness in athleticism, we’ve largely lost those traits. However, the problem with Coyne’s argument is that it reeks of an intelligent person attempting to mar the mysteries of science and of living existence in a manner that shows very neat and pat patterns. Coyne argues that vestigial characteristics have lost the ability for which they were evolved (ie-wings on flightless birds), but this demonstrates how scientists view wings as primarily for flight. Yes, that is a primary use for wings but the wings of both flightless and flying birds still provide a wealth of uses aside from flying, such as communication, scaring off predators, find food, find mates and others functions. It’s a very human and presumptuous assumption to argue that since a certain bird can’t fly in present day it must have evolved from one that could.

Chapter four, entitled The Geography of Life discusses biogeography and how animals throughout the earth end up in certain places on the globe. Coyne uses these facts as proof that only evolution, and evolution alone can adequately explain the variety of creatures on the planet and how they were distributed. One aspect of this that Coyne meditated on is that Darwin had trouble explaining that if all flightless birds originated from one ancestor, why did so many of them end up on such different and distinct parts of the globe. Coyne explains that Darwin was not appropriately aware of continental drift and molecular taxonomy, and how now with information derived from DNA and protein sequences, we now have a much better idea of when creature diverged from a common ancestor (2010, 97). As Coyne argues, this creates a molecular clock that works with the movements of the continents and the creation of land bridges. The arguments that Coyne makes don’t really persuade compellingly enough to convince me that a common ancestor necessarily exists. While such an explanation might please scientists who want to answer the inherently problematic questions that evolution constantly raises, to me it just shows more gaps in the logistics of evolution. For example, 535 million years ago, The Cambrian explosion begins, with many new body layouts appearing on the scene – though the seeming rapidity of the appearance of new life forms may simply be an illusion caused by a lack of older fossils” (Marshall, 2009). Again, this clearly demonstrates one of the big gaps in the whole theory of evolution: it simply doesn’t account for the fact that all these new life forms just suddenly appeared within the geological blink of an eye: they didn’t exist and then all of a sudden they did. This distinctly contradicts the notion of gradualism that is inherent within evolutionary theory. Then later, 489 million years ago, “The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event begins, leading to a great increase in diversity. Within each of the major groups of animals and plants, many new varieties appear” (Marshall, 2009). Again, this is another event that pokes holes into the foundations of evolutionary theory. It is unclear as to why this sudden biodiversity debuted and where…