Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe by Simon Conway Morris (PDF)

Description

Life’s Solution builds a persuasive case for the predictability of evolutionary outcomes. The case rests on a remarkable compilation of examples of convergent evolution, in which two or more lineages have independently evolved similar structures and functions. The examples range from the aerodynamics of hovering moths and hummingbirds to the use of silk by spiders and some insects to capture prey. Going against the grain of Darwinian orthodoxy, this book is a must read for anyone grappling with the meaning of evolution and our place in the Universe. Simon Conway Morris is the Ad Hominen Professor in the Earth Science Department at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of St. John’s College and the Royal Society. His research focuses on the study of constraints on evolution, and the historical processes that lead to the emergence of complexity, especially with respect to the construction of the major animal body parts in the Cambrian explosion. Previous books include The Crucible of Creation (Getty Center for Education in the Arts, 1999) and co-author of Solnhofen (Cambridge, 1990). Hb ISBN (2003) 0-521-82704-3

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review “Life’s Solution is an absorbing presentation written to challenge and inform the mind of the reader. Life’s Solution is a superb contribution to both Contemporary Philosophy Studies academic reference collections and University level and Evolutionary Biology reading lists.” Is Library Bookwatch, December 2003″Simon Conway Morris’s bold new book, Life’s Solution, challenges this Darwinian orthodoxy by extending ideas he presented in his Crucible of Creation. Conway Morris presents scores of fascinating examples that are less familiar. The lesson is clear. The living world is peppered with recurrent themes; it is not an accumulation of unique events.” — New York Times Book Review”Simon Conway Morris’s bold new book, Life’s Solution, challenges [the] Darwinian orthodoxy by extending ideas he presented in his ‘Crucible of Creation’…Conway Morris presents scores of fascinating examples that are less familiar. The lesson is clear. The living world is peppered wtih recurrent themes; it is not an accumulation of unique events.” New York Times Book Review”Are human beings the insignificant products of countless quirky biological accidents, or the expected result of evolutionary patterns deeply embedded in the structure of natural selection? Drawing upon diverse biological evidence, Conway Morris convincingly argues that the general features of our bodies and minds are indeed written into the laws of the universe. This is a truly inspiring book, and a welcome antidote to the bleak nihilism of the ultra-Darwinists.” Paul Davies, Author of Mind of GodPraise for previous book… “Having spent four centuries taking the world to bits and trying to find out what makes it tick, in the 21st century scientists are now trying to fit the pieces together and understand why the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Simon Conway Morris provides the best overview, from a biolgical viewpoint, of how complexity on the large scale arises from simple laws on the small scale, and why creatures like us may not be the accidents that many suppose. This is the most important book about evolution since The Selfish Gene; essential reading for everyone who has wondered about why we are here in a Universe that seems tailor-made for life. John Gribbin, Author of Science: A History”Morris gives a detailed and fascinating account of numerous examples of evolutionary convergence, ranging in scale and complexity from molecular functions to physiology, morphology, sensory organs, behavior, complex social systems, and, finally, intelligence. Highly recommended for both academic and larger public libraries.” Library Journal”If you have not done so … read Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe.” Toronto, Ontario Globe & Mail Book Description A controversial challenge to current views of evolution, for the general reader. About the Author Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge, he is also the author of The Crucible of Creation (1998). Read more

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Author Simon Conway Morris wrote in the Preface to this 2003 book, “The central theme of this book depends on the realities of evolutionary convergence: the recurrent tendency of biological organization to arrive at the same ‘solution’ to a particular ‘need.’… Its main, but not ultimate, aim is to argue that, contrary to received wisdom, the emergence of human intelligence is a near-inevitability. My purpose is not to demonstrate the inevitability of a five-fingered organism… it is … the recurrent emergence of… various biological properties…“[T]here are four conclusions. First, what we regard as complex is usually inherent in simpler systems: the real … question in evolution is … how it is that things are put together. Second, the number of evolutionary end-points is limited: by no means everything is possible. Third, what is possible has usually been arrived at multiple times, meaning that the emergence of the various biological properties is effectively inevitable. Finally, all this takes time. What was impossible billions of years ago becomes increasingly inevitable: evolution has trajectories (trends, if you prefer) and progress is … simply part of our reality.” (Pg. xii-xiii)He goes on, “convergence also opens another door. If the emergence of our sentience was effectively inevitable, then perhaps we should take rather more seriously the sentiences of other species? So too perhaps we should stand back and consider what a very odd set-up it is we inhabit, from the eerily efficient genetic code, to the deeply peculiar molecule DNA, to a set of biological organizations that repeatedly throw up complex structures, not least the brain… [Fred Hoyle’s] remark that the Universe was a set-up job rings strangely true… if you happen to be a ‘creation scientist’ … and have read this far, may I politely suggest that you put this book back on the shelf. It will do you no good. Evolution is true, is happens, it is the way the world is, and we too are one of its products.”This does not mean that evolution does not have metaphysical implications; I remain convinced that this is the case. To deny, however, the reality of evolution and … to distort deliberately the scientific evidence in support of fundamentalist tenets is inadmissible. Contrary to popular belief, the science of evolution does not belittle us. As I argue, something like ourselves is an evolutionary inevitability, and our existence also reaffirms our one-ness with the rest of Creation. Nevertheless, the free will we are given allows us to make a choice. Of course, it might all be a glorious accident; but alternatively perhaps now is the time to take some of the implications of evolution and the world in which we find ourselves a little more seriously.” (Pg. xv-xvi)He states, “to anticipate the main theme of this book—let us accept that the genetic code must be spectacularly efficient, driven to a one-in-a-hundred-million alternatives by the remorseless action of selection. All life shares this one code, but this commonality has not stifled the creative potentials of life, as both the fossil record and the exuberance of the living world so clearly demonstrate. Yet for all this exuberance and flair there are constraints: convergence is inevitable, yet paradoxically the net result is… a patent trend of increased complexity.” (Pg. 21)He points out, “Earlier I remarked on the gleeful abasement of humans, not least to inform us that we are insignificant worms in the cosmic drama… Suppose, at least for the sake of the argument… that the earth is genuinely a cosmic accident… [Evolutionary] orthodoxy states that evolution can potentially explore a million different trajectories. Even if somewhere there is a planet like Earth, so the argument continues, there may well be life but assuredly no biped writing lines similar to these… I shall try to persuade you to take another view.” (Pg. 105)He observes, “the principal topic is … the attempt to establish the likelihood of the repeated emergence of complex biological systems.” (Pg. 201) Later, he adds, “many of the evolutionary features that help to define the human are convergent. If such features as warm-bloodedness, vocalization, and even agriculture can evolve independently, then so, took on any suitable planet the same will emerge. Yet at this stage there is surely a dimension missing… we still seem to be far removed from anything specifically human with such hallmarks as bipedality, tool-making, culture, and intelligence…” (Pg. 228)He suggests, “Suppose that there are advanced extraterrestrials: will they be like us, at least vaguely humanoid, or so alien as to defy belief and perhaps even recognition, let alone communication?… not only are there good arguments that aliens would see and smell using very similar proteins to those we use, but their electrical conductivity would again converge towards the same solution.” (Pg. 229, 231)He notes, “So are we, as humanoids, in some sense either very probable, or perhaps even inevitable?… it now seems increasingly likely that whatever alternatives there might be they are going to be highly restricted. How many avenues are available even for the origin of life? Given our lack of success in this area…could there be only one?….[DNA] might be a molecule uniquely suitable for biological processes. Even the strange optimization of the genetic code indicates that although there must be alternatives, they are not going to be abundant. If life is universal, it also seems likely that it has a universal basis… life may well be a universal principle, but that does not prevent our being alone.” (Pg. 233-234)He argues, “what we know of evolution suggests … convergence is ubiquitous and the constraints of life make the emergence of the various biological properties very probable, if not inevitable. Arguments that the equivalent of Homo sapiens cannot appear on some distant planet miss the point: what is at issue is not the precise pathway by which we evolved, but the various and successive likelihoods of the evolutionary steps that culminated in out humanness.” (Pg. 283-284)He clarifies, “It might be claimed that convergence is too elusive a concept to have any real validity: what after all does ‘similar’ really mean in a biological context?… My overall approach … is to see in the recurrent emergence of biological properties such as intelligence, memory, and self-recognition… a program that is more interested in the definition and probability of complex states than the precise history that led to any particular example.” (Pg. 300-301)He states, “the number of potential ‘blind alleys’ is so enormous that in principle all the time since the beginning of the Universe would be insufficient to find the one in a trillion-trillion solutions that actually work…. The stock response is to invoke a million monkeys typing alternatives, with the invisible hand nudging the myriad of efforts toward the correct Shakespearean sonnet… This really misses the point, first because it presupposes that the correct version is known all along, and secondly because it fails to tackle the problem of the almost illimitable size of biological ‘hyperspaces.’… It is my suspicion that … [there may be] a deeper fabric to biology in which Darwinian evolution remains central as the agency, but the nodes of occupation are effectively determined from the Big Bang. One such node is, of course, that of the humanoid, and from the present evolutionary perspective we are undeniably unique. Yet… if we had not arrived at sentience and called ourselves human, then probably sooner rather than later some other group would have done so, perhaps from within the primates, perhaps from further afield, even much further afield… it is now supposed that with our origins revealed this must banish any religious instinct: what was almost universally believed is now to be seen as an immense delusion. Now is the time, it is proclaimed, to adopt wholeheartedly the naturalistic view of life… we shall see that things are not necessarily so simple.” (Pg. 309-310)He asserts, “the pronouncements of the ultra-Darwinists can shake with a religious fervor. Richard Dawkins is arguably England’s most pious atheist… Notwithstanding the quasi-religious enthusiasms of ultra-Darwinists, their own understanding of theology is a combination of ignorance and derision… It seldom seems to strike the ultra-Darwinists that theology might have its own richness and subtleties, and might… actually tell us things about the world that are not only to our real advantage, but will never be revealed by science.” (Pg. 315-316) Later, he adds, “Despite these antagonisms, however, there are also attempts to find common ground between sciences and religions, most notably in the field of cosmology… Yet despite this, strange to say, biology and especially genetics have their own fundamentalisms.” (Pg. 322)He summarizes, “The idea of a universe suitable for us is, of course, encapsulated in various anthropic principles… they all remind us that the physical world has many properties necessary for the emergence of life… Not only is the Universe strangely fit to purpose, but so… is life’s ability to navigate to its solutions… at the heart of the study of evolution are two things. One… is the uncanny ability of evolution to navigate to the appropriate solution through immense ‘hyperspaces’ of biological possibility. The other… is the attempt to explain the origins of sentience… [and] our strange sense of purpose… [So] given that evolution has produced sentient species with a sense of purpose, it is reasonable to take the claims of theology seriously… the discussion… is more than worth the effort. In my opinion it will be our lifeline.” (Pg. 327-328)He concludes, “the complexity and beauty of ‘Life’s Solution’ can never cease to astound. None of it presupposes, let alone proves, the existence of God, but all is congruent. For some it will remain as the pointless activity of the Blind Watchmaker, but others may prefer to remove their dark glasses. The choice, of course, is yours.” (Pg. 330)This book will be “must reading” for those interested in contemporary evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design, and similar issues.

⭐”Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe,” by Simon Conway Morris, received a critical review from a mainstream evolutionary biologist in SCIENCE, 5 December 2003. It was stated that many biologists may be convinced that Conway Morris is giving aid and comfort to the enemy (the creationists). The reviewer saw that Conway Morris opposes creationism, but was still critical.I can see that the book might be irritating to materialists (scientific or otherwise), but if its sometimes-controversial tone is overlooked, it has much to offer the general reader. When Conway Morris takes a position that is not orthodox, it is usually qualified with a question mark. I think the major positive contribution of the book is its many fascinating examples of convergence.There is a remarkable relationship between the views of Stephen Jay Gould in “Wonderful Life,” published in 1989, and those of Conway Morris in “Life’s Solution,” published in 2003. Conway Morris opposes Gould’s idea of contingency. But the strange thing is that Gould, while claiming support for contingency from the Cambrian fauna, praised the work of Conway Morris on that fauna.From the time of the Cambrian explosion of animal forms to the present there has been a marked reduction in the number of general forms. Gould would take this as evidence of the fragility of forms in the face of chance contingencies. But Conway Morris sees it as a consequence of convergence. The two men seemingly differ only in their conclusions from the evidence, but I think there is a deeper divide. To Gould nature is fundamentally probabilistic, but to Conway Morris it is deterministic. I agree, recalling that Einstein championed determinism in physics.Gould used the idea of replaying the tape of evolution. He argued that contingencies would make the reappearance of man very unlikely. To Gould, a replay is only a thought experiment to help us understand. But Conway Morris asks what can be done in the laboratory? On pages 121-124 he describes experiments done by Lenski and Travisano with the bacterium Escherichia coli over a large number of generations. It was first separated into several populations. Then they were allowed to diversify, and were separated further. Finally all populations were switched from their customary and agreeable glucose diet to a maltose diet and allowed to try to adapt during 1000 generations. The degree and mode of their adaptation was partly due to convergence, in addition to starting points and chance, and the three could be separated statistically. Over the long term, convergence won.Conway Morris questions the theory of the “RNA world,” including the idea that the RNA was self-replicating. I think he overdoes his skepticism there. A Perspective by Leslie Orgel: “A simpler nucleic acid,” in SCIENCE, 17 Nov 2000, discusses self-replication of the simpler nucleic acid TNA as well as RNA. It seems to me that the self-replicating property of RNA, TNA and similar nucleic acids assures the appearance of life by one route or another, and so discounts Conway Morris’s notion that the conditions for life have to be “just right,” as they are on Earth. He argues that those conditions are rare in the universe, and so account for our failure to see evidence of life elsewhere. My own view is different: My guess is that we don’t find intelligent life elsewhere because when it reaches our stage of development it self-destructs. Maybe that creates a challenge: Can we be the first to acquire wisdom as well as technical skill?Is evolutionary convergence merely a convergence of characters of two or more species when they adapt to similar ecological niches? Conway Morris would like to embed the concept in a more structured context. In reference to an interesting application he expresses it in terms of “morphological space.” The particular application is to “skeleton space” as defined by Thomas and Reif. He seems to be saying that each of the conceivable morphologies in skeleton space is a fixed-point attractor. The attractor emerges as the laws of nature guide the unfolding dynamics of evolution.Is this concept of fixed-point attractors in a character space too discrete? In “The Crucible of Creation” Conway Morris gives another example, from the work of D.M. Raup: the morphospace for the geometry of the shells secreted by the molluscs. Some regions of this morphospace are thickly populated. But other zones are more or less empty. In these, the solutions to the equations that govern the geometry can be used to visualize the hypothetical shapes, but they somehow look “wrong.” Thus the general morphospace is continuous, but only particular points are realized in the real world determined by evolution.Conway Morris makes a good case for the inevitability of humans, but the evidence is sometimes fragmentary. I think this is only the beginning. There may be as yet untapped evidence in our own present natures. In particular, I suspect that a physical understanding of the network dynamics of our nervous systems will lead to the conclusion that the brains which appeared in the Cambrian explosion would inevitably evolve to the present level, and perhaps beyond.In Chapter 10 Conway Morris returns to the ubiquity of convergence. Convergence is found not only in directly observable phenotypic characters, but also at the molecular level. For instance, the protein rhodopsin for color vision is tuned to particular colors by substitutions at key sites, and different species adapting to the same color sometimes use identical substitutions. It can become uncertain whether molecular similarities and identities are due to convergence or common ancestry. Thus there is at the present level of knowledge a measure of uncertainty which could be exploited by creationists. But fortunately overall outlines of order are found in cladistic analysis based on molecular evidence. This reflects general human understanding as it looks out on the world with faith that order will be found.

⭐A chunky read and full of interesting concepts

⭐Dieses Buch ist auch im abschließenden Kapitel von Richard Dawkins’lesenswertem Buch “Ancestor’s Tale” sehr positiv aufgenommen worden. Allein das Literaturverzeichnis von Conway Morris “erschlägt” einen. Sehr überraschend, daß es zu einem bislang eher als abseitig gehandelten Thema wie dem der “Konvergenten Evolution” plötzlich eine solche Fülle von allerjüngsten Forschungsergebnissen gibt. Conway Morris versteht es hervorragend, eine so umfangreiche Literatur kurz und knapp auf das Wesentliche reduziert zu referieren. Dennoch – oder gerade deshalb – eine höchst anspruchsvolle Lektüre! Ein im Grunde genommen vorwiegend PHILOSOPHISCHES Buch allein mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fakten geschrieben. (Das letzte Kapitel allerdings kann – und sollte man – übergehen.)

⭐

⭐un livre qui est la réplique du fameux “la vie est belle” de Gould. Parfois un peu ardu, mais convaincant.

⭐

⭐reads like the work of a man full of bile, how he can be so scathing about Gould AND dawkins leaves me flumoxed. detailed, well constructed arguments are derailed by psuedo-mystical musings, leaving a deeply unsatisfying whole.

⭐bad very bad

Keywords

Free Download Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe in PDF format
Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe PDF Free Download
Download Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe 2004 PDF Free
Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe 2004 PDF Free Download
Download Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe PDF
Free Download Ebook Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe