You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
informative
I really do not like Richard Dawkins. It isn’t even that I think his science is poor or unsound. I just think there are better books that deal with the topics presented here. Books that are not sexist or misogynistic. Books that are not written by someone who thinks they are smarter than anyone else and is condescending to those who have views that are even slightly different than their own.
I mean, if I hated science in high school, why would I willingly subject myself to another "sciency" book? Clearly, my taste buds for knowledge haven't evolved – still as sour as they were back in high school.
I now see why this book was such a big deal when it first came out and remains, to this day, to be one of the most important scientific books. Richard Dawkins demonstrates how natural selection works from the point of view of a single gene, rather than an individual animal or an entire species. It is the type of book that makes one look at the world and see life in a completely new light.
3 stars
and in this book, this concept is explained through the perspective of genes. Dawkins manages to present complicated topics like cell division, probability, and animal behaviours through the "eyes" of the gene which will use its survival machine (the organism) to survive.
It was fascinating to to learn about relationships and customs that I took for granted, and to now get more understanding on why they occur as they do (especially mutualism and parasitism). Since I learn a lot about this in school, though separately, here I was able to draw connections with Mr. Dawkins' guidance that really enriched my prior knowledge. That being said, Dawkins writes in a simple writing style that may sometimes sound contemptuous of the reader, but I don't think that was the intent: he obviously knows much more about the topic, why would he talk to us as an equal in the field? I also found some of his remarks quite funny or satirical and found they helped lift the mood from just the nitty-gritty science facts.
There are a few 1 star reviews that tie a lot to religion and how Dawkins is overly dismissive of this. In my opinion, I don't exactly understand why this forced people to rate the book so low, since religion is mentioned maybe 2 or 3 times in the book, and in passing. Is Dawkins a bit dismissive of it? Well yes, but he isn't rude about it, he just states that some aspects of religions don't line up with what can be deduced through science... then again maybe I'm not the best person to speak on this, as I too am atheist. I don't know. I sure have read a lot of books that presented religion in a ruder manner, so I thought that Dawkins went about this in a respectful way.
Overall, I thought this book was really insightful, and will definitely be picking up more titles from this author.
and in this book, this concept is explained through the perspective of genes. Dawkins manages to present complicated topics like cell division, probability, and animal behaviours through the "eyes" of the gene which will use its survival machine (the organism) to survive.
It was fascinating to to learn about relationships and customs that I took for granted, and to now get more understanding on why they occur as they do (especially mutualism and parasitism). Since I learn a lot about this in school, though separately, here I was able to draw connections with Mr. Dawkins' guidance that really enriched my prior knowledge. That being said, Dawkins writes in a simple writing style that may sometimes sound contemptuous of the reader, but I don't think that was the intent: he obviously knows much more about the topic, why would he talk to us as an equal in the field? I also found some of his remarks quite funny or satirical and found they helped lift the mood from just the nitty-gritty science facts.
There are a few 1 star reviews that tie a lot to religion and how Dawkins is overly dismissive of this. In my opinion, I don't exactly understand why this forced people to rate the book so low, since religion is mentioned maybe 2 or 3 times in the book, and in passing. Is Dawkins a bit dismissive of it? Well yes, but he isn't rude about it, he just states that some aspects of religions don't line up with what can be deduced through science... then again maybe I'm not the best person to speak on this, as I too am atheist. I don't know. I sure have read a lot of books that presented religion in a ruder manner, so I thought that Dawkins went about this in a respectful way.
Overall, I thought this book was really insightful, and will definitely be picking up more titles from this author.
Dawkins argues for why perceiving natural selection as occurring at the individual (or worse group) level is not correct. We should be looking at things as being selected for at the genetic level. Our genes are the immortal part of us that gets passed down. All the other aspects of us are just ways we have incrementally evolved to be more effective gene vehicles. So basically we are survival machines for our immortal genes.
We come from early replicator molecules that arose out of the primeval soup (ocean of molecules). Our early evolution can be boiled down to competition between these molecules to find the right mixture of 1. fecundity (speed of replication), 2. accuracy (of replications), and 3. longevity. Think of the gene as the individual and the gene pool as the environment in which it must survive.
Dawkins likens the relationship between us and our genes to a computer and a programmer. Once the program is written, it is being run by the computer with no input from the programmer. The control genes exert over us is unconscious. They are not consciously selecting for certain changes, everything is passive. This is because genes only really control protein synthesis which is a very slow process. Dawkins proposes that things like adaptability and learning may have arisen because they increase the odds of the machine surviving. The environment is constantly changing quickly and a machine that can adapt is more likely to succeed. He also proposes that consciousness arose out of the tendency for the ability to simulate scenarios to be selected for (concept of past and future and then self arising from this).
Evolutionarily stable strategies and aggression (ch 5)
Even when it is to the mutual benefit of all to act a certain way, the unequal gain of a deviant from this "agreement" will eventually upset this way of doing things (hawk-dove example). The gene pool is trending towards an evolutionarily stable set of genes, defined as a gene pool that cannot be invaded by any new gene.
"Genesmanship" and how kinmanship fits into Selfish Gene framework (ch 6)
We come from early replicator molecules that arose out of the primeval soup (ocean of molecules). Our early evolution can be boiled down to competition between these molecules to find the right mixture of 1. fecundity (speed of replication), 2. accuracy (of replications), and 3. longevity. Think of the gene as the individual and the gene pool as the environment in which it must survive.
Dawkins likens the relationship between us and our genes to a computer and a programmer. Once the program is written, it is being run by the computer with no input from the programmer. The control genes exert over us is unconscious. They are not consciously selecting for certain changes, everything is passive. This is because genes only really control protein synthesis which is a very slow process. Dawkins proposes that things like adaptability and learning may have arisen because they increase the odds of the machine surviving. The environment is constantly changing quickly and a machine that can adapt is more likely to succeed. He also proposes that consciousness arose out of the tendency for the ability to simulate scenarios to be selected for (concept of past and future and then self arising from this).
Evolutionarily stable strategies and aggression (ch 5)
Even when it is to the mutual benefit of all to act a certain way, the unequal gain of a deviant from this "agreement" will eventually upset this way of doing things (hawk-dove example). The gene pool is trending towards an evolutionarily stable set of genes, defined as a gene pool that cannot be invaded by any new gene.
"Genesmanship" and how kinmanship fits into Selfish Gene framework (ch 6)
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Professor Dawkins brings a modern approach to Darwin’s Natural Selection theory, describing concepts with clear metaphors and examples. It gives a deep understanding of genes as ‘replicators’ and how this replicating behaviour has resulted in the development from a primordial soup to the evolutionary convergent survival machines (agents that carry genes) on Earth today.
Written in the 1976, the book has had an oversize influence on present day science and is deeply prescient today, notably having invented the word ‘meme’ to describe our culture as a new replicator.
Many recent classics, such as Sapiens and Beginnings of Infinity have taken inspiration from Dawkins work, so for those interested in not just the origin, but also the future of the our, and all other, species this is highly recommended reading.
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
3 stars
Read it for my book club. Exhausted. Next time choose a different book to read. This book was way too long. But I learned a lot of biology facts and gained a completely new view on humans, our evolution, and history. Interesting, but boring. Sorry not sorry.
Read it for my book club. Exhausted. Next time choose a different book to read. This book was way too long. But I learned a lot of biology facts and gained a completely new view on humans, our evolution, and history. Interesting, but boring. Sorry not sorry.