Scan barcode
uditnair24's review
4.0
Charles Darwin gave us insights into the incredible phenomenon of natural selection. Although Charles Darwin said that the evolution is extremely slow process and it's hard to witness it in a lifespan. Well for once Darwin is not right and this book is all about the wonders of Human Induced Rapid Evolutionary change. After reading this book one would be able to see through the life or more appropriately the ecology of urban centers in a more special, more interesting way and ofcourse worthy of more than a casual glance. The author has passionately made an argument about the fact that humans are integral part of ever changing world. Urban ecosystems are very much the place where real ecology and real evolution go on contrary to popular notions. As a whole it's a great read with well documented examples and anecdotes.
balletbookworm's review
4.0
A surprisingly fun - and chatty - book of urban biodiversity and evolution. As the world changes, and more and more people migrate around the world and into cities, there will be more “rural” species that more into the city and become “urban” species. At the this point we also can’t get away from the reality that humans have contributed to these changes as we have helped transport species from their native niches all over the globe. Very interesting.
ihorbook's review
4.0
Невелика книга про те, як рослини і тварини пристосовуються до життя поруч з людьми і як це доволі швидко веде до змін навіть на генетичному рівні. Багато цікавих історій, але найбільше мене вразили соми, які у французьких містечках навчились полювати на голубів, що приходять до річки напитись води.
nika_2's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
3.5
moseslh's review
2.0
I enjoyed this book, which had some interesting examples of urban evolution, but I was not entirely convinced by it, despite endorsements on the back cover from [a:Elizabeth Kolbert|45840|Elizabeth Kolbert|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1380812913p2/45840.jpg] and [a:Robert Sapolsky|19199133|Robert Sapolsky|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png], two biology writers I greatly admire.
Darwin Comes to Town examines the ways in which rapid natural selection and genetic evolution occur among organisms as they adapt to urban settings. While Schilthuizen documents some astonishing adaptations that animals have to urban environments, he often fails to provide convincing evidence of his claim that these adaptations are genetic in nature, rather than epigenetic or non-genetic. I am inclined to agree that genetic changes played a role in many of these adaptations, and that these adaptations are significant and worthy of study, but in my view his thesis was too bold a claim to be supported by his evidence.
Schilthuizen's analysis of the implications of urban evolution also struck me as odd. He argues that because urban evolution is occurring, we should embrace and encourage it, which I believe is a glaring example of the naturalistic fallacy (it is occurring, therefore it ought to be occurring). He dismisses concerns about invasive species by noting that nonnative species often end up better adapted to urban environments than native species, even though I think that line of reasoning works just as well for the opposite argument, that we should combat invasive species because they will outcompete native species. In just about every argument his concluding chapter makes, he jumps from "is" to "ought" without any explanation of why the status quo is beneficial.
Schilthuizen's conclusions are even stranger when taken in the context of the book's first chapter, "Nature's Ultimate Ecosystem Engineer." In this chapter, he explains the concept of ecosystem engineering with the fascinating example of ants that completely engineer their ecosystems to fit their needs, complete with their own versions of agriculture, livestock, roads, armies, and nurseries. He then explores the myriad ways in which other insects thave evolved around these ant societies. Schilthuizen intends this to be analogous to the ecosystem engineering that humans engage in on a greater scale, but there's a serious problem with this: in every example he gives of insects evolving around ants' ecosystem engineering, the insects in question have evolved clever ways to invade ant societies to devour ants and their babies. While these adaptations are fascinating, they hardly lead one to the conclusion that humans should automatically embrace every organism adapting to our cities, as most people do not want their babies to be eaten. Schilthuizen may be correct that there are often benefits to embracing urban evolution, but he does not clearly establish what those are.
Despite my qualms with its argumentation, I did enjoy the descriptive portions of the book about surprising adaptations to urban life. I was amazed to hear that a new species of mosquitos has evolved to live in London's subway tunnels, or that urban catfish in France have evolved to hunt pigeons(!), which now make up the majority of their diet. I would certainly recommend this book to anyone particularly interested in the subject matter, but with the caveat to take its arguments with a grain of salt.
Darwin Comes to Town examines the ways in which rapid natural selection and genetic evolution occur among organisms as they adapt to urban settings. While Schilthuizen documents some astonishing adaptations that animals have to urban environments, he often fails to provide convincing evidence of his claim that these adaptations are genetic in nature, rather than epigenetic or non-genetic. I am inclined to agree that genetic changes played a role in many of these adaptations, and that these adaptations are significant and worthy of study, but in my view his thesis was too bold a claim to be supported by his evidence.
Schilthuizen's analysis of the implications of urban evolution also struck me as odd. He argues that because urban evolution is occurring, we should embrace and encourage it, which I believe is a glaring example of the naturalistic fallacy (it is occurring, therefore it ought to be occurring). He dismisses concerns about invasive species by noting that nonnative species often end up better adapted to urban environments than native species, even though I think that line of reasoning works just as well for the opposite argument, that we should combat invasive species because they will outcompete native species. In just about every argument his concluding chapter makes, he jumps from "is" to "ought" without any explanation of why the status quo is beneficial.
Schilthuizen's conclusions are even stranger when taken in the context of the book's first chapter, "Nature's Ultimate Ecosystem Engineer." In this chapter, he explains the concept of ecosystem engineering with the fascinating example of ants that completely engineer their ecosystems to fit their needs, complete with their own versions of agriculture, livestock, roads, armies, and nurseries. He then explores the myriad ways in which other insects thave evolved around these ant societies. Schilthuizen intends this to be analogous to the ecosystem engineering that humans engage in on a greater scale, but there's a serious problem with this: in every example he gives of insects evolving around ants' ecosystem engineering, the insects in question have evolved clever ways to invade ant societies to devour ants and their babies. While these adaptations are fascinating, they hardly lead one to the conclusion that humans should automatically embrace every organism adapting to our cities, as most people do not want their babies to be eaten. Schilthuizen may be correct that there are often benefits to embracing urban evolution, but he does not clearly establish what those are.
Despite my qualms with its argumentation, I did enjoy the descriptive portions of the book about surprising adaptations to urban life. I was amazed to hear that a new species of mosquitos has evolved to live in London's subway tunnels, or that urban catfish in France have evolved to hunt pigeons(!), which now make up the majority of their diet. I would certainly recommend this book to anyone particularly interested in the subject matter, but with the caveat to take its arguments with a grain of salt.