In the past, I have seen threads where Richard Dawkins' books have been mentioned. I am currently reading his book, "The God Delusion" and I've found it fascinating. For any of you who are fans of his books, I am curious to learn which are your favorite(s). I plan to read more, and, hopefully, all, of his books and would love to have your esteemed opinions :) Thank you!

I loved 'The Selfish Gene'. His anti religious diatribes are inaccurate in respect to both history and religion and caused me to lose a lot of respect for him. I think he has turned from a respected scholar to a bigoted buffoon.

cinda,

He is one of the best authors for describing evolutionary biology in engaging and fascinating ways. I think his book Greatest Show On Earth is great. If anyone reads that book and still refuses to understand evolution, it's just will ignorance, IMO.

My favorite book by him is a lesser known book called A Devil's Chaplain. It's a collection of essays about various topics.

He does not suffer fools well. He does not care if people dismiss him because they don't like his confrontational and caustic attitude. He can be an ass, no doubt. Weigh the quality of the arguments he makes with the quality of rebuttals.

He has a lot of opinions about things, and they are guaranteed to make you think.


Edited to add a Dawkins quote for a chuckle:

"There are indeed good Catholics and Muslims. They are the ones who don't take their religion seriously." Richard Dawkins



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2016 08:27PM by dagny.

Quotes like that are the exact reason why I don't like him. For starters the statement is not true and m a keys him look.ridiculous.

Yawn.

Yawn to you. Liking Dawkins isn't a requirement to post here.

Hating isn't a requirement to post as well.

Of all people here, I would think you would appreciate that quote because it supports the points you have made.

When topics about flip flopping, cherry picking what is "true" from the Bible, birth control, dismissing the disturbing history of the Church (Capital C as in Catholic), etc. come up, your typical response has been:

Catholics believe what they want.
That history was a long time ago.
Not all Catholics believe that.
That's just allegory (as if it was never taught any other way).
Etc.


This is exactly what Dawkins is referring to. The ones who somehow don't take it seriously, dismiss the toxic teachings, ignore the judgement, guilt and control ARE THE GOOD ONES.


Give me a slacker Muslim, Catholic or Mormon over a devout one who wants the world to conform to their idea of what "God" wants everyone to be doing. They may be hypocrites and enablers, but at least they are not out there acting out teachings from the harmful things in their holy writs.

I get that you can't get past his personality. He can be an ass for sure. You have a history here of complaining about personality types over substance. I suspect Dawkins knows a bit more about history than you do about science. The man seriously studies and lays out his case.

In a way that apparently went over your head, his quote was about the good ones, like you.

I don't intend to further derail the thread. Readers here are smart. They can draw their own conclusions about his tongue in cheek quote.

Back to the original post: Dawkins books are good reads.

Sigh. Many Catholics do that, but that was hardly Dawkins point

I love Greatest Show on Earth, one time I brought it to a Sacrament meeting to read during the talks, didn't go over well....nobody would sit by me! In retrospect a perfect day! Still in shock that they knew of Dawkins though.

https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Thunder-Uncensored-Darryl-Dawkins/dp/0973144327

Ohhh...different Dawkins.

Nevermind!

With respect to evolution, Dawkins is largely of historical interest only, and most certainly is not a reliable guide to 21st Century thinking about evolution. In particular, he is one of the founders of what is called the "Modern Synthesis" which basically explains evolution as natural selection with the "gene" as the unit of selection. This is now know to be grossly overly simplistic; particularly as regards to current thinking about evolutionary development and complexity theory. In short, reading Dawkins' on evolution now provides an interesting, but distorted, understanding of evolution as viewed and understood today. Note: Many biologists, including some on this Board, who earned their degrees in the 70s and 80s, 90s or before, fail to understand and appreciate this, because historically, the Modern Synthesis was thought to be correct and essentially complete.

If you are interested in references, here are a few that I would strongly recommend: Sean B. Carroll, Endless Forms Most Beautiful; Kirschner and Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life; and James A. Shapiro, Evolution: A View From the 21st Century.

Regarding religion, Dawkins is a buffoon of the first order, offering little, if anything, beyond rhetorical arguments that are largely invalid and out of date with both science and religion.

I don't think it is a common view among even older scientists that the "gene" is in a vacuum.

Of course views on evolution become enhanced over time. Contingency, ecology, environment, etc. have always had the ability to override the gene. In this day and age with human intervention especially, evolutionary mechanisms of simple gene selection do not have millions of years as we have viewed it traditionally.

As someone who works in an industry where even the slightest changes in nucleic acid impact how we test for and treat pathological viruses and genetic diseases, I do recognize the impact of gene selection and see it first hand.

OTOH, my views changed about the integration of it all back when EO Wilson wrote Consilience. It's not all about genes but they are important to understand how things became the way they are.

"I don't think it is a common view among even older scientists that the "gene" is in a vacuum."

COMMENT: Well, I doubt that ANY scientists would ever have put it that way. The rigidness of the Neo-Darwinists was in dismissing epigenetic factors as being responsible for variation and change; insisting upon the view that genes were for the most part fixed entities, and variation was accidental and random, rather than directed. As it turns out, living cells are able to manipulate and restructure their DNA, creating variation that allows novel phenotypes and adaptation without reliance on random mutation.
____________________________________________

"Of course views on evolution become enhanced over time. Contingency, ecology, environment, etc. have always had the ability to override the gene. In this day and age with human intervention especially, evolutionary mechanisms of simple gene selection do not have millions of years as we have viewed it traditionally."

COMMENT: But, this still seems to me to be a bit archaic, both in the use of the word "override" and the failure of your short list to include *molecular* epigenetic mechanisms that are perhaps triggered by the "environment" in a broad sense. As I understand it, epigenetic influences work with and along side of the genome to manipulate and change it, not as a vetoing force of an otherwise rigid genetic determinism. On your final point, I admit that knowledge from human intervention does point to straightforward genetic mechanisms. But, we don't know to what extent evolution has shaped such mechanisms in ways that are natural and directed, rather than random.
________________________________________

As someone who works in an industry where even the slightest changes in nucleic acid impact how we test for and treat pathological viruses and genetic diseases, I do recognize the impact of gene selection and see it first hand.

COMMENT: I am not sure I understand your point here.
_________________________________________

OTOH, my views changed about the integration of it all back when EO Wilson wrote Consilience. It's not all about genes but they are important to understand how things became the way they are.

COMMENT: No doubt! I think the lesson from Neo-Darwinism is avoiding dogmatism about the details of evolution, especially the assumption that evolution can be expressed as a simple mechanism or theory, rather than as the result of natural history.

(In hindsight, I think I am too dismissive of Dawkins. After all, The Selfish Gene is rightfully a classic, and his follow-up texts are brilliantly written, and mostly insightful, even if shortsighted by modern standards.)

Thanks for your comments.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: But, this still seems to me to be a bit
> archaic, both in the use of the word "override"
> and the failure of your short list to include
> *molecular* epigenetic mechanisms that are perhaps
> triggered by the "environment" in a broad sense.
> As I understand it, epigenetic influences work
> with and along side of the genome to manipulate
> and change it, not as a vetoing force of an
> otherwise rigid genetic determinism.

No one has yet provided conclusive evidence that epigenetic mechanisms are *inheritable.*
Which means, as of now, they're interesting from the standpoint of how they affect individuals, but not from the standpoint of how they affect populations and evolution.
Perhaps such evidence will be found. If so, then epigenetic mechanisms will be recognized for their influence on evolution. But we're not there yet.

As for Dawkins...a second vote for "The Greatest Show On Earth." Despite Henry's claims of it being "of historical interest only," it's actually a very good overview of both the history of evolution research, and the current state of the field (as of its writing).

According to James A. Shapiro, Professor of Microbiology at the University of Chicago:

"Like the man searching for his key under the lamppost, we currently focus our thinking about heredity almost completely on DNA sequences, because our ability to read and manipulate them lies at the heart of present-day biotechnology. Nonetheless, we should never forget that not all heredity involves the transmission and interpretation of nucleotide sequences in DNA and RNA molecules. To date, all studies of genetically modified organisms have required an intact cell structure for the introduction of new genetic information by DNA or nuclear transplantation. So, there is no unequivocal empirical basis for believing the frequent assertion that DNA contains all necessary hereditary information."

Shapiro then cites two examples of evidence for epigenetic inheritance, after which he further states:

"In addition, the importance of short-and long-term transmission of so-called "epigenetic" information contained in complexes of DNA, RNA, and protein is a burgeoning field of contemporary research with important connections to the evolutionary process."

The point is that epigenetic molecular processes are known to exist which manipulate and restructure the genome, and which more than likely influence heredity in ways not currently understood. Thus, to suggest that "they're interesting from the standpoint of how they affect individuals, but not from the standpoint of how they affect populations and evolution" is simply false.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
His "examples" are disputed. The evidence for heredity isn't established.

> The point is that epigenetic molecular processes
> are known to exist which manipulate and
> restructure the genome, and which more than likely
> influence heredity in ways not currently
> understood.

When (and if) "more than likely" is "clearly shown," and "not currently understood" is "understood," then science will happily fit epigenetics into the evolutionary framework. As I said, we're not there.

> Thus, to suggest that "they're
> interesting from the standpoint of how they affect
> individuals, but not from the standpoint of how
> they affect populations and evolution" is simply
> false.

Not the case at all. Until epigenetic heredity is established, that's where we're at. It's *not* established.

Shapiro is one of the leading molecular biologists and geneticists around. His examples are not disputed, nor are his conclusions--except by those biologists that insist on living in the 20th Century because of rigid commitments to Neo-Darwinism.

Your statement suggesting that complete understanding is necessary for scientific interest to take hold, or even for paradigm shifts in scientific thinking to occur, is ridiculous on its face. Science does not work that way, and never has. Preliminary evidence, however tentative, always points in a direction, which stimulates interest and research programs, often leaving outmoded thinking in the dust. That is exactly the case here. Neo-Darwinism, particularly random variation, has been effectively shown to be inadequate as an explanation of biological complexity. Epigenetics and complexity theory are beginning to fill the gaps of such failure.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shapiro is one of the leading molecular biologists
> and geneticists around. His examples are not
> disputed, nor are his conclusions--except by those
> biologists that insist on living in the 20th
> Century because of rigid commitments to
> Neo-Darwinism.

Ah, the "no true biologist" fallacy :)

Look, this is really simple. Even Shapiro has not provided conclusive evidence that epigenetics is heritable. When he does, even the "no true biologists" will accept his evidence.

Here's a good summary of the controversy (and yes, it's a controversy, and not resolved):

http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-2.html

You can't be serious. This is your best source?

Pathetic.

My, what a devastating, rational, logical critique!

Oh, wait...

I supposed Mitchell isn't a "true biologist?"

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ePFRYsAAAAJ&hl=en

Or are you perhaps so fond of Shapiro because, even though he doesn't want them to, creationists and IDiots have grabbed onto his (as of yet unproven) claims, and (incorrectly) used them to back their idiocy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering

Henry, you're a smart guy. I'll let you find the several hundred articles (both peer-reviewed and "popular") that point out the flaws in Shapiro's claims, and explain why inheritability in epigenetics isn't accepted yet. You won't have much trouble finding them if you look.
And if you'll read them, you'll find that a lot of the scientists writing them are enthusiastic about there someday being evidence for it. They're not "against" the idea, nor are they the "no true biologists" you fallaciously referred to. They're just honest about the controversy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 08:16PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I supposed Mitchell isn't a "true biologist?"

COMMENT: I am not interested in whether Mitchell is a "true biologist" or not. I was referring to a blog post, rather than a peer reviewed article, as you always insist upon--except when justifying your own position. Then blogs and Wikipedia seem to be just fine.

______________________________________

Or are you perhaps so fond of Shapiro because, even though he doesn't want them to, creationists and IDiots have grabbed onto his (as of yet unproven) claims, and (incorrectly) used them to back their idiocy?

COMMENT: Yeh right. That is my motivation; to support creationism. The fact that ID proponents latch on to any scientific theory that they think supports their view has no relevance to the merits of the underlying theory. Surely, you agree with that! Otherwise, we would have to reject the big bang because it notoriously plays into the first cause argument, and has been used ever since for that purpose. Having said that, I admit that Shapiro's use of the term "intelligent" as a description of cellular mechanisms is unfortunate. However, such reference is common, and emphasizes the complex "autopoetic" nature of such mechanisms, which, of course, is beyond question.
__________________________________________

Henry, you're a smart guy. I'll let you find the several hundred articles (both peer-reviewed and "popular") that point out the flaws in Shapiro's claims, and explain why inheritability in epigenetics isn't accepted yet. You won't have much trouble finding them if you look.
And if you'll read them, you'll find that a lot of the scientists writing them are enthusiastic about there someday being evidence for it. They're not "against" the idea, nor are they the "no true biologists" you fallaciously referred to. They're just honest about the controversy.

COMMENT: O.K. But you cannot cite even one. I have read them, and least many of them. Now, true, the evolutionary *significance* of epigenetic mechanisms may be controversial, and not fully established. But, the fact of epigenetic mechanisms *is* well-established and uncontroversial. Most of Shapiro's critics--as evidenced by the Wikipedia link you provided--address Shapiro's interpretation, not the factual basis for such conclusions. Moreover, these critics are often Neo-Darwinist apologists who cling to the idea of random variation as the basis for natural selection, apparently thinking that Neo-Darwinism must remain sacrosanct in order to keep religion in check.

Finally, I would again point out that Shapiro is a full fledged evolutionist, and only offers a broader understanding of evolution that encompasses a much more plausible explanation of the source of variation that underlies natural selection. This makes biological complexity more, not less, explainable by natural processes, and as such actually undermines ID theory far more than neo-Darwinism. As such, the dogmatic resistance of epigenetics by Neo-Darwinists is puzzling.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: I am not interested in whether Mitchell
> is a "true biologist" or not. I was referring to
> a blog post, rather than a peer reviewed article,
> as you always insist upon--except when justifying
> your own position. Then blogs and Wikipedia seem
> to be just fine.

Mitchell is a molecular geneticist, with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published on relevant subjects. He also writes a blog, where he uses language more suitable for a general audience, and where you don't have to subscribe (for $$) to a journal to read about his research. Nothing wrong with his blog, which summarizes the "controversy." Did you follow up on any of the references IN the blog? Apparently not.

> The fact that ID proponents
> latch on to any scientific theory that they think
> supports their view has no relevance to the merits
> of the underlying theory. Surely, you agree with
> that!

I do; there is no "underlying theory" for ID. One can't address the merits of something that doesn't exist.
There is an underlying hypothesis, although a very poorly formed one, and one that can't be either verified or falsified, so that has no merit. :)

> COMMENT: O.K. But you cannot cite even one.

I CAN cite dozens. I linked you to a summary. Which had references to several papers. You probably aren't subscribed to most of the journals with the papers...are you?

> Now,
> true, the evolutionary *significance* of
> epigenetic mechanisms may be controversial, and
> not fully established.

Yes, which is exactly what I said originally. So why are you disagreeing?

> But, the fact of epigenetic
> mechanisms *is* well-established and
> uncontroversial.

The fact of epigenetic mechanisms existing is well-established and mostly uncontroversial. The fact of epigenetic mechanisms being *inheritable* is neither well-established nor uncontroversial.

> Moreover,
> these critics are often Neo-Darwinist apologists
> who cling to the idea of random variation as the
> basis for natural selection, apparently thinking
> that Neo-Darwinism must remain sacrosanct in order
> to keep religion in check.

That's patently false. You're confusing scientists insisting on valid evidence with ideologues. Can you back up that claim with statements from these supposed ideologues? I'll bet you can't.

> Finally, I would again point out that Shapiro is a
> full fledged evolutionist, and only offers a
> broader understanding of evolution that
> encompasses a much more plausible explanation of
> the source of variation that underlies natural
> selection.

Yes, I know he's an "evolutionist." And that he's *proposing* mechanisms that he thinks can help with a "broader understanding." I'm not accusing him of being anything else. Just that the inheritability of his mechanisms is not established, and his claims that it is are controversial. He's got a long way to go from "plausible" to "established."

That's not an ideological adherence to "neo-Darwinism." It's just how science works. He hasn't established inheritability, and has provided no mechanism by which inheritability can work with his epigenetic effects. Maybe someday he (or somebody else) will. They haven't yet.

> This makes biological complexity more,
> not less, explainable by natural processes, and as
> such actually undermines ID theory far more than
> neo-Darwinism. As such, the dogmatic resistance
> of epigenetics by Neo-Darwinists is puzzling.

The "resistance" is scientific, not dogmatic. Mitchell did a good job of summarizing the problems with the epigenetic claims. He also indicated he has no "dogmatic resistance," that his criticisms are scientific, and are problems with the WORK done, not the concept. Which is the case with the vast majority of biologists. Once again, show evidence their resistance is "dogmatic" or ideological -- I don't think you can.

My favourite is The Extended Phenotype. Goes to show how powerful evolution is.

Thanks for all of your comments, though I would respectfully disagree with some of you. I have found him to entertaining, at least, and enlightening on the subject of religion, at best, in the book I have just finished reading.

Since I am in an Assisted Living with (mostly) older, TBMs, I need the diversion for some intellectual entertainment, and learning. Hence, the reason I spend so much time on this site ;)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 04:50PM by cinda.

Personally, having read all of his work (including his journaled research) I like "Climbing Mount Improbable." It is his most cited work, as well as devastating to christian fervor. It was the fist work he used the accurate terms "non-random selection". It made even the most uneducated reader aware that Evolution by natural selection was a non-random process which overruled the stupid argument that evolution was chaotic and purely at natures whim.

HH =)

I suggest you start with Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". Then once you have read a few of the modern Evolutionists, you should NOT miss Dennett's "Darwins Dangerous Idea." I read it twice yearly just to humble myself on the complexity of the science.

HH =)

If that is for me I have read Darwin and have no problem whatsoever with evolution. It is a fact. That does not mean I have to like Dawkins and his bigotry

Bigotry. Prove it. Qoute text, page, and book.

Ready.... go!

HH =)