See Featured Authors Answering Questions. To ask other readers questions about Samolubny gen , please sign up. Answered Questions 5. This book is about opinion on how genes work by Dawkins right? It's not true and it's not proven he is just using theory?
|Published (Last):||16 December 2018|
|PDF File Size:||20.62 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.13 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Samolubny gen by Richard Dawkins. Samolubny gen by Richard Dawkins Goodreads Author.
Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Samolubny gen , please sign up. This book is about opinion on how genes work by Dawkins right? It's not true and it's not proven he is just using theory? John Words like "it's not true" and "just theory" belie a deep misunderstanding of what science is. I assume you mean "not proven" and "not law" - but even …more Words like "it's not true" and "just theory" belie a deep misunderstanding of what science is.
I assume you mean "not proven" and "not law" - but even that misunderstands science. Almost nothing in science is "proven" - that's not how science works. Science is an iterative process. We have theories, and "theory" does not mean "guesswork" - it means "the best understanding that we currently have of the nature of reality. At almost no point does science say "this is an absolute truth" because that is incredibly conceited - ANYONE that tells you they know an absolute truth is probably selling something.
Science simply says "This is true as far as we can tell right now. But please, if you think differently, set up a rational, testable and repeatable way to prove this theory wrong. The science community welcomes your input if it follows these rules, because that's the way forward. Does this book contain any outdated information? You may want to pick up a never edition, like for instance the 40th Anniversary Edition published in He corrects tiny details of the original book.
Like around page he started that as far as we know only insects have evolved a division into bears and cares. In the end notes he then describes new finds of naked mole rats that lives in that way too. The main concept of the selfish gene stands as close to proven science as you can get. See all 7 questions about Samolubny gen…. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 4. Rating details.
Sort order. Start your review of Samolubny gen. Your body is really no more than a temporary shell for the immortal part, and houses it for a little while until it dies. The rest of this review is available elsewhere the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons. View all 76 comments. Shelves: science , books-i-hope-die , science-social-theory-etc.
Didactic, patronizing, condescending and arguably neo-intellectual twaddle. I do not believe in a God, certainly not any God that's been conceived by man, but I also believe Richard Dawkins is a self-satisfied thought-Nazi who is as fundamental in his view of religion as any right-wing minister. Fundamentalists of all faiths scare me, and atheism is just as much a faith as any religion. The existence or non-existence of a God cannot be proven, nor can the existence or non-existence of a soul, an Didactic, patronizing, condescending and arguably neo-intellectual twaddle.
The existence or non-existence of a God cannot be proven, nor can the existence or non-existence of a soul, and faith is an abstract experience with implications that are fundamentally unresponsive to study. As such, pursuits like Dawkins' often boil down to one type of faith in "reason" vs.
Many people love Dawkins. He is certainly intelligent, and writes as such, but he lacks wisdom and imagination.
The idea that one human being can know enough about the nature of the universe to make the sweeping declarations Dawkins' makes is preposterous to me, and no more credible than the sweeping declarations of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.
View all 80 comments. I'm agnostic myself, so I'm impartial, but Dawkins is so cynical, so against the idea that there is more to us as individual human beings than just intelligent apes meant to give birth, grow old and die, that he seems almost, for lack of a better phrase, sociopathic or antisocial. He leaves very little room for the profound depths of emotion, companionship, imagination, nostalgia or anything that goes aga There's a good reason I imagine why The Selfish Gene was Jeffrey Skilling's favourite book.
He leaves very little room for the profound depths of emotion, companionship, imagination, nostalgia or anything that goes against his view that we are just materialistic monkeys who won't matter to anyone a hundred years from now. I found him as a narrator of this book to be rather obnoxious and appalling, and I don't think he understands just how unique our minds and meanings to one another really are.
I don't think we are divine beings, but I don't think we are just animals, either. I think there's more to the human race than that. I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about humanity. This book tries to prove a point, but portrays humans as consuming, greedy, sex maniac gorillas who only exist to reproduce. Perhaps that is true in some ways, but not all humans are alike and to generalize them in this manner leaves no room for anything beyond Dawkins' view of logic. I think he's very full of himself, convinced he has all the answers, and the truth is nobody knows everything about the world and the only thing selfish about The Selfish Gene is the author himself, who seems to pride himself on putting down anyone who doesn't share his values.
View 1 comment. I'm not sure what it is, but I find the whole concept, when explained by a lucid and accessible author, fascinating. And Dawkins is nothing if not lucid and accessible. He presents the topic and various questions and scientific controversies in a way that anybody with a willingness to pay attention can follow it. Some of the chapters were a bit more of a slog as Dawkins has to resort to sc Although I consider myself a Jesus-loving, god-fearing, creationist, I simply LOVE reading about evolution.
Some of the chapters were a bit more of a slog as Dawkins has to resort to scary scary math and numbers to prove some of his points and set up for even more mindblowing stuff in future chapters. But most of the time, this book is chock full of insanely interesting examples and user-friendly analogies.
Dawkins sure knows his way around language too. One of my favorite lines is: "Sex: that bizarre perversion of straightforward replication.
And to read Dawkins is to realize, yes, this does sound like a very solid theory. My one stumbling block to getting onto the evolution train one hundred percent is time.
There is an adage that if you gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. Just doesn't seem plausible. But perhaps further reading will sway me at a later date.
And I love the thread that has developed in the comments. I should let you all know though that as of I have been living on the side of reason and rationality. I became an atheist after a LOT of reading and contemplating of the Bible the link to my "de-conversion" story is down in the comments as well. I try these days to, as much as possible, follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Check out my review if you're interested. View all 34 comments. If you are bored look up the Community Reviews, sort by 1-star. They are very entertaining. One of them as a uni professor advising a student to burn down the book store where they bought this book.
Then we have the creationists, then the person who thinks it is all a capitalist manifesto. There are those who think he is arrogant, depraved, uses philistine language!
How can anyone be a creationist and not believe in dinosaurs and such? Do they believe that the earth is flat?