Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.99 AVERAGE
3.99 AVERAGE
As ever from Dawkins, a fascinating read about evolution and how it works. It felt a bit similar to his other books, though with different examples.
Sometime last year I read The Greatest Show on Earth by the same author. I also wrote a rave reviewon the book. Now I suspect you're expecting me to proclaim that this book wil get the opposite treatment....well not quite.
First off I do love the analogy of Mount Improbable that Dawkins has come up with. Mount Improbable being a symbol for life on Earth. On one side are the creationists. This mountain seems to them to be insurmountable, there are deep crevices, severe drops an pitfalls, and seemingly the only way the variou species have got to where they are is through some devine in fluence placing them there. What they fail to realise is that on the other side of the mountain is an easy gentle slope weaving a path through evolutionary time, gradually gaining height.
A superb way of looking at it yes? I certainly thought so which is why I was rather disappointed that the analogy wasn't really a running theme throughout the book. I do understand that certain flowers only attract a certain type of bee to guaruntee pollination, I understand that there are mutually beneficial relationshis between certain species in nature but where was Mount Improbable in all this?
When I read The Greatest Show on Earth what struck me was Dawkins' passon for his subject. The message of the book was constantly repeated, drummed into me as a reader and especially as this was an alien subject to me at the time it was something I really appriciated as a student wanting to learn. I found the passion lacking in this particular book.
Not to say it isn't well written and well researched. Dawkins is obviously an educated man and he explains himself well but to put my own analogy on it it was rather like sitting in on a rather mundane lecture, where the pupil gets to the point way before the teacher does. In short it rambles, going all the way around the houses before getting to the right address.
Now I can't really tell if this is a positive review or a negative one, but I think Climbing Mount Improbable is probably one that you'd have to read for yourself to understand what I'm really talking about.
All I can do is apologise, Richard Dawkins has mashed my brain! I hope the next book of his I read is more paletable!”
First off I do love the analogy of Mount Improbable that Dawkins has come up with. Mount Improbable being a symbol for life on Earth. On one side are the creationists. This mountain seems to them to be insurmountable, there are deep crevices, severe drops an pitfalls, and seemingly the only way the variou species have got to where they are is through some devine in fluence placing them there. What they fail to realise is that on the other side of the mountain is an easy gentle slope weaving a path through evolutionary time, gradually gaining height.
A superb way of looking at it yes? I certainly thought so which is why I was rather disappointed that the analogy wasn't really a running theme throughout the book. I do understand that certain flowers only attract a certain type of bee to guaruntee pollination, I understand that there are mutually beneficial relationshis between certain species in nature but where was Mount Improbable in all this?
When I read The Greatest Show on Earth what struck me was Dawkins' passon for his subject. The message of the book was constantly repeated, drummed into me as a reader and especially as this was an alien subject to me at the time it was something I really appriciated as a student wanting to learn. I found the passion lacking in this particular book.
Not to say it isn't well written and well researched. Dawkins is obviously an educated man and he explains himself well but to put my own analogy on it it was rather like sitting in on a rather mundane lecture, where the pupil gets to the point way before the teacher does. In short it rambles, going all the way around the houses before getting to the right address.
Now I can't really tell if this is a positive review or a negative one, but I think Climbing Mount Improbable is probably one that you'd have to read for yourself to understand what I'm really talking about.
All I can do is apologise, Richard Dawkins has mashed my brain! I hope the next book of his I read is more paletable!”
informative
slow-paced
Sexism, there are some inherent issues in the metaphor used throughout the book, “ppl who think plants are conscious are insane”, used a lot of other analogies as well (like so many), and the last few chapters didn’t really tie into the main theme of the book (mount improbable), he also referenced his other book “the blind watchmaker” so many times, and also constantly used computer programs and coding to illustrate natural selection but idk why he couldn’t just explain natural selection in natural terms instead of linking it to computers (which in his programs used artificial selection, not true natural selection)
medium-paced
I read this book almost by accident. It was a few years ago and I was joining a mail order book club and this was just "need one more for my new member special offers, this looks kind of interesting." I hadn't read anything about science for many years. I'd tried to read Stephen Jay Gould books a couple of times but I never enjoyed them, usually couldn't finish. I had a vague understanding from school about Darwin and evolution, but that was many moons ago!
I got this, I read it and I was gobsmacked. I love his writing style, found it easy to understand, and it opened my mind in a way nothing had before. I was immediately fascinated with the subject of evolution and went on to read all of Dawkin's other books available at that time. I couldn't get enough and every one I read made things even clearer - especially The Selfish Gene. I didn't stick only with Dawkins, I read various others, including managing to get through a couple of those Stephen Jay Gould books, which I understood a bit better now, but still didn't especially like his style in comparison to Dawkins' writing. I've been on courses and seminars and to lectures (one by Dawkins himself!) about evolution and natural selection. (Something I could never have seen myself doing before!)
Though I'd say The Selfish Gene is the Dawkins book that changed my life because it changed my whole perspective, this one has a special place for me, because it's the one that started it.
I got this, I read it and I was gobsmacked. I love his writing style, found it easy to understand, and it opened my mind in a way nothing had before. I was immediately fascinated with the subject of evolution and went on to read all of Dawkin's other books available at that time. I couldn't get enough and every one I read made things even clearer - especially The Selfish Gene. I didn't stick only with Dawkins, I read various others, including managing to get through a couple of those Stephen Jay Gould books, which I understood a bit better now, but still didn't especially like his style in comparison to Dawkins' writing. I've been on courses and seminars and to lectures (one by Dawkins himself!) about evolution and natural selection. (Something I could never have seen myself doing before!)
Though I'd say The Selfish Gene is the Dawkins book that changed my life because it changed my whole perspective, this one has a special place for me, because it's the one that started it.
The eye evolved in dozens of different ways. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. This book ia a sharp stick in the eye for creationists. Get over it, already. Creationism is poetry - evolution is science.
I love the theory of evolution! It's fascinating and it makes perfect sense. Richard Dawkins is the go-to popular science writer on evolution, right? He does it so well.
Richard Dawkins is an excellent science writer. I am not well-versed enough in this subject to say whether's he's definitively right on all the points he makes, but what he does do is provide crystal clear exposition which allows even non-sciencey dunderheads like myself to feel like I understand exactly the points he's making.
This book is about how even seemingly improbable things - like eyes - can arise through natural selection. How half an eye is definitely better than no eye at all. How natural selection always favours improvements and how it's impossible to 'de-evolve' in order to 're-evolve' as something better. There were a couple of dry chapters, and I wasn't into all the computery stuff, but ultimately it was very interesting. There was a great chapter on fig wasps. I didn't know I needed to know about fig wasps, but I was missing out up till now!
Sometimes I wish he'd just write about natural selection for its own sake, rather than always politicising it by bringing creationists into the mix. I get it, he's a big ol' celebrity atheist. As a baby atheist, when I was in my teens, he was who I turned to. And he clearly is deeply passionate about his subject, alongside his passion for making creationists look like idiots. I get it. But could do without the smug tone sometimes.
Richard Dawkins is an excellent science writer. I am not well-versed enough in this subject to say whether's he's definitively right on all the points he makes, but what he does do is provide crystal clear exposition which allows even non-sciencey dunderheads like myself to feel like I understand exactly the points he's making.
This book is about how even seemingly improbable things - like eyes - can arise through natural selection. How half an eye is definitely better than no eye at all. How natural selection always favours improvements and how it's impossible to 'de-evolve' in order to 're-evolve' as something better. There were a couple of dry chapters, and I wasn't into all the computery stuff, but ultimately it was very interesting. There was a great chapter on fig wasps. I didn't know I needed to know about fig wasps, but I was missing out up till now!
Sometimes I wish he'd just write about natural selection for its own sake, rather than always politicising it by bringing creationists into the mix. I get it, he's a big ol' celebrity atheist. As a baby atheist, when I was in my teens, he was who I turned to. And he clearly is deeply passionate about his subject, alongside his passion for making creationists look like idiots. I get it. But could do without the smug tone sometimes.
It's only fifty pages long, but it goes into incredible detail. I've never thought about eyes so hard before. Dawkins not only goes into the biology of it, but the physics, and to a degree the philosophy. But putting it that way doesn't do it justice. For a book that's inevitably packed with niche terminology, it's impressively accessible to the casual reader (i.e. me), though I did have to re-read some pages to make sure I understood it completely, and it is almost certainly easier to read with a reasonable grasp of GCSE-level physics and genetics behind you. It probably took me about 40mins total to read it, and it's not exactly something practical to know, but if you're looking for a short, intelligent read this could well be it. Or you could always read the full book if you'd rather...