Editorial Review

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Reviews

An amazingly accessible read...
Almost everyone has heard of this book. But, how many people have actually read it? If you haven't yet, it is well-worth reading.

Darwin spent over 20 years researching his ideas, preparing his arguments, and writing this book. He did a great job! "On the Origin" is surprisingly easy to understand. Just look at the beginning. Instead of trying to leap directly into his basic idea and premise, Darwin chooses to gradually lead the reader up to the basic idea of evolution by first point out how humans have caused evolution to occur in our domesticated animals (something very easy for all humans to see even in the 1850s). Darwin then goes on to point out some of the evidence that he and others had seen at that time that indicated that evolution had occurred. His leap in understanding the basic premise of evolution is amazing especially when you consider that he did not understand or have access to information about the basics of genetic passing of traits within species.

A must-have for any Kindle reader
Can't help but notice that the Bible is one of the top downloads in the Kindle Store.

Actually, I'm a bit perplexed that Darwin's "Origin of the Species", which IMHO, is the Bible's touchstone naturalist complement, is not garnering as much attention and that this is the first review.

As we celebrate Darwin's 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of this book, I'm still hopeful that the typical Kindle early adopter - who is often technically-inclined and highly literate, will find the time to read the book.

For such a landmark publication that is the basis of modern biology, its surprisingly readable and very accessible to the non-specialist.

Need to know for cultural literacy
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle: Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" (see my review). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.

Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).

If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)

The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.

In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski

A Great Historical Piece
Variations exist within populations that compete for scarce resources needed for survival, and many of these variations not only affect the ability of the individual to compete, but also can be passed onto children. Those variations better suited for competition will be passed on at a higher rate than those that are less suited for competition due to higher rates of survival. In this way, nature itself non-randomly selects those variations most fit, thus diversifying populations, creating branches in the Tree of Life.

While this book is 150 years out of date, and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has been significantly modified since its publication (especially since the discovery of DNA and the mechanisms present in both heredity and mutation), the main principles of Darwin's argument, stated in the above paragraph, remain the core of evolutionary science. This is an important work in the history of science, one that everyone should read for historical literacy. If, however, one is seeking to learn the modern evidence for evolution, collected both through laboratory testing and through field observations, then Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, or The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins would be better choices. Indeed, while the hierarchy of shared characteristics amongst animals, and the hierarchy of interspecies variations interpreted in light of the aforementioned hierarchy of shared characteristics itself constitutes great evidence for common descent, and Darwin's argument for natural selection as the mechanism by which diversity within the animal kingdom has increased remains extremely convincing and effective, it is best to familiarize one's self with all of the modern data, and all of the independently arrived at trees of life from non-overlapping fields of study that are all *gasp* identical.

A scientific breakthrough in it's day.
If you have never read this book, you really should sit down and take the time to do do. You will learn a lot of what Darwin was thinking during the years after the Beagle voyage, and perhaps more than you wanted to know about pigeons.

If you do NOT believe in evolution, you should read this book anyway. If you have not than you have no basis to refute it, and can make only the most idiotic of arguments. After all, just about everyone alive now who HAS read it, has read Genisis too. Darwin did NOT invent evolution, it was around in his grandfather's time. His grandfather actually wrote about it. Darwin (and another actually) came up with natrual selection, not evolution. If there was never a Charles Darwin, there would still be evolution.

The person who said (sic)
"evolution is not observable or testable and therefore not scientific. and by the way who are the favored races "
OBVIOUSLY didn't read this book, and is only making a religious statement. And stupidly at that.

Religion does not refute science
First, This book is free which is worth five stars in it's own right. The e-book is the new revolution and will create a better society. Now, let me acknowledge that I am catholic. Then let me acknowledge that this book is a fully interesting and wonderful read. It really is marvelous to think of genetic drift and I am completly in awe of the ramifications. As far as genetic drift is concerned the theory of evolution has no equal. It is a great explanation on the change in species and the statistics only compound the fact that this is not only possible, but actual. I accept this theory whole heartedly. I am confused on the paradox of the singularity, meaning the statistics of the individual. For mutation must occur in an individual before it can be passed on, but of course that individual must mate with another that does not contain the mutation. Considering a recessive gene how could the offspring be given that advantage if they don't contain the full mutation. If they don't have an advantage then what would be the imputus for increased spreading of the gene. Similiar to the classic chicken or the egg question. But yet blue eyes are recessive and yet here I sit with blue eyes, which means the initial mutation had to occur, and then enough offspring created to allow the recessive gene to express, or maybe the recessive gene was created then propogated and then finally expressed, or maybe two people simultaneously mutated... and oh no I've gone cross-eyed. Not even to mention the ramifications of new chromosomes or broken chromosomes, how are these passed on if an individual mututates on this scale?... But I feel my reaction (cautious inspection without blind obedience) is how all scientist, nay rational beings, should take all arguments. Otherwise science is no better than a cult. So read the book, it is excellent, but look for holes and see if you could refine or refute the argument. That is how progress develops. (my oppinion is that refinement will be what happens, but then again, who am I to say that) Long Story short, a great book and interesting read. Five stars from this catholic.

the new bible
Excellant book ,should replace bible,koran and other nonsense.It is said by some of the reviewers that his theory lacks proof, and at the time it did, some thing Darwin himself admitted within the book.Later as also predicted by Darwin his theory as been proven time and again by science not superstition.
... Read more

Editorial Review

Richard Dawkins transformed our view of God in his blockbuster, The God Delusion, which sold more than 2 million copies in English alone. He revolutionized the way we see natural selection in the seminal bestseller The Selfish Gene. Now, he launches a fierce counterattack against proponents of "Intelligent Design" in his latest New York Times bestseller, The Greatest Show on Earth. "Intelligent Design" is being taught in our schools; educators are being asked to "teach the controversy" behind evolutionary theory. There is no controversy. Dawkins sifts through rich layers of scientific evidence—from living examples of natural selection to clues in the fossil record; from natural clocks that mark the vast epochs wherein evolution ran its course to the intricacies of developing embryos; from plate tectonics to molecular genetics—to make the airtight case that "we find ourselves perched on one tiny twig in the midst of a blossoming and flourishing tree of life and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random selection." His unjaded passion for the natural world turns what might have been a negative argument, exposing the absurdities of the creationist position, into a positive offering to the reader: nothing less than a master’s vision of life, in all its splendor. ... Read more

Reviews

Not quite the book I expected, October 13, 2009
As a biologist (and evolutionist), I am one of those who did not need to be convinced by this book. I am already there. So, I was at somewhat of a disadvantage in trying to estimate how this book might affect the average creationist and IDer. One problem is that creationists come in several stripes----and I don't mean the usual division of creationists into young-Earth vs old-Earth etc. I mean the professional creationists such as some clergy (including TV evangelists) and foundation employees etc with a financial or power stake in maintaining creationism vs some people who have an ignorant, but honest, attachment to creationism for what might be called religious reasons (in spite of Dawkins and everything else) vs the hard-core religionists who care not a whit about evidence and who think that "faith" is faith, no matter what the evidence against it. Dawkins probably will not reach the first and third of these groups. Whether he is able to reach the second remains to be seen. Those people with an ignorant but honest attachment to creationism are largely unlikely to read (much less buy) a book such as this. I am at somewhat of a loss to know who this book targets. The Hell-fire and Damnation preachers will just ignore it and go on preaching---they have too much of a good thing in power and money flow to give it up by becoming honest. Dawkins needs to target the mainline Christian clergy. But then, who goes to church to listen to sermons on evolution?
As for the book itself, it took me a while to get used to the chatty style, mostly in first person, that characterizes Dawkin's later books. What Dawkins presents is only PART of "The Evidence for Evolution". He mentions once or twice that he had to jettison discussion on some point or another that would have added to the discussion (and to the length of the book). But if there is a lot of evidence, why not present all of it? He leaves out, for example, the embryologic evidence for skeletal homologies. Basically he only presents pictures of several skeletons and expects hard-core creationists to accept that bone X in a bat is homologous to bone X in a whale, etc. The creationist would say they these bones only appear to be homologous because are used in similar ways. Show the embryologic homologies and even the DNA evidence and the case is unassailable (to an honest mind). But Dawkins does not do this. Also, he does not present a detailed discussion of branchial arch homologies in fish and higher vertebrates. It may be mentioned (I don't recall), but a full discussion would have been unanswerable. Ditto for jaw and earbone homologies. Dawkins did not discuss retroviruses and missed a big opportunity there. Perhaps he thought that at some point he had reached overkill. I think the book is approximately a 90% effort, with too much good stuff left out.

Evolution is a Fact and Dawkins Proves it!, September 23, 2009
Usually authors will start out their writing careers making a general case on behalf of something, and then later deal with the specific objections as they arise. But not Richard Dawkins. As the leading prolific evolutionary author in our generation he finally got around to writing the book that many authors would've written first, this one. Since up until now he has not set forth the evidence for evolution as a whole, he calls this book "my missing link" in his chain of books, and it's long overdue.

Taking the title from the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, Dawkins begins by asking us to imagine what it would be like to be a European history teacher who is "continually faced with belligerent demands to give equal time" in his classes to Holocaust deniers. To him that would be what it's like to teach the scientific fact of evolution around the world, especially in America, where 40% of us deny that humans evolved from other animals and who claim instead we were all created as distinct species not more than 10,000 years ago. Just like the Holocaust deniers these people are "history-deniers" too. The antidote to that kind of ignorant thinking is this present work, which presents "the positive evidence that evolution is a fact" (p.6). Many bishops and theologians embrace evolution as a fact, even if some of them accept it begrudgingly.

Who is he trying to reach? The creationist "history-deniers" themselves, but more importantly those who find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case for evolution (p. 8).

He claims: "Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips...continue the list as long as desired...It didn't have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it." (pp. 8-9).

These are very large claims he's making. Are they justified? Yes, I think so. I challenge the creationists to place this comprehensively argued book, which is illustrated by many diagrams and glossy full colored pictures, next to what a few ancient superstitious people wrote in the Bible and see which one makes the most sense. My bet is that if believers are truly interested in the facts they will see evolution is indeed a fact.

Dawkins knows how to communicate, he knows where to begin his case with dog breeding, and he knows science. It's practically all here within the pages of this book. The reason why we don't see evolutionary change is because it takes place slowly over generations, but dog breeders can do it quickly and efficiently. "Every breed of dog," Dawkins writes, "from dachshund to Dalmatian, from boxer to borzoi, from poodle to Pekinese, from Great Dane to Chihuahua, has been caved, chiseled, kneaded, moulded, not literally as flesh and bone but in its gene pool....The relevance to natural evolution is that, although the selecting agent is man and not nature, the process is otherwise the same." (p. 34).

With regard to flowers, birds and insects make these changes rather than humans, naturally, not artificially, just like the wind did before them: "Hummingbird eyes, hawk-moth eyes, butterfly eyes, hoverfly eyes, bee eyes are critically cast over wild flowers, generation after generation, shaping them, colouring them, swelling them, patterning and stippling them, in almost exactly the same way as human eyes later did with our garden varieties; and with dogs, cows, cabbages and corn." (p. 52). And he asks us: "If so much evolutionary change can be achieved in just a few centuries or even decades, just think what might be achieved in ten or a hundred million years?" (p. 37).

To believers who object that the earth isn't old enough Dawkins marshals overwhelming evidence that it is billions of years old, along with evidence piled upon still more evidence to show evolutionary development of life on earth is indeed the greatest show on earth, and he is clearly in awe of it.

There are a few great books on evolution but this is a superior book long overdue by today's leading communicator of science. You should get it and think through it, especially if you're a "history-denier." Face the evidence and then change your beliefs. It's the intellectually honest thing to do. Then you too will thank Dawkins like so many of us have for his writing in these areas.

A good book, but didn't live up to its subtitle, September 28, 2009
This book is the latest among a long list of evolutionary texts by Dawkins. By his own admission, this book differs from his previous works. While his other books assume the truth of evolution, and thus, sought to answer specific and common criticisms against evolution (often espoused by creationists), this is the first time Dawkins has attempted to lay out the actual evidence for its acceptance by the scientific community.

His book was well written, articulated in a readable style, and quite enjoyable. In fact, I found it difficult to put the book down. Dawkins provides a good general view of why scientists accept evolution and a good case for the plausbility of natural selection as the vehicle for adaptive change. However, I do have some criticisms of his book, which prevented me from giving it 5 stars, especially if I view it from the mindset of a biblical literalist (a view I once shared many decades ago... and these are the people who need the most convincing).

My number one complaint is that he did not provide much in evidence, and where he did provide evidence it was short on detail. For instance, in Chapter 2, Dawkins mentions that all dog breeds are descended from the wolf. Similarly, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and other commonly distinct vegetables today are all descendants of the wild cabbage. While this might seem evident to the scientifically literate, if you don't accept evolution, you might need some convincing to show that this is true. But he doesn't provide evidence or even an explanation of how we know that dogs descended from wolves or broccoli from cabbage. He merely asserts this as evidence and then moves on to chapter 3, which concerns natural selction.

In chapter 3, he discusses flowers and insects (and birds) and presents this as evidence for evolution (specifically by natural selection). But he doesn't provide much explanation of how we know this to be true. For instance, why should we conclude that this arrangement between pollen producing flower and pollinating insect to be the result of co-evolution? How do we know that the pollen producing flower was not always the way it is and that the pollinating insect was not always the way it is and that these two merely "found" or discovered one another, in essence, falling into and exploiting a niche that was always present? [This might seem crazy, but this was actually used in an argument by a creationist]

Another criticism. He was careful to define the distinction between a scientific theory and a mere hypothesis or conjecture. Yet through much of the first few chapters of his book, he is short on evidence and long on speculation. For instance, he mentions the Heika japonica crab, with the resemblance of a samurai warrior on the back of its shell. While Carl Sagan states that this was the result of natural selection, Dawkins states it probably was not; it was likely coincidence. But this very case has often been cited as evidence for evolution (by selection). Is this evidence of evolution or not? And if not, then why is Dawkins' mentioning this in his book. If anything it calls into question how we determine that something is the result of evolution (and therefore qualified as evidence), as opposed to coincidence or something else? From this example, it seems almost arbitrary.

His review of the fossil record is compelling but rehashes the same information presented in other books. And he doesn't explain how we know that the discovered fossils represent a history of the same clad, as opposed to distinct, unrelated organisms. This is particularly important since we are often comparing fossils from different time periods, from different geographical locations, and don't have access to the entire skeletal remains (let alone genetic information) of the organisms that we are claiming are descended from one another. For example, how do we know that we aren't merely pattern seeking when we look at Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Basilosaurus? Or Australopithecus and Homo? Moreover, he spends most of the chapter on human evolution explaining why paleontologists feud over the specific genus (or species) of particular fossils and why such arguments would be predicted under evolution precisely because they represent intermediates. But his explanation could've been condensed into 1 paragraph. It would've been far better if he spent the time to present more evidence among the mountains of evidence that are claimed to exist.

His chapter, "You did it yourself in nine months", was spent explaining by analogy that matter is capable of self assembly from the bottom-up, rather than a top-down approach as espoused by creationists. He presents his hypothesis that this is possible via "local rules" and uses the analogies of the starling and origami as examples, but this is not evidence. In fact, while analogy can clarify and improve understanding, it does not constitute evidence. Dawkins forgets that the "local rules" are functioning from a template coded in our genome. Thus, can we truly say that it is the "local rules" that create the appearance of design when a recipe is necessary for determining these "local rules"? He needs to show that the genome is capable of self assembly by local rules and that a complex organism can be created from this base. While he implies that possibility during his discussion of viruses, he does not provide much detail. Thus, the reader is left unconvinced and with more questions. Thus, if you get to this point, you will have read 50% of the book and realize that much of the book has been devoted to explanation, speculation, hypotheses, and very few presentation of actual evidence. He uses computer models to illustrate or make his points. But once again, while these models may help explain concepts, they do not constitute evidence.

The last few chapters of the book are better (beginning around page 285), but by this time he's likely to have lost most of his readers, that is, those who have not already accepted evolution prior to reading this book.

My final criticism is in regard to his reference section. Most good books concerning scientific topics contain plenty of references to primary articles. But there are very few primary articles listed in this book. In fact, you'll find more scientific literature referenced in a pop diet book than here. And I am not joking! Go to a bookstore and look at the "Notes" section of Dawkins' book yourself. He does include a bibliography, but most of the entries represent secondary or tertiary sources. This doesn't mean the information is inaccurate, but it would've been nice to have citations to primary sources for those wanting to do further research.

There are some experiments mentioned in the book (rather clever ones too), but given the fact that evolutionists are always touting the volumes of evidence (and not just from fossils) for the fact of evolution, I was disappointed to find that only a handful are mentioned in the book. As mentioned earlier, most of the book is either providing background information (about rudimentary chemistry or biology), providing explanation, or tearing down common creationist arguments or criticisms against evolution, rather than focusing on positive evidence favoring evolution. Moreover, Dawkins practically ignores the evidence from molecular biology and glosses over genetics.

In short, Dawkins writes his book as if he is talking to a fellow evolutionist (preaching to the choir). But such a person does not need convincing or evidence of evolution. You can merely point or mention the "obvious" and expect the person to understand. You don't need to go into detail or explain much. On the other hand, if you do not accept evolution or require convincing, then you will likely find that Dawkins assumes too much and does not provide sufficient data or detail as to why evolution is the best explanation for the observations under discussion.

Needless to say, I was disappointed with the book since it failed to live up to its subtitle - "The Evidence for Evolution". A more apt title would've been "The Plausbility of Evolution". He makes a good case for the reasonableness of evolution but does not provide much compelling evidence. If you are a creationist contemplating whether there is sufficient evidence for evolution, you will not be convinced by reading this book. Two far superior books (that provide better and more compelling evidence) can be found in "Why Evolution is True" and "Making of the Fittest". It isn't that Dawkins' book is bad; it provides sufficient information (on a high level) to be useful and entertaining, but don't expect it to arm you for a debate with a creationist or use it as a reference. And don't expect your creationist friend to read it and walk away a convert.

Great tutorial on evolution, however there are superior arguments, November 19, 2009
Given the plethora of evolution books published recently, I argue it's imperative to consider this book's worthiness against these other recent publications.

Richard Dawkins' objective with TGSOE is to present his ". . . personal summary of the evidence that the `theory' of evolution is actually a fact - as incontrovertible a fact as any in science." [1st pg. of the Preface]. This appears to make this book an argument for evolution, especially considering the subtitle, "The Evidence for Evolution". This framing also matches exactly to the explicit motivation expressed by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne in his book, Why Evolution Is True.

Having read both I'd recommend Coyne's book if one is looking for an optimal argument on why Science considers evolution a fact and why there are no remaining hypotheses able to challenge evolution as an explanatory model for the evidence or discredit the findings supportive of evolution. It's much more concise, sticks more closely to peer-accepted findings, is more transparent about hedging on explanations where confidence is not yet overwhelming, and presents its findings in a manner easier to understand to someone not well educated in biology.

However, given that I think even the Coyne book falls short on its argument I also recommend molecular biologist Daniel Fairbanks' Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA to provide additional evidence contained within all of life's DNA that evolution is both true and convincingly falsifies all prior arguments made by creationists and intelligent design creationists. Coyne makes an arguable assertion on why he didn't include a specific chapter on the evidence in our DNA though he weaves it into other chapters; I think that missing chapter is why Coyne's book is not a masterpiece. I'll post the link to his argument in the comments section of this review.

What I like about TGSOE and why I still recommend purchasing it is Dawkins' skill as a teacher. I quickly left by the wayside that this book was an argument and instead treated it as a tutorial. What I especially liked about Dawkins' book which makes for a poor argument but a great tutorial is his use of analogies and thinking exercises. Dawkins provides examples not merely because they provide devastating arguments for evolution, but instead because they are teachable moments. His reporting on the guppy and the Lenski experiments were as effective as any of Coyne's examples as arguments. However, Dawkins' distinguishes himself in providing examples that allow the stories and principles to resonate well after having read them. He asks questions, and guides us to how the evidence answers those questions. This makes for a lengthier book than Coyne's, but also helps reinforce the topical matter. The numerous photographs in the book also helped reinforce his examples and were an unexpected surprise.

An example of a powerful teaching moment was that Dawkins starts with how hominids acted as an agent to evolve wolves into an astonishingly broad collection of domestic dog breeds in the blink of evolutionary time. At first I thought this was too simplistic; I was wrong. Dawkins' builds on that reportage by then showing how plants and animals' dependent on those plants each act as agents causing the other to evolve. This eases the beginner (which I'm not though I'm also not an expert) into better appreciating how natural selection works. This initial primer on natural selection is not where it ends, instead Dawkins' excels at teaching natural selection from several aspects in a manner that optimizes retention of the principles discovered and the evidence falsifies other proposed mechanisms. Given the fact this makes for a bigger book than Coyne's, Dawkins' book is superior at taking on topics at a more advanced level. Dawkins begins at an even more elementary level than Coyne does, but then uses chapter after chapter to build upon what was learned in the previous chapter to flesh-out our understanding of evolutionary topics, particularly natural selection, how the variation in our DNA provides a map to our ancestral heritage, and how an intelligent designer is a ludicrous notion once we've understand all the evidence collected to date which not only validates evolution but frequently falsifies the idea of a designer - where the score is an uncountable number of observations for Science to zero for design advocates (which is a primary reason they don't publish in relevant peer-reviewed journals).

Where Dawkins' book suffers is related to his own personal musings. As a tutorial these musings are often but not always instructive. Science is significantly about what to research next given we certainly don't know everything. Dawkins' allows us a peek into where the research is heading. In fact, if you enjoy the chapter about evolutionary development, than I highly recommend adding to your knowledge in this area given it too provides overwhelming evidence for evolution while falsifying creationist/IDC notions, the classic is still biologist Sean B. Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. In addition, scientists as creative thinkers are often thought of as contradictory attributes when in fact it's a necessary element of framing your hypotheses or trying to create reasons to explain surprising data discoveries and then go off and attempt to validate these new notions. Science as a process actually yields more creativity than nearly all other thinking disciplines and Dawkins infers such in many of his musings.

One weakness I found is that Dawkins speculates in areas where the science is already being conducted, e.g., group selection, and the math regarding the number of planets where life could exist. So why waste pages speculating with zero data when he could have instead reported where the efforts were to date and extrapolated from there? In addition Mr. Dawkins can be a somewhat sloppy writer if this were treated like an argument rather than a teacher teaching; opening up opportunities for creationists to dishonestly quote-mine him where he is a preferred target of theirs, e.g., "the fact of our own existence is almost too surprising to bear" on pg. 425 and his other extraordinary reflections not shared by many of his peers.

Such rhetoric is sloppy because creationists often disingenuously attribute something one scientist states as personal opinion as that believed by all scientists. In a perfect world such intellectual dishonesty wouldn't occur and we wouldn't have to worry about how a great teacher's occasionally sloppy rhetoric is twisted to argue the opposite of what both the teacher and his discipline's adherents understand. So if you are a creationist looking to test your faith against what Science understands, the Coyne and Fairbanks' books are far sterner tests and provide less opportunities to avoid confronting the evidence that destroys that faith or at least requires modification if one is honest with oneself. If you want to actually learn and optimize the quality of the teaching where you forgive Dr. Dawkins occasionally lapsing into tangential topics, this book will resonate long after you've finished it and serve as a handy reference guide after your initial read.

I gave the book four rather than five stars primarily because I think he needs to use more research assistants to better footnote his book to more of the evidence he's reporting. While I've encountered nearly all his examples prior to my reading his book and know he's accurate in his reporting (with the exception of his possibly extending the findings in the Lenski experiment), books on controversial subjects should go over-board in citations. He also should have provided more examples from other scientists than his own musings, coupled to his musings not adding much, e.g., I found his zeal for computer programs extraneous to a book serving as a general review of the state of evolution. This adds up to the fact he needs a sterner editor. Given his success in selling prior books, it's not a surprise he was given so much latitude - to a fault I think.

If after the purchase of this book you remain excited about the topic and want to learn more, I recommend at least considering (I haven't read it yet but it's in my queue) getting Carl Zimmer's new book, The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. Mr. Zimmer is one of our most trusted and respected science writers and is a brilliant communicator of evolution both in his prior books, periodical articles, and his blog. Tangled Bank is a text book focusing strictly on teaching evolution.

I THOUGHT I didn't need another book on evolution, but was WRONG!, November 30, 2009
About 20 years ago I started reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay collections. Then I discovered the work of Carl Zimmer and Neil Shubin and other evolutionary biologists. When this book came out I didn't intend to buy it as I have so many books on evolution and keep up with biology news. I went ahead and ordered it thinking that if there was nothing new in it I could always give it to a friend.

What a surprise! This book is a great overview of the subject - including very recent fossil discoveries in China as well as the standard subjects - radioactive dating, fossils, DNA evidence, etc. Somewhere along the way I had forgotten how the radioactive dating clock starts and Dawkins gives a very lucid explanation that will stay with me now. He also references other good books such as Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" and Coyne's "Why Evolution is True."

If you aren't teaching biology or natural history, this is a good refresher that will doubtless have some new info that you will find intriguing. If you don't know much about evolution and natural selection this book is the best one out there for an overview.

I'll be keeping this book.

"The Evidence for Evolution", December 21, 2009
I got interested in evolution because of my study of 19th century British intellectual history, which led me to Charles Darwin and the ramifications of his "Origin." Although my focus is the 19th century, I am always on the lookout for good books on evolutionary theory (and have reviewed several on Amazon), written for the non-scientist, and this is a very good and useful one. The author has engaged extensively in the "intelligent design" wars, but one thing I liked about this book is its more positive tone: what is the evidence for evolution? Not to say that Dawkins does not, from time to time, point out a fallacy in ID arguments, but that is not the primary goal of the book. In one 450 page treatment, the author covers about every conceivable point relating to evolution. Another bonus of the book is that Dawkins writes very well for the layman when discussing scientific terms, approaches, and studies. There was only one chapter (that dealing with how the human body develops from single cells) where I got a bit lost in his discussion.

Darwins develops his evidence for evolution in an interesting fashion. First he talks about what a scientific "theory" is, since this is a frequent point of contention with those who dispute evolution. Next, he focuses on dogs and cows, and other domestic animals, to argue that the multiplicity of canine breeds (all derived from the wolf) demonstrates how man has employed evolution--the so-called "artificial evolution." Natural evolution takes place without human intervention, in nature, and is not controlled by anyone or anything. An interesting chapter is devoted to methods of dating rocks and embedded fossils. Moreover, the author contends there are such things as "living fossils (e.g., guppies).

Dawkins rejects any suggestions that the fossil record is incomplete. In fact, he says we don't even need fossils to verify evolution; in any regard, more are being discoved all the time. Nor is there a human "missing" link, as he discusses the extensive human fossil record--quite a thorough but compact discussion with superb illustrations. The importance of tectonic plates and isolation is the subject of another chapter. Two later chapters I found particularly interesting: one on the vestiges of prior evolutionary stages left in animal and human bodies; the second on what Dawkins refers to as the "arms race"--how animals are in competition to survive and develop biologic weapons as part of the "survival of the fittest." The book includes extensive illustrations, including 32 pages of helpful full color illustrations: 6 pages of notes; and a 7-page bibliography (some of which sources are discussed in the text). An extremely helpful discussion of the topic by one of the best informed scientific students of evolution.

Another Excellent Explanation by Richard Dawkins, September 26, 2009

Many non-scientists, like me, have wondered, why do 99% of all scientists believe in evolution? Isn't it just a Theory? an opinion? How can the vote be so unanimous? 99% is a huge number.

I have been told that there is no evidence for evolution, it is a theory just made up by people who are angry at God and that it is stupid that people came from monkeys.

If you are like me and really want to understand the evidence for evolution honestly, and objectively, this is an excellent book.

Richard Dawkins's ability to lucidly explain complicated scientific information to anyone willing to take the time to listen and understand is impressive.

Once I started reading this book, I couldn't put it down.

Based on the mountain of evidence presented in this book, I now understand that the people telling me that evolution is stupid must be completely unaware of the evidence. I am thinking of giving this book as a Christmas gift for the members of my family that believe that there is no evidence for evolution.

Make this one of your top five to read this year., November 23, 2009
It is very sad that another book has to be written about such a subject, and yet I plan to read Jerry Coyne's book by the title "Why Evolution Is True," not just for the praise Dawkins gives it in this book, but because Coyne gets at least as much, if not more, praise for his effort on the same front. It is a tragedy that it is still difficult to convince people of the power of evolution by natural selection, but it is only so because so many people never bother to understand what is being propounded.

I know...I was once one of the fundamentalist Christians that rejected it. All I had to go on was the canned anti-intellectual responses of the religious right. I see many of my former compatriots giving one-star reviews to this book without even reading it, but that is the way it is with that group. I realize that most people that accept it do so without understanding it, as well. That was something I could not do, so I did read "On the Origin of Species" by Darwin, and many other books and articles on the subject since then. The real tragedy is that most people, accepting the science or not, never even care to try to understand the amazing way we developed into so many species out of likely only one.

Aside from having one of the most beautiful jackets I have ever seen, and some extraordinary color picture sections added for clarity, this book contains the following sections:

1. Only a theory?
2. Dogs, cows, and cabbages
3. The primrose path to macro-evolution
4. Silence and slow time
5. Before our very eyes
6. Missing link? What do you mean, 'missing'?
7. Missing persons? Missing no longer
8. You did it yourself in nine months
9. The ark of the continents
10. The tree of cousinship
11. History written all over us
12. Arms races and 'evolutionary theodicy'
13. There is grandeur in this view of life

Appendix: The history-deniers

The appendix could be read before or after the book, and is a general overview of polls that have been taken in the U.S. and Europe regarding the beliefs of the general population with regard to evolution and creationism. Needless to say, it is depressing, but what do you expect when you're talking about polls of the general population? As he points out, about 20% of the general population think the earth goes around the sun in a month, clearly having no idea what a year is. I'm sure a percentage would still think the earth was flat if the question was put forward.

I think most of the chapter headings speak for themselves. Chapter one discusses the nature of scientific theory, hypothesis, etc, because of the claim of so many that evolution is only a theory, forgetting all about little things such as gravitational theory, germ theory, etc. Chapter two and three slowly take us into the world of evolutionary change with examples we cannot deny. Chapter four discusses how we measure the age of the earth, strata, and fossils by means of geological clocks. Chapter five gives examples we can see in our lifetime, rather than just depending on the fossils of ages. Chapter six discusses the logical fallacy of missing links, while chapter seven goes specifically into transitional fossils within the human species. Chapter eight goes into the crucial subject of embryology, where most of the evolutionary changes to genes have the greatest effect. Chapter nine explains plate tectonics, formerly known as continental drift, and its importance to the spread of various early forms. Chapter ten discusses the common ancestry of all species, with many examples given of homologous structures. Chapter eleven covers the traces of historical evolutionary steps that can be seen in the modern forms that exist, such as vestigial organs. Chapter twelve talks about the pain and suffering inherent in the evolutionary view, and the problem that presents for many. Chapter thirteen goes deeply into Charles Darwin's famous quote at the end of "On the Origin of Species" and discusses it at length, breaking it up line by line.

Here is that quote, which is one of the most beautiful quotes concerning life:

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

There is another quote I would like to put down in this review, from the book being reviewed.

"Information on how to handle the present so as to survive into the future is necessarily gleaned from the past." -- Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009, pg 406.

I think this book should have been more carefully argued, and in much more detail, which is why I still think "On the Origin of Species," first edition, is one of the best books one can read, since Darwin was such a careful and precise thinker -- but for a modern perspective, one cannot do much better than combining Darwin's work with Dawkins' work.

Dawkins does it again, September 22, 2009
Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty, as Richard Dawkins notes in this marvelously titled book, the latest addition to his already impressive list of books on evolution.

Do we really need yet another "evidence for evolution" book? Well, yes we do. If only because of the alarmingly large number of educated people (especially in the United States) who hold virulent anti-evolution sentiments and prefer a supernatural, "intelligent design" explanation for the key questions in biology. But will the "history-deniers" read Dawkins? Leaving creationists and ID proponents aside, many people misunderstand evolution as a long chain of events that shape simple forms into more complex ones, rather than the branching and extinction of lineages. Therefore, open-minded readers should welcome yet another popular book on evolutionary biology, particularly if it has such a breadth and is so very well written as Dawkins'. As a teacher and communicator of science, Dawkins remains unsurpassed.

The "Greatest Show on Earth" is an ambitiously large survey of evolutionary biology; more than 400 pages (plus many color photos) one long argument for why evolution is a firmly-based scientific explanation, a fact. Even for those who accept the evidence for evolution, Dawkins' book is a stimulating and refreshing read; not least because of its conversational yet authorative tone (although Dawkins can't help but to lash out at religion here and there, it certainly is not an anti-religion book like "The God Delusion"). As one reviewer noted: if Charles Darwin would want to know how his theory had fared in the 21th century, this is the book he should read. My own first recommendation, however, would be Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. The latter book is equally well written and informative, but more concise and focused. What's more, Coyne is less polemical than Dawkins (BTW, Dawkins praises Coyne's book in his first chapter).

Dawkins covers the science in a rather standard fashion. The Gal�pagos islands, transitional fossils, embryology, artificial breeding, anatomy, etc., it's all there. Which is fine, of course. But those who are looking for a primer on the latest insights into evolutionary biology won't find it here. I would have liked to see more emphasis on the awesome power of molecular genetics in demonstrating evolution as an established fact. After all, the evidence in molecular biology is even more compelling than the fossil record (but, admittedly, more difficult to explain to lay persons). As an accompanying book, I would therefore recommend Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, which focuses on how DNA directs the evolutionary process.

I'm puzzled why Dawkins chose not to mention the new insights into the molecular evolution of the eye. He discussed eye evolution at length in "The Blind Watchmaker" - as did Darwin in "The Origin of Species" - and it remains a favorite topic of the ID crowd. But astounding genetic findings have revolutionized the eye evolution field: the animal eye, from fruitfly to man, was "invented" only once during evolution. Darwin would have been thrilled! Dawkins could have scored a strong point here. A missed opportunity.

That being said, one can only hope that this book will convert at least some creationists and ID advocates; that the scales will fall from their religious eyes. But I have my doubts. To quote biologist Tom Tregenza: The fact that Darwin's theory makes so many predictions, none of which has ever been falsified, makes it easy to make a further prediction: it is only a matter of time before the ID proponents make it a fundamental tenet of their ideology that the pattern of life has been made that way specifically to fool biologists. In which case, evolutionists can take comfort in knowing that the creator specifically had THEM in mind at every step of the process.

More essential reading for people sceptical about evolution, December 20, 2009
There were already 100 5-star reviews posted when I started writing this, and there seems little point in repeating the many valuable points they make. The most obvious comparison is with Jerry Coyne's book on the same theme, Why Evolution is True, which was published earlier in the year. Both books are excellent, and both need to be read by anyone interested in the subject. The ideal thing would be for them to be carefully read by people who doubt the reality of evolution but are genuinely interested in knowing the truth, if any such people exist. Rather to my surprise, I like Jerry Coyne's book the better of the two, primarily because he sticks more to the topic and doesn't wander off into side issues so readily as Dawkins. Still, read both!

There are two points that both books make that are worth repeating even though others have already done so: the story of Tiktaalik (which I knew about already) and Richard Lenski's experiments breeding bacteria (which I didn't). Tiktaalik is important as an example of how evolutionary theory tells you where to look to find something no one has ever found before, but which ought to exist. Lenski's experiments are important as an illustration of how fast divergent evolution can proceed, even with cultures that are initially identical and are treated identically.

Now I shall follow the same plan as I did with Coyne's book, looking through the 1- and 2-star reviews to see if they say anything worth discussing. Again, unfortunately, the answer is no, and anyone who thought the negative reviews of Coyne were inane should take a look at these. They only good thing about them is that they stimulated some very good comments, so if you read these reviews read the comments as well.

One thing that appears to have particularly upset some of them is the idea that the evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, as they seem to think that this makes Dawkins a Holocaust-denier. Others seem to think they are reviewing The God Delusion, as they attack a position that is barely present at all in The Greatest Show on Earth: "This man claiming there is no God is crazy to me. First of all in order to come to a conclusion like that you would have to search out the universe". When challenged as to whether she had actually read the book, the reviewer admitted that her "review" was a review of the title: "I read the title of the book. I would give it a 0 stars but there is none. I never said I read the whole book anyways Christians are not perfect." I'm not sure what she found atheistic about the title. Probably someone told her about The God Delusion (which she probably didn't read either) and she got the two books confused. There are, of course, authors who always write the same book (Dan Brown springs to mind), but Richard Dawkins is not one of them.

In fairness to her, she wasn't the only one to think the book was an atheist tract. We also have "His primary objective is to disprove the existence of God", "There is a special place reserved in Hell for Richard Dawkins. He does more to harm to obvious God created world than anyone since Darwin," as well as others who quite explicitly say "First, let me say I haven't read this book BUT ", or who think they are reviewing Amazon's efficiency for delivering books "I didn't receive the book until today, december 12, 2009, at 09:47 A.M. I have been waiting."

I also looked through the 5-star reviews to see if I can find any evidence that Dawkins had reached his target audience, the sort of readers who don't believe in evolution but are willing to examine the evidence in an honest way. Unfortunately there is little suggestion of that. Apart from one strange review posted a week ago that seems to be intended as a parody, all of them were written by people who already accepted the reality that Dawkins was trying to demonstrate. ... Read more

Editorial Review

From one of the most significant neuroscientists at work today, a pathbreaking investigation of a question that has confounded philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists for centuries: how is consciousness created?
 
Antonio Damasio has spent the past thirty years studying and writing about how the brain operates, and his work has garnered acclaim for its singular melding of the scientific and the humanistic. In Self Comes to Mind, he goes against the long-standing idea that consciousness is somehow separate from the body, presenting compelling new scientific evidence that consciousness—what we think of as a mind with a self—is to begin with a biological process created by a living organism. Besides the three traditional perspectives used to study the mind (the introspective, the behavioral, and the neurological), Damasio introduces an evolutionary perspective that entails a radical change in the way the history of conscious minds is viewed and told. He also advances a radical hypothesis regarding the origins and varieties of feelings, which is central to his framework for the biological construction of consciousness: feelings are grounded in a near fusion of body and brain networks, and first emerge from the historically old and humble brain stem rather than from the modern cerebral cortex.
 
Damasio suggests that the brain’s development of a human self becomes a challenge to nature’s indifference and opens the way for the appearance of culture, a radical break in the course of evolution and the source of a new level of life regulation—sociocultural homeostasis. He leaves no doubt that the blueprint for the work-in-progress he calls sociocultural homeostasis is the genetically well-established basic homeostasis, the curator of value that has been present in simple life-forms for billions of years. Self Comes to Mind is a groundbreaking journey into the neurobiological foundations of mind and self.

Reviews

Good news and bad news, November 19, 2010
The deep enigma of consciousness has been explored from many directions, including contributions by neuroscientists, psychologists, philosophers and a few physicists (both quantum and complex systems scientists). An important study area consists of injuries or diseases that destroy specific brain structures; these clinical events are often closely correlated to nuanced effects on selective aspects of consciousness. Professor Damasio's book makes good use of these data to describe many known neural correlates of consciousness. For purposes of this book, he adopts the working hypothesis that mental states and brain states are essentially equivalent. While many (including this reviewer) find this idea questionable, such tentative hypothesis is quite appropriate for a book of this kind. In science we often adopt useful, if highly oversimplified, models in the early stages of our studies with no illusions that they are perfectly accurate. In this manner "Truth" is (hopefully) approached in a series of successive approximations. Thankfully, Damasio does not claim to "explain" consciousness.

The book's title is based on Damasio's suggestion that our evolutionary history reveals many simple creatures with active "minds" (defined broadly), but only much later did self (awareness) develop; in other words the human self is built in steps grounded in the so-called "protoself." An essential step is the development of homeostatis (life regulation needed to survive) in single cell creatures like bacteria, followed by progressively more complex "societies of cells" in more complex creatures like insects, reptiles, and mammals. Thus consciousness, rooted in our evolutionary past, helps to optimize our responses to the environment so that we may continue our existence. Damasio also describes the self in terms of stages: the protoself, core self and autobiographical self, along with specific brain structures that may support these distinct stages. He concludes that conscious minds emerge from the brain's nested hierarchy of neural networks operating at multiple spatial scales (levels); I will expand on this last point later.

Several chapters consider brain structures that are most essential to mind and consciousness, providing more status to the brain stem and its sub structures than is normally acknowledged by neuroscientists. Damasio's arguments here are based on observations of children born without a cerebral cortex and on several evolutionary considerations. The book cites quite a bit of detailed brain anatomy so non experts should probably read the excellent Appendix on brain structure before tackling any material beyond chapter 2. Normally this suggestion would be offered in a Preface, but this book has none.

I gave the book four stars based on my evaluation of both the good and not so good features: 1) the nice development of a number of important ideas on conscious correlates, 2) the fluff, e.g., some unnecessary technical jargon and the belaboring of obvious points, 3) important omissions. In an example of the latter, I found the memory chapter inadequate given its central role in consciousness. I would have liked to read more about how, where, and at what spatial scales are various kinds of memory stored, or at least given some sense of which parts of the memory puzzle have actually been solved. By loose analogy, if I ask how a TV works, I am unsatisfied by explanations of how to dial in specific channels. Rather, I want to hear about electromagnetic fields and electron guns.

Many readers avoid Endnotes; this may be a mistake. Here is one shining gem involving an interchange between Damasio and Francis Crick, who pointed to several provocative definitions in the International Dictionary of Psychology (1996), providing both these guys quite a laugh. I will not spoil the story by relating the dictionary's definition of "consciousness," but here is this dictionary's definition of "love," "A form of mental illness not yet recognized by any of the standard diagnostic manuals." (Note to my wife, I do not endorse this definition.)

The apparent critical importance of the brain's nested hierarchy to consciousness seemed to me to be substantially understated in Damisio's book. I say this because nested hierarchy is a hallmark of many if not most complex systems, and brains are considered by most to be the pre-eminent complex systems. Think of social systems, for example. They typically consist of persons, neighborhoods, cities, states and nations; their observed dynamic behaviors are fractal-like (scale dependent) and the essence of their behaviors is rooted in the nested hierarchy of interactions at multiple scales, both top-down and bottom-up, the so-called "circular causality" of Synergetics, the science of cooperation and self organization (see books by Hermann Haken). The brain's nested hierarchy and its apparent critical importance to consciousness are discussed in Todd Feinberg's From Axons to Identity Neurological Explorations of the Nature of the Self [HC,2009] and my new book Brain, Mind, and the Structure of Reality, 2010, which also explores the possible fundamental role of information in both the physical and mental realms. This latter topic is also covered in a series of essays edited by Paul Davies and Neils Gregersen Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics, 2010.

Piecing It All Together., November 22, 2010
Dr. Damasio says that, "This book is dedicated to addressing two questions. First: how does the brain construct a mind? Second: how does the brain make that mind conscious?" Do I think he does an exceptional job of tackling these two questions? Yes, I do.

I believe the greatest strength of this book lies in Dr. Damasio's capacity to take account of vast amounts of information and viewpoints related to mind and consciousness. He has included large swaths of issues that are usually books in and of themselves (Body Maps - The Body Has a Mind of Its Own: How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do (Almost) Everything Better, Extended/Embodied Cognition - The Extended Mind (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology), Efficient Computational Theory of Mind - Your Brain Is (Almost) Perfect: How We Make Decisions, Selfhood - The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self, Free Will - Distributed Cognition and the Will: Individual Volition and Social Context (Bradford Books), Neuroeconomics - Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty (Evolution and Cognition Series) and Neuroanatomy - Mapping the Mind: Revised and Updated Edition). Furthermore, Dr. Damasio is very forthcoming in demarcating the known from the unknown and the probable from the possible in regards to neuroscience. The only downside I experienced while reading this book is that I felt a little lost, or perhaps impatient, while waiting for Damasio to tie everything together. It was only towards the last half of the book that the big picture began to emerge.

That being said, I believe that this book is a significant advancement in neuroscientific research. Most importantly, I actually understand what Damasio means when he speaks of the proto self, core self, and autobiographical self. His explanation of Convergence-Divergence Zones (CDZ's), as well as anatomical structures, is very effective and his manner of description is so unsophisticated that even a layman like me can understand exactly what he is illustrating. Also, there are many pictures, diagrams, and charts to help too.

In conclusion, I very much enjoyed the substance of this book (the style is somewhat lacking, but hey, it's not supposed to be Shakespeare!). I also took pleasure in the way in which Damasio took a back-handed approach to dismissing a certain philosophers (Daniel Dennett, ahem) approach towards consciousness; I liked it because when it comes to Mind/Brain/Consciousness issues, I think philosophers must necessarily take a supporting role to the neuroscientists. "I see the neurology of consciousness as organized around the brain structures involved in generating the lead triad of wakefulness, mind, and self. Three major anatomical divisions - the brain stem, the thalamus, and cerebral cortex - are principally involved, but one must caution that there are no direct alignments between each anatomical division and each component of the triad. All three divisions contribute to some aspect of wakefulness, mind, and self." A great book, I highly recommend it.

For bumblebee scholars, too., November 25, 2010
As I write this I am trying to assess the three previous reviews which were written by those more scholarly than I. That said, I encourage "bumblebee scholars" such as I to dig in to this seminal work. It can't hurt and might be good for you.

Cautionary Note: If you read the Endnotes you may construct a reading list that will prompt you to delay your demise for at least twenty years beyond your current biological expectancy.

Puts William James on a Modern Foundation of Neuroscience, November 21, 2010
"Self Comes to Mind - Constructing the Conscious Brain" is Antonio Domasio's latest landmark book on the nature of consciousness and how it is created. In his previous book "The Feeling of Knowing" Damasio provided an account that was logically consistent with third party perspectives of philosophy, psychology, plus the latest findings in neuroscience.

In the "Self Comes to Mind" he announces his intention to "start over" with explanations, and he stakes out new ground with a daring first person subjective perspective that is akin to William James view of "my" objects of attention versus "I" as the self or protagonist who is the active agent in the changing stream of consciousness, and "owns" the other objects as "knower". He successfully brings off this new venture of understanding.

He names the two questions to be addressed: how does the brain construct a mind? and how does the brain make that mind conscious? He affirms James' idea of the importance of a self, and brings it alive with his own earlier ideas of the three aspects of self (the proto self, the core self, and the autobiographical self) but develops them more fully in the "Self Comes to Mind" with the active protagonist in mind.

The shift to Damasio's first person subjective protagonist perspective from his prior third person objective prospective takes place when he makes the distinction between neural maps constructed by the brain for information, and images formed in the mind (conscious or unconscious) for use by the protagonist in navigating their external environment to achieve goals having biological and cultural value.

He acknowledges in the Appendix that the mind-brain equivalence hypothesis is not universally liked or accepted. I believe the Domasio's mind-brain hypothesis is logically correct for two main reasons. First, the equivalence of subjective mental images and objective brain neural maps is quite convincing - after all, people can communicate their mental images with one another by talking and listening while paying close attention to each other. A "sentence" can be spoken, listened to, and repeated back to the speaker to confirm error free communication, high fidelity, and understanding of the intended meaning. A third witness can verify the accuracy of the information exchanged. Second, Domasio avoids the common philosophical error of dualism which is so easy to make when moving from the outside objective view to the inside subjective view of the human brain and its mind. Mortimer Adler, renown American philosopher, reminds us that there are three object types (real, subjective, and intentional), and all three must be included when discussing the conscious mind. Intentionality was lost as a philosophical concept since Kant obliterated it. This is OK for mindless rocks, but not for human beings with meaningful language. Domasio puts the Protagonist process back in the Jamesian stream of consciousness with attention and intention. The stream of consciousness runs on a layered foundation of proto self, core self, and extended or autobiographical self.

Part IV is a nice wrap up for the non-specialist public with an deep interest in neurology, psychology, and philosophy of mind. Domasio takes care to not use suit case words that mean different things to different people, and in the process introduces delightful new words that are more general and less controversial.

He introduces the term Genomic Unconscious (page 278) to provide for the biological diversity of dispositions (another new term) to better convey psychological concepts (instinct, automatic behaviors, drives, and motivations) from a neurological foundation. Domasio acknowledges that the Genomic Unconscious has something to do with what Freud and Jung sensed, but avoids getting bogged down on Freud's emphasis on sexuality that caused Jung to break company from him. Jung went on to develop concepts of consciousness (personal consciousness, personal unconsciousness, and the collective unconscious or archetypal realm) and enduring patterns that arise in civilization as it ascends to the pinacle of consciousness. Yes, Genomic Unconscious covers this!

Damasio includes feeling and value as fundamental observables of the self and its objects. He briefly uses the "intuition" word without reservation (page 276). Jung included intuition in his functional classification of sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling. Jung identified four ways of perceiving and judging both the external and the internal objects in the field of consciousness. The subjective sensation function monitors subjective feelings, and the subjective rational valuing function makes judgments as to whether a privately held object of attention is good or bad, OK, or not OK.

On the last two page of the last Chapter, Damasio acknowledges imagination's ability to navigate the future as the ultimate gift of consciousness, and this depends on the intersection of self with memory, tempered by personal feeling, with consideration of the well-being of members of society. Damasio handles mapping vs simulating body states on pages 101-107, and touches on the recent discovery of mirror neuron's ability to simulate body state feeling of another creature (monkeys were the subject) in the observing self's brain-mind. He suggests that being able to simulate or imagine the other "object" would not be possible if the neurological network were not first in place to simulate and imagine one's own "self" in an "as-if" future. It is important that imagination is included in Damasio's new neurologically based model of the intentional attentive protagonist self-in-mind.

James devoted entire Chapters in his two books to imagination and attention. Jung, coming from an empirical study of the mental categories of objective and subjective knowledge, came up with the sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling categories of information that can be held in the conscious mind and witnessed by the small momentary "self", against a longer term unconscious background of the larger "Self". Jung included imagination as an actual perceptual content of the intuition function, but not as a separate intentional function. However, Jung included a fifth transcendent function that comes into play for reconciling opposing tendencies of the functional information about objects. This transcendent function works with symbolic images that may be developed and brought forth in a process described by Jung as active imagination. Jung also identified the two directions of attention and interest known as the extraverted and introverted attitudes of consciousness. Jung's terms extraversion and introversion are widely used today. They are included as options of attentional choice in the MBTI�(Myers Briggs Type Indicator), and as one of the five factors in the Five Factor Model of Personality. Geldart included attention and imagination as functions of intentionality, plus Jung's four functions of perception and judgment for both subjective and objective objects of attention in the EPIC model (Emergent Patterns of Individual Consciousness).

Damasio implicitly puts William James psychological and pragmatic concepts of self, attention, imagination, ideomotor force and steam of consciousness on a modern neurological foundation. I think it is time for Carl Jung's knowledge categories of consciousness (very suitable for the autobiographical self) to be considered for its pragmatic value by scientists of consciousness today. Why so? Jung spoke of the four functions (knowledge aspects) of consciousness (S, N, T, and F) or sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling. Jung described them in his Psychological Types in 1921. Beebe thinks of them as types of consciousness, not types of people [Beebe, J. (2004). Understanding Consciousness through the theory of psychological types, Cambray and Carter (eds.) Analytic Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Analysis]. Brunner-Routledge. Geldart included imagination and intention as functions of intention, along with Jung's four extraverted functions for real external objects and four introverted functions for subjective internal objects of consciousness in the EPIC model (2010).

Damasio has something to say on page 14 about attempts by others to relate a view of the mind as a nonphysical phenomenon with laws of quantum physics. He appeals to relying more on an unfolding understanding from neuroscience instead of possibilities from a more remote and less accessible quantum physics. He prefers not to explain the mystery of conscious mind with another mystery of quantum physics, and refers to several authors leaning on a quantum physics explanation. He does not refer to the work by Schwartz, J. and Begley, S. (2002). The Mind and its Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. Schwartz working with Henry Stapp found that the effect of attention can be modeled in Schrodinger's wave equations that are normally applied to physical matter at the sub-atomic level. They assume that attention can change the odds on which wave function wins and hence which thought wins (page 362, Figure 8 of their book). Obviously, this does not explain how consciousness emerges in mind with associated mental images, nor is this what they intend to do. But it is a creative effort to show that selective attention of the subject-agent (as James described it) is not something metaphysical, but something permitted in the laws of physics. This hardly needs to be proved because Schwartz's book provides ample evidence that learning new habits and unlearning obsessive compulsive habits can be accomplished by harnessing the self's power of attention to achieve actual free will or free won't choices in the transient moments of decision prior to a voluntary response. What makes this challenging is that Domasio's "core self" is a transient phenomenon that provides the only window of opportunity to make a new free will or free won't response in the real world where things are matter and do matter.

I went back to William James to study his understanding of attention as a macroscopic (not quantum physics) phenomenon on the conscious mind side of the mind-brain system. A closer reading of James found that he discovered (without naming it) a psychological quantum of action and intentionality on the scale of fractions of a second to a few seconds. James' indivisible ideomotor action released in body by the self as agent, and James' indivisible privately voiced mental statements about mental images (the pack of cards is on the table) are pragmatic evidence of a psychological quantum of action effect. This predates quantum effects in physics.

Antonio Domasio's new book "Self Comes to Mind:Constructing the Conscious Brain" is delightful, well worth waiting for, and well worth reading over and over. It's bound to become a classic.

Walter Geldart developed a logical model that integrates William James' intentional functions of attention and imagination with Carl Jung's perception (sensation and intuition) and judgment (thinking and feeling) functions of consciousness. The information is held briefly in working memory. The mathematical model predicts emergent patterns that are analogous to information patterns owned by a "core self" (Domasio). The predicted patterns can be interpreted with definitions from philosophy,psychology, and neurology. The EPIC model is inclusive. It omits no necessary categories of object types (all three real, subjective, and intentional object type categories of philosophy are present). Then it maps ten necessary and sufficient psychological functions from Jung and James to the correct object type categories and to their own position in ten intervals in the momentary indivisible event cycle of consciousness (the Jamesian quantum of psychological activity). It then becomes possible to predict emergent strings of functional content of consciousness using the mathematics of prime number division of the integral duration of the event cycle.


The Epic Roles of Consciousness: Emergent Patterns of Individual Consciousness - Paperback (Jan. 15, 2010) by Walter J. Geldart

Resolving the "Mind-body" Problem through Mental Cartography, December 20, 2010
Professor Damasio begins this incredible story using Darwin's Theory of Evolution as the driving force and centerpiece of a theoretical odyssey that is as intimate as it is cogent and thorough. For the author, the theory of how the mind becomes "self" is a labor of love, surely his professional life quest: the last remaining riddle of the universe, now finally solved by the life work of this author. It is told so carefully, so cogently, and with such clarity and depth that it amounts to a convincing love story that will simply take the breath away.

This book is sure to be one of the finalists in the National Science Book of the year Award. It certainly gets my vote!

At the center of this incredible story (and the author's theory) is the ever-evolving cell: that powerful "active" (but much underrated) building block of all living systems. With the evolution of the cell, which importantly, has, since its inception, always had the capacity to be a "stand-along," "purposefully surviving" functional living system and unit of life. That is to say as a "proto-animal," the cell brings intrinsically into being the functional aspects of an "intentional life." The mind is simply one of the latest evolutionary adaptations of this exquisite carefully balanced, living piece of architecture called (animal) life. One of the key remaining unanswered properties of a cell is that it comes with the "will to survive," built-in? How it does this?-- the author does not touch with a ten-foot pole; and this remains the only flaw in the design, as the research leaves unanswered, and thus begs this most important of questions. But more about that later.

As Professor Damasio demonstrates so elegantly, having a "proto-animal" as the functional building block of life is no small matter. But in fact is a very large matter indeed. It is qualitatively different than say that of having a dead (and thus passive) object (such as an inactive or dead cell or a brick) as the building block of a system. For as the cell has evolved, it's inherent (and unexplained) but powerful and purposeful "will to survive" has also evolved to promote much more specialized and infinitely more complex survival requirements, components and imperatives.

This increased specialization and complexity combined with the unexplained need for a cell to survive, alone appear to be the key elements explaining human motivation, the economics of value, "intention," "anticipation," the ability to predict, the need to reason and plan, as well as "will" itself. Arguably, it is these unexplained aspects of the cell that drive the machinery of life, self and the life of the mind. With it, the cell (as well as the body as organism), is motivated to adapt in order to live, and as a result of this built in imperative, it has "learned" over eons how to coalesce and combine with other cells to form "colonies," which over those years have also evolved into specialized sub-components (such as organs of the body, etc.) and ultimately into organisms and other larger living eco-systems themselves -- all engineered and controlled by the DNA of the genes (or their equivalents, mimes of culture).

It is the members of these specialized groups of cells, the neuron in particular, that is the protagonist and hero of this story: One that in my view finally gets the mystery of consciousness out into the open, and the story about consciousness, the self, emotions and feelings, right. The neuron is not just a cell, but the "micro system" at the cellular level that through its signaling, mapping, imaging and messenger roles, is pretty much responsible for sculpting, and controlling the activity of the larger macro system called the body (or organism).

Nothing in science is quite so dense, so elegant, so surprising, so cogent, or so beautiful as the author's carefully honed and incremental descriptions, that build into a crescendo, of how the neuron through evolution has resolved the long-standing and formidable "mind-body" problem. That problem is dispatched as a matter of course, and so easily and with such elegance that it reduces simply to a side issue dealing with the question of the need for the body to maintain less than a dozen or so parameters within very narrow homeostatic ranges.

In it role as the conductor of a symphony of a multilayered orchestra of cells, it is the neuron's job as the CEO of that operation to maintain the body in the necessary homeostatic condition. However, "body maintenance" is a job that predated even the brain and exists even in animals without a conscious mind. These "proto-mental" capacities were important antecedents to the mentality that eventually encompassed what we have come to know as "conscious mentality." Therefore the older brainstem, which still "maintains" the body through passive processes and processing, is strongly implicated and shown to necessarily have been a precursor to the more complex later set of brain operations that we have come to recognize as the "self" and as consciousness.

The neuron conducts the body's orchestra of both "normal body maintenance" as well as its self-reflective activities, which actually create the "self." The neuron does this by being a serious multi-tasker; one scripted to provide the charts for the music of the body: its feelings and emotions (which just happen to bring them into being). The sheet music comes in the form of interactive maps, images and bi-directional messages of the cell's and the organism's activities, all brought together as a symphony of managed anticipation, forward feedback and pre-processing, predictions, storage, retrievals and editing from memory, and the channeling of interests and attention -- all in defense of maintaining homeostasis -- that is to say in defense of the body's (or the system's or organism's) global survival interests. The summation of this mostly cartographic activity, called up as perceptions, maps and images, from either inside or outside the brain, is what constitutes the brain's response to the imperatives of life. We sense this constant teeming brain activity as conscious feelings and emotions that we can uniquely attach to the self. QED.

All of this exquisite complexity is resolved beautifully in the Occam's Razor sense. To wit: No other theory, so far, explains what the brain or the mind does quite as economically as does Professor Damasio's. No other theory explains how the "self" comes into being quite so cogently as Professor Damasio's. No other theory explains how evolution plays such a critical role in the development of this orchestra as does that of Professor Damasio's. And all of this knowledge is gained by him the hard way: through careful observation of diseased brains, of split-brain research, through the author's on over-sized introspective brain, and by the pulling together of the research of nearly every fruitful avenue in neurology over the last century. To say that this book is a tour de force would be an understatement.

Because Professor Damasio's theory does not even attempt to explain where the cell's "will to survive" comes from, it leaves the back door open for the "Intelligent Designers" to pounce on. I predict that it will be just a matter of time before they seize on this single isolated fact as an opportunity to say that: it is a god that implants this will to live into the cell? Surely, they will do this, but when they do, it will be a poison pill as surely they can then will be able to see that they have walked into a trap of their own making: as they then will have no choice but to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as god's own handiwork. If they want to do that, then fine. It simply makes god superfluous, as we already knew he always was. Fifty stars.

A few thoughts, December 18, 2010
I'm in no way a neuroscientist or someone with deep psichology or neurology knowledges. I'm just an interested layman that finds the subject at hand fascinating. I'm also perfectly aware from the fields that I study that there are frequently several contesting theories, and rarely there's consense over all the minutiae.

I must commend the other reviewers for the excellent commentaries on this work. I will not be so thourough and analytical.

This book might take some time to read and absorb the contents, specially if you lack bases of anatomy and neurology (like me), altough professor Damasio tries to simplify matters with many metaphors and practical examples. Many aspects are covered in this work, including the construction of maps through our "objectives"; how memory works and how do we reconstruct things from memory (although sometimes lacking details) through the Convergence Divergence Zones; the importance of homeostasis and mechanisms of reward-punishment; the construction of conscience and the importance of the Cerebral Cortex, but also of the Thalamus and the brain stem! Not forgetting the effects and relation between culture, society and biology of the brain among many other fascinating subjects (like the Qualia).

Naturally we are only scratching the surface on how our brain works and what makes the self, but with the work of Professor Damasio and several other top neuroscientists slowly we will take conscience on how conscience works. ... Read more

Editorial Review

With a new chapter. The phenomenal bestseller—over 1.5 million copies sold—is now a major PBS special.

Winner of the Pulitzer Prize, Guns, Germs, and Steel is a brilliant work answering the question of why the peoples of certain continents succeeded in invading other continents and conquering or displacing their peoples. This edition includes a new chapter on Japan and all-new illustrations drawn from the television series. 32 illustrations. ... Read more

Reviews

I guess some folks don't have the patience, July 13, 1999
I think some of the reviewers here didn't read the book closely enough to understand the context of some of Diamond's arguments. He never says that biogeographical effects are the ONLY causes history. His main purpose is the search for the ultimate, extremely general causes for the broadest of trends in human history and prehistory.

By the time the Mongols roared across Asia, or the Moguls invaded India, many cultures around the world already changed so much that bioregional factors, though seminal in the creation of these broadest trends, weren't nearly as important as the political, religious and economic ones. He is not ignoring religion and so on but, he states plainly several times that isn't his focus. He is looking for ultimate causes--before humans had extremely advanced mental concepts like religion.

He also wanted to point out the devastating influence of disease on history. It was surely the European germs that did most of the conquering of Native Americans. The guns and horses were almost incidental. Later on, once Europeans had established themselves, then we can focus on economic and political systems. But we can't ignore the effects of the diseases unleashed on the Americas. These plagues gave the Europeans a very lucky boost that catapulted them beyond the wealth and power of China, India or the Middle East--long before the Industrial Revolution made this gap obvious.

Another thing that some people seem to be having trouble with is his assertions about the native intelligence of tribal peoples around the world. (If you read the book, you notice that he is not just saying this about the New Guineans.)

He takes pains to point out what he means by this. He not talking about some mysterious genetic superiority of tribal peoples. It's all straight up culture. Tribal culture forces people to be better generalists than they'd have to be in literate civilizations. They can't rely on embedded support structures like books for memory or experts for obscure fields. They have to be pretty good at a lot things. Otherwise they die. They have to be better at memorizing things because they can't count on computers or books to remember things for them. Living in a dangerous, wild environment makes them cautious and aware of all that is going on around them. That was all he meant. The circumstance of tribal peoples force them, only in very broad ways and only on an individual basis, to be smarter and more curious than civilized people.

And in the end it does them no good. Because civilized societies are SMARTER than tribal societies. That is why tribal society has been steadily disappearing over the millenia. They just can't compete.

Finally, of course the book is repetitive. In fact he sums up his argument in the preface of the book. You needn't even read the rest if you don't want to. The rest of the book consists of him reiterating his points from different angles to point out the objections he has managed to answer and the many questions that still remain. He is just following scholarly practice and exposition--just to make things clear that he has thought about this.

He knows that his theory can't explain everything. In the epilog he points out that China, India and the Middle East are good counter examples to his idea. They each had an expansionist rise to great power--a time when they were unafraid to try new ideas and explore new ways of doing things. If the highly complex forces of economics, politics, religion had arrayed themselves differently. We might all be speaking Arabic now. Or Cantonese. Europe was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time for things to come together as they did.

Science in the service of History, October 4, 2000
In one compelling volume, the famous biologist Jared Diamond tackles the most important question of global history: Why did Europeans come to dominate the New World?

This question has been answered by others before; Diamond's idea that Europe's geography is the cause ("geographical determinism") has also been proposed before. Any student of history can drag up a case or two of this thesis. Baron Montaigne, for example, proposed that Europe's primacy stemmed from its superior government, which could be derived directly from the coolness of its climate.

The deep significance of this book is that Diamond's thesis is not simply idle speculation. He proves that the Eurasian land mass had by far the best biological resources with which to develop agricultural societies, and was thus more able to form large, coherent, and powerful social entities.

To support this idea, Diamond introduces thorough set of well-researched data on what kinds of plants and animals are necessary to support a farming society. He investigates the biological resources available to potential farmers in all parts of the world. The people of Eurasia had access to a suite of plants and animals that provided for their needs. Potential farmers in other parts of the world didn't-- and so their fertile soil went untilled.

After establishing this strong foundation, Diamond falls into repeating ideas about the formation of large-scale societies. These ideas, while unoriginal, are still compelling, and Diamond presents them in a very clear and well-written way.

His other major original contribution comes when he discusses the diseases that helped the Old World conquer the New. Building on his earlier chapters dealing with Old-World domesticated animals, he shows that these very animals were the sources of the major plagues (such as smallpox) which virtually annihilated New World populations. The fact that Old Worlders had immunities to these diseases was a direct result of their agricultural head-start.

Along with these monumental contributions to History, this book has its drawbacks. If you're looking for a narrative explaining Great People, Great Events, or Modern Ideas, you will be sadly disappointed. Diamond's thesis offhandedly assumes that it is difficult to believe Shakespeare's plays or Newton's laws could have been written by hunter-gatherers.

If you are looking for reasons why Europe came to dominate the world, rather than, say, China, Diamond presents mixed results. He mentions the 14th century self-isolation of China, but does not analyze it. He also brings up the odd theory about the relationship between the coastline lengths of Europe and China and trade potential; this idea is provably wrong.

If you are looking for a book that explains the world's history of the past 500 years, look elsewhere. Guns, Germs and Steel exhausts itself by effectively, coherently, fundamentally, definitively, and entertainingly explaining the preceeding 15,000.

I do not hesitate to recommend this book to anyone with an interest in world history. The scholarship is first-rate, and the thesis is incredibly significant. The technical details, while complete, are presented in a very easy to understand way, and Diamond's writing style is fun and engaging. It fully deserved the Pulitzer prize.

A strong theory convincingly argued, but marred by bias, January 24, 2001
According to Diamond, four factors are responsible for all historical developments: 1) availability of potential crops and domestic animals, 2) the orientation of continental axis to facilitate the spread of agriculture, 3) transfer of knowledge between continents, and 4) population size.

Diamond states that "those four sets of factors constitute big environmental differences that can be quantified objectively and that are not subject to dispute." Fair enough, but what *is* subject to dispute is that there might be some other factors at work. Thomas Sowell in Race and Culture does a good job of developing the thesis that the exchange of information among European cultures, facilitated by Europe's plentiful navigable rivers, was the key to Europe's technological and economic rise. David Landes in the Wealth and Poverty of Nations attributes China's conscious decision in the 1400's to isolate itself form other nations as the key event (decision) that caused it to lose it's technological advantage and fall behind Europe. (Diamond briefly touches on 15th Century China in the final chapter, but manages to boil this as well down to an accident of geography.)

This is unfortunate, because the book contains a wealth of excellent material which is excellently explained. Many of the core causes which Diamond explores ring very true, and his points are persuasively argued. The connection between the development of agriculture and the subsequent unequal rise of military capability worldwide is very convincing. But convincing though they may be, reading these theories one can't shake the sneaking suspicion that Diamond is selectively presenting evidence which he's has found to support his previously drawn conclusion, and neglecting evidence which runs counter.

Diamond plants these doubts through his sometimes-careless prose. Consider the following statement, which he includes in the introduction to his chapter on the rise of food production:

"My fellow farmhands were, for the most part, tough whites whose normal speech featured strings of curses, and who spent their weekdays working so that they could devote their weekends to squandering their weeks' wages in the local saloon. Among the farmhands, though, was a member of the Blackfoot Indian tribe named Levi, who behaved very differently from the coarse miners - being polite, gentle, responsible, sober, and well spoken"

I thought for a moment that I'd wandered into the script for "Dances With Wolves." Note that had this statement been turned on its head - had he, for example, recounted an unflattering anecdote about Native Americans or Hispanics -my instincts would immediately warn me that the author's biases might be influencing how he chooses to present the evidence. I myself am a Black American, I'm all too painfully aware that we've had to wade through some pretty grim stuff penned by authors clutching at straws to support their racist white supremacist views of the world. In this case Diamond does the reverse by aiming his negative bias towards Caucasians, but if I'm truly interested in unbiased science then my skepticism should remain the same.

That I lead with these criticisms is evidence of my disappointment in what could have been an excellent book, and indeed much of it *is* indeed excellent. This is a book that taught me much and has indeed changed my view of world history in many ways. I do recommend this book - the details are good and many of the theories ring true, but in the same breath I would warn against accepting Diamond's conclusions in their entirety without a bit of skepticism.

In summary, Guns, Germs, and Steel contains an important feature which David Landes's Wealth and Poverty of Nations so conspicuously lacks: a grand unifying theory which links the disparate growth rates of diverse societies worldwide. But Diamond's tidy conclusion that world history is simply a deterministic result of geography and nothing else is not entirely satisfying, especially in that it might cause us to be complacent about the future. I accept that accidents of geography have had a huge effect on mankind, and Diamond convincingly argues this. But culture and human decisions do matter. Diamond argues that human ingenuity is simply the result of the accident of having a larger population from which to draw innovations - but societies that internalize this philosophy do so at their considerable peril.

A new view of where the fertile ground is found..., October 3, 2001
GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL is a persuasive discourse of competitive plausibility regarding the challenging question why population groups on different continents experienced widely divergent paths of development. Contrary to the voluminous objections cited in the many of the reviews below, Professor Jared Diamond, clearly an enthusiastic proponent of environmental determinism, presents a set of premises consistent with evidence provided from a wide range of disciplines, but he does not attempt to answer the question of genetic diversity, including differentiated intelligence, among racial groups as many reviewers have inferred. If anything, implicitly, the author appears to support promulgations of differentiated intelligences; he sets out to demonstrate intelligence was not the root cause to Eurasian dominance.

On at least two occasions Diamond, without equivocation, stated he found on average the New Guinean to be more intelligent than the average European or American. He was prompted to undertake this investigation as a result of a question posed by a New Guinean friend - Why white people developed so much cargo (material goods) and brought it to New Guinea while the indigenous had so little. Diamond summarized his findings as follows: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves."

Beginning 13,000 years ago, the author illuminated the conditions or circumstances that may have facilitated growth for some groups and inhibited the same for others. Diamond accepts the out of Africa theory for the dispersion of Homosapiens to the other continents (for purposes of his treatise Europe and Asia are indivisible), and like the old axiom of real estate, the importance of location, location, location becomes readily apparent. For Diamond, food production is the ultimate cause of variable rates of development for different peoples. He illustrates how the abundance of wild plants subject to domestication and availability of large mammals served as immediate factors to transition from hunter/gatherer bands and tribes to sedentary agriculturally based chiefdoms and states.

Diamond lists what he proposes as proximate causes to European dominance:

1) Germs - based on close proximity to domesticated animals, immunities were developed infectious strains Europeans would carry to other areas, resulting in the decimation of non-immunized populations. In turn, those groups had few autochthonous diseases that would affect the invaders.
2) Invention of writing- relatively sedentary lifestyles facilitated devotion of more time and effort to the creation of methodologies to control and coordinate commerce. These systems eased transfer of information among society members, and had further implications to the establishment of hierarchical political organization.
3) Axial orientation of the different continents - east/ west orientation was conducive to transmigration of people, products, and technologies. Plants best suited to specific climatic conditions were readily transferable; geographic encumbrances were less severe and population isolation was not as significant.
4) Establishment of hierarchical organizations - food production instigated the growth of artisan classes focused on technological improvement, leisure classes devoted to functions unrelated to subsistence, organization of massive armies comprised of professional soldiers, and religion, which allowed individual groupings to live together under codification without killing one another.
5) Continental Isolation - Landmasses that were separated by geographic or ecological boundaries were under less pressure to develop or adopt new ideas, products or technologies from competing civilizations.

Some of the author's theories were not defended as successfully as others. His explanation why Sub-Saharan Africans were unable to identify species (the water buffalo and Zebra are two prime examples) that may have been used in farming and commerce seemed rather weak. Capture, taming and subsequent selective breeding for temperament seems as viable here as he indicates was the case on the Eurasian plains for other species. Similarly, he does not offer a convincing argument regarding the American Indian's failure to domesticate the Bison, although the inference seems to be the lack of cultivatible plant life was certainly a factor.

Overall, Diamond provides a compelling theory of the differences in development rates among different peoples, linking a wide set of factors that are not generally considered in parallel in the historical record. For anyone with even peripheral interest in the evolution of different societies, this is an enthralling book.

Love it or hate it, you should read this book, September 24, 2002
As an avid reader with absolutely no previous contact with the field of anthropology, I found this book to be mesmerizing. Jared Diamond has achieved great success with "Guns, Germs and Steel" (national best-seller, Pulitzer Prize), but it has also made him the target of strident, often venomous criticism...

Diamond's general thesis is that the West conquered the world rather than vice versa because of a fluke of nature. In short, Eurasia was home to an important number of crops and animals that readily lent themselves to successful domestication. This domestication resulted in mass food production, which the author claims is the "ultimate" cause of Western dominance. Food production, in turn, led to a number of "proximate" causes related to the rise of the West: farms and animal herds led to stationary populations and excess food to support a specialized class of bureaucrats and soldiers; it also increased population density, which, along with close contact with animals, led to germs and the subsequent genetic resistance of Westerners to those diseases. Finally, Diamond concludes, the unique East-West axis of Eurasia and the absence of any impenetrable geographic barriers fostered the spread of new crops, technologies, etc., which gave rise to many competing communities, whose competition further increased the western lead over the rest of the world.

Diamond's arguments are persuasive on the surface, and even the biggest skeptic will have reason for pause after reading his book. However, the final chapter reveals that he can't really resolve a fundamental question: why did Europe, rather than the Middle East, India or China come to conquer the world? Almost the entire book is dedicated to explaining why the Eurasian landmass was blessed with the prerequisites for large civilizations rather than the Americas, Africa and Australia. His terse explanation for why Europe in particular dominated leaves much to be desired and explained.

In this reviewer's opinion, the recent book by classicist Victor Davis Hanson ("Carnage and Culture") provides a plausible epilogue for Diamond's piece. Hanson completely and explicitly rejects Diamond's geographic determinism, but I don't think the two theses are incompatible or in any way mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems to me that Diamond and Hanson support one another, as the latter's assertion that the war-making efficiency of liberal democracies beginning in the Hellenistic period explains Europe's ultimate triumph.

In closing, as an introduction to anthropology and a cogent depiction of one school of thought on the rise of the West this book is marvelous. Approach it with an open-mind, reflect on the thesis and the supporting evidence, and then draw your own conclusions. Love it or hate it, you owe it to yourself to read this book.

An overrated book, November 9, 2003
Jared Diamond is a thoroughgoing geographical determinist. His book highlights both the strengths and the weaknesses of this approach.

Diamond's major topic is the Neolithic Revolution. His intention is to demonstrate that environmental conditions were not equally suitable to the development of agriculture on different continents. Eurasia, he contends, was the most appropriate place. It had the largest number of domesticable plants and animals, an east-west axis favoring the diffusion of inventions, offered good possibilities for inter-continental communication, and was the largest and most populous continent. So the Eurasians were first in developing agriculture, gaining thus a headstart in history. Agriculture led to rising polulations and created a dynamic that prompted the evolution of states, writing and a sophisticated technology (guns and steel). These social and technological advantages, plus immunity to the most dangerous infectious diseases (germs), allowed Eurasians to easily subdue the natives of the Americas, Australia and Southeast Asia.

On the whole this argument, which takes up the first 410 pages of the book, is convincing. Diamond is also right to insist on adopting a long time-frame. As early as 8000 years ago Eurasians had a substantial edge over their rivals on other continents, making it unlikely for those peoples and civilizations to catch up.

Had Diamond stopped writing at this point, he would have published a good work.

However, he was not content to treat only the Neolithic Revolution, but wanted to cover all major turns in world history. Hence the last 15 (!) pages of the book are devoted to a completely different subject. Having explained the rise of Eurasia, Diamond now wants to explain the rise of the West. Quickly the question becomes: Why Europe, not China? Borrowing an idea from Eric Jones ('The European Miracle'; but beware: Jones' approach is much more sophisticated than Diamond's, avoiding any kind of monocausal determinism) Diamond provides a simple answer: Europe was geographically more diverse than China. Therefore it did not become politically unified. Political fragmentation led to openness and openness to progress - ideas and inventions that were rejected at one place could succeed at another.

This speculation is not plausible at all.

First, there is no geographical NECESSITY for European fragmentation and Chinese unity. Europe has many features favoring political unity. Its long coastline and a great number of navigable rivers allow for easy transportation by water, offering an important asset to any would-be imperial power. The Romans took advantage of this to the utmost, and if they were able to conquer a great part of the continent, there can surely have been no compelling GEOGRAPHICAL reason for later powers to fail. Diamond himself seems to realize this, when he admits that India had even more agricultural core areas than Europe. Yet India was ruled as a unified empire for most of its history.

Second, Diamond's explanation - even if assumed to be correct - accounts only for INNOVATION. It tells us why certain inventions made by Chinese craftsmen were never introduced into the production-process of China's economy. A more important question to ask would have been why many significant inventions were not made in China in the first place. A prime example coming to mind is modern natural science, which was never developed in the Middle Kingdom.

Third, it is easy to see that Diamond's argument is undermined by his own evidence. As he tells us, China was scientifically and technologically ahead of Europe (and the rest of the world) for more than 1000 years. If China could achieve this superiority despite its supposed geographical disadvantages, we cannot escape the conclusion that those disadvantages either did not exist or were of minor importance. Europe, on the other hand, remained a cultural backwater for most of its history despite its supposed geographical advantages. Again, we cannot but conclude that these advantages either did not exist or were of minor importance.

Thus Diamond's environmentalism is completely refuted by Chinese and European history before 1500 a.d. Moreover, no other version of geographical determinism is likely to fare better. Since China's geography did not change within the last 2000 years, every purely geographical interpretation of its history must be wrong. It will either fail to account for the period of Chinese superiority or for the period of Chinese backwardness.

Diamond's errors are grounded in his method. Geographical determinism can explain the Neolitic Revolution, because this transformation was brought about by small bands of hunter-gatherers extremely dependant on their environment. Even so, Diamond needs FOUR causal factors to account for its different outcome on each continent (1. The wild plant and animal species available; 2. Orientation of the major continental axis; 3. Possibilities for inter-continental communication, 4. Size of area and population of a given continent). When we look at the great Eurasian civilizations, we have to deal with a type of society vastly more complex and far less dependant on its environment than are bands of hunter-gatherers. Yet Diamond wants to explain the history of these civilizations with reference to just ONE causal factor (the impact of geography on political unity). Instead of becoming more sophisticated in accordance with its subject, Diamond's approach turns brutally simplistic just as it is applied to the most difficult problem of world history.

It is unlikely that the rise of the West can ever be explained geographically. Any serious attempt to write global history for periods after the Neolithic Revolution will have to be sensitive to the complex interplay between geography, economy, technology, politics and culture that shapes the development of large societies. The work of Max Weber and Fernand Braudel provides good examples of the kind of scholarship needed for this task. Jared Diamond's book not only fails to rise up to this standard, but is crude, superficial and disappointing even from a geographical point of view.

Clearly Diamond did not know when to put his pen down. His book would have been better if he had refrained from addressing topics unsuited to his method.

A Question for the Ages, February 12, 2000
Many years ago a New Guinea native asked Jared Diamond a simple question: "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" Only slightly rephrased, Diamond devotes this book to answering the question why, from the depths of the primeval forests of Africa, mankind emerged at different rates, some achieving the heights of civilization and technology while others remained virtually in the Stone Age? And why did people on some continental landmasses prosper while people on others lagged behind, especially because some locations, like the California Coast, are mild and desirable while others, like Northern Europe are harsh and forbidding?

Diamond's thesis is that some populations got a head start over others in the development of civilization. But the head start resulted from favorable geography and natural resources, not from any innate superiority. Given the same location and advantages, any group of people over time would have reached the same result. The first beneficiary of geography happened to be the Fertile Crescent. The "cradle of civilization" not only had all five major large mammals (sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and horses) available for domestication, but they also possessed the major wild seed groups that would become domesticated grain and cereals. Not all areas are so favorably endowed.

Once hunting and gathering gave way to food production, population density took hold, which in turn made possible civic development and technology. The head start then spread roughly along the same parallel east to Asia and west to Europe. Diamond contrasts Eurasia's wide girth and similar climates with America's and Africa's narrow waist and elongated longitude. Technology and culture can shuttle back and forth vast distances between east and west, but climatic zone differences as well as mountain ranges and deserts inhibit flows north and south.

I have two criticisms of the book. One, it has no footnotes so that one can source out the author's materials. For example, on page 108 Diamond asserts that early man, because of his ego, would rather hunt giraffes than gather nuts. Is that theory his, or someone else's? The very nature of a book such as "Guns, Germs, and Steel" requires that it pile theory upon theory to make a picture puzzle of a distant and hidden past. If key pieces don't fit, the picture may take a decidedly Cubist theme. A few footnotes would help the reader who wants to delve deeper into a topic.

The second criticism is the author's failure to address the role of human intelligence in the development of civilization. Considering the grief Charles Murray took into for writing "The Bell Curve," which held that certain populations have actually raised their intelligence level through centuries of using their brains to solve problems, one understands why Diamond steers clear of the topic - no academic can afford to be tinged with even a hint of racism or euro centrism. Plenty of professors on the leftist fringe stand ready to point the accusing finger any anybody who deviates from the acceptable norm. But surely scholars can deal with the role human intelligence in a non-racist way; after all, the physiology of the human brain is the same in all Homo sapiens. Diamond owes it to his readers to complete the mosaic he has created.

Diamond has an excellent hammer that he uses too often, January 3, 2003
As the saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like nails. I found Diamond's basic hypothesis that the march to civilization is accelerated (if not determined) by availability of useful, domesticable plants and animals and a geography suited for the transmission of the plants and animals (and later ideas) over a large distance very compelling.

The two places he fails in what would otherwise be one of the best books I've read is he seems to be working toward a personal agenda, and he applies his theories to inappropriate situations. His personal agenda is not hidden, with his discussion of New Guinea's tribesmen fairly glowing. I guess it's better to have it out in the open than hidden, but it makes the work seem like a justification for his preconceptions rather than an unbiased research into the broad strokes of history.

His very compelling basic point is that when numerous small groups (tribes, etc) compete, the rate of adoption, modification, and usage of available resources will be fairly constant across any group of people. The rate is only modified by the quality of those resources and the number of people with access to them, because if one society fails to use its resources at the best rate of human invention, a competing society will force the adoption either through competition or conquest.

The problem is, and he acknowledges it in one sentence and ignores it in another, is that when societies (especially dictatorial ones) no longer feel competitive pressure, they can behave in largely unpredictable ways governed only by happenstance and psychology. He tries to explain the failures of the Aztecs and (especially) the Incas to use the wheel by describing them as "Island Cultures" since they did not have competing societies nearby. He later uses the same argument about China.

The problem is that there is a range between small tribes and enormous islands where his theory only partially applies, and where much of written history has occurred. His arguments to explain why Europe was not one big island (meaning politically unified) were not very compelling, but given the fact that Europe wasn't unified his theory does explain why the West outpaced China in the past 600 years. His troubling assertion that the fertile crescent couldn't compete with Europe in modern times merely due to resource depletion (since it had been civilized for so long) was only in passing and lacked much backing in statistics or research.

Unlike some other reviewers, I don't feel he was too hard on the West's modern conquest of the native peoples of the Pacific, the Americas, and Africa. He points out that disease made the lands empty, and that much of the pushing out of the natives was inadvertent due to the actions of people behaving just as our prehistoric ancestors did (and every other continent's ancestors did) for thousands of years. And when he chooses the words "exterminated" (in modern colonization) over "displaced" (in prehistoric colonization) he does it because he has the historical facts to back him up in one case, and only conjecture in the other, and he acknowledges the difference at least a few times.

I definitely recommend this book if you are unfamiliar with the geographical element of the prehistoric move to civilization. Just keep in mind this is a theory that by nature no longer applies, and stopped applying somewhere between 100-600 years ago as modern communication destroyed geographic separation.

interesting theory - difficult to read, February 28, 2002
In July 1972, Author Jared Diamond, was walking along
a beach on a tropic island of New Guinea, where as a
biologist he studied bird evolution. By chance, he
ran into a local politician, named Yali, who was
working to liberate what was then Papa New Guinea from
the Australia government. After hours of
conversation, Yali posed the question, "Why is it that
you white people developed so much cargo (technology)
and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had
little cargo of our own?" Why did wealth and power
become distributed as they are now, rather than in
some other way? Diamond was troubled that he did not
have an adequate response to Yali's Question. Fast
forward 25 years -- Diamond writes a 425 page answer.

The most common explanation to this question involves
implicit or explicit assumptions based on biological
inequalities. Usually these racial explanations are
cast in some sort of Darwinian argument where
causality is often left in question. Diamond thesis
attempts to refute these theories with an alternate
theory. Relying on a combination of history,
archeology, and microbiology, and genetics, Diamond
suggests that the most striking differences between
the long-term histories of different cultures have
been due not to innate differences in peoples
themselves but to differences in their environments.
These environmental factors include: continental
differences in the wild plant and animal species
available as starting materials for domestication;
environmental factors affecting rates of diffusion and
migration; and continental differences in area or
total population sizes. Diamond believes that these
geographical inequalities set different civilizations
on pre-determined trajectories to develop political
organization, technological advancements, and immunity
to disease that allowed them to encounter and conquer
other civilizations.
A cultural historian in a past life, I get all excited
about this sort of thing.

As one can imagine, trying to explain the history of
civilization in one volume is an arduous task.
Diamond chooses to explain his theory in broad strokes
then uses natural experiments at distinct points in
history to demonstrate how his ideas play out. This
is a general problem with all meta-histories.
Historical methods teach us that it is virtually
impossible to forge a bulletproof argument without
delving into the minutia. But when focusing on the

"big picture" issues, there is just too much
information to cover. Diamond does a very good job
managing this balance. He begins by outlining his
methods and follows through on his explanation with
dedication and accomplishment. He goes into just
about the right amount of detail on every subject and
infuses the traditional historical approach with a
healthy dose of scientific discovery. The chapters
concerning the domestication of plants and large
animals are a joy to read. While speaking on the
familiar new world conquest, Diamond is balanced in
the application of his detailed examples to forward
his theories. Notably, Diamond uses Australia and the
south pacific to demonstrate the dissemination of
technology and China to discuss the application of
unified language and political entities. In fact,
with my American History background, I was more
partial to the Euro centric examples.

So what's bad about the book? One of my pet peeves
involves arguing by anecdotal evidence and I cringed
every time Diamond brought up some story about a
bushman to illustrate his point. But this was a minor
annoyance. Another problem is Diamond's paucity of
footnotes. There were several portions of prose that
I felt should have been annotated with further
discussion and evidence. I should also warn you that
this book is a little dense. Be prepared for a 20
page discussion about the cross pollination of
language. It's a good idea to remember that I've got
a degree in this stuff. Back when I was younger,
smarter, and more exciting, I used to pour through
thousands of pages of this garbage every week. Beaten
into submission by a desk job and dearth of ...
pitchers of beer, I found the last 100 pages of Guns,
Germs, and Steel difficult to get through

So if you are up for the challenge, "Guns, Germs, and
Steel" is a insightful and rewarding book. For me, it
was probably a good substitute for chasing women and
the cultural/political theories almost kept me warm at
night. All joking aside, I guarantee that this book
will change the way you think about European conquest.

Captivating, Flawed Scientific Review of Human Prehistory, July 6, 2000
Once in a while a book comes along compelling enough to bring mind altering new perspectives, spark extended contemplation, and arouse fresh interest in overlooked fields of study. This is one of those books. In Guns, Germs, and Steel Diamond investigates human prehistory from a scientific perspective drawing on numerous disciplines to develop a hypothesis that the globally unbalanced rise of civilization and technology was primarily a function of advantageous environmental conditions and resources available to those societies where civilization arose. Though the present landscape may suggest that early societies were on a relatively equal environmental playing field, Diamond's scientific review of the evidence indicates convincingly otherwise. A particularly persuasive point in the book argues that environmental conditions amenable to agriculture (mild climate, indigenous protein-rich plants, and large indigenous domestication-ready animals) facilitated a food surplus and consequently denser populations with surplus time for some members of the society to take on trades, invent, engineer, lead, develop government, heal, build, paint, etc. Innovations then fuelled more surplus time perpetuating a tornado of advancement, sparked in large part by the proverbial flapping butterfly wings of agriculture.

Diamond's book challenged my fractured knowledge of human prehistory leaving worldview shattering ideas in its wake. His book also sparked my renewed interest in geography, anthropology, archaeology, weather, and geology among others. The book's fusion of the scientific method with the study of history was quite potent and refreshing, though at times overly reductionist. As such, less scientifically reducible elements like culture and religion are not considered within his hypothesis.

At times the book did seem to forgo scientific rigor for political correctness. For example, though Diamond relies on numerous examples of relatively recent non-human elements of natural selection and genetics to build his case, he is unwilling to discuss the potential role of human biological variation created by our settling contrasting environments. Considering modern humans resided and/or began migrating to new and varied lands over 100,000 years ago, there seems sufficient time for some physiological variations to develop that may be relevant to Diamond's case. Unfortunately for this reader, anticipating a compelling argument either way, Diamond just states that environment-induced genetic variations are irrelevant to societal development (and "loathsome" to even think about) as if it were a self-evident axiom. Curiously, he challenges this axiom himself by postulating that the people of New Guinea are likely smarter than the average human considering the mental acuity necessary to survive in their harsh environment.

Overall, besides some minor disappointments, this was a spectacular book and I highly recommend it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Richard Dawkins' brilliant reformulation of the theory of natural selection has the rare distinction of having provoked as much excitement and interest outside the scientific community as within it.His theories have helped change the whole nature of the study of social biology, and have forced thousands of readers to rethink their beliefs about life.
In his internationally bestselling, now classic volume, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains how the selfish gene can also be a subtle gene.The world of the selfish gene revolves around savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit, and yet, Dawkins argues, acts of apparent altruism do exist in nature.Bees, for example, will commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, and birds will risk their lives to warn the flock of an approaching hawk.
This 30th anniversary edition of Dawkins' fascinating book retains all original material, including the two enlightening chapters added in the second edition. In a new Introduction the author presents his thoughts thirty years after the publication of his first and most famous book, while the inclusion of the two-page original Foreword by brilliant American scientist Robert Trivers shows the enthusiastic reaction of the scientific community at that time. This edition is a celebration of a remarkable exposition of evolutionary thought, a work that has been widely hailed for its stylistic brilliance and deep scientific insights, and that continues to stimulate whole new areas of research today. ... Read more

Reviews

A Classic of Popular Science, January 27, 2003
More than a quarter-century after its first publication, Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" remains a classic of popular science writing. This edition includes two new chapters as well as extensive endnotes that do much to perfect the original text and correct the few mistakes that were found in it. "The Selfish Gene" is explicitly directed at the layman, and absolutely no knowledge of biology is assumed. While this presents a danger of boring readers (such as myself) who are already familiar with DNA and meiosis, the colorful metaphors Dawkins uses throughout the book do much to keep the reading engrossing and entertaining.

After a lengthy exploration of basic biology, covering topics such as DNA and the origin of life, Dawkins introduces the gene-centered view of evolution that has long been textbook orthodoxy. Dawkins uses the remainder of the book to look at various types of animal behavior in an effort to convey some general conclusions and tools to help the reader understand evolution and natural selection. Much of his effort is devoted to explaining behavior in terms of the 'selfish gene' - especially social behavior that has long been held to have evolved 'for the good of the species.' Dawkins shows that how fundamental axiom of natural selection (that the genes best at surviving and reproducing will eventually spread through the gene pool) leads directly to the selfish gene and the behavior exhibited by nearly all animals (humans being the prime exception).

Many of Dawkins's metaphors have caused raised eyebrows - one outstanding example is his characterization of living things as "lumbering robots" built to protect the genes that hide in them - but the metaphors are always (eventually) brought under control. The title is one such metaphor that has often been misunderstood by superficial analysis. The 'selfish gene' is simply a gene that does not aid others at its own expense. Such genes would be better able to reproduce and spread through the gene pool than those that did sacrifice themselves for others, and therefore completely dominate the gene pools of all species as a result of billions of years of evolutionary pressure.

I cannot hope to adequately summarize Dawkins's arguments in a mere review, so I sincerely urge you to read "The Selfish Gene" for yourself. I should warn that conservatives would probably not enjoy the book nearly as much as I did. Dawkins is an open secular humanist with socialist leanings, and is not worried about offending the delicate sensibilities of creationists and fundamentalists. This book should only be read by those willing to 'accept' the validity of natural selection and evolution; others would only waste their time. I would direct readers seeking a more scientific discussion of these issues to G. C. Williams's "Adaptation and Natural Selection." All others will most likely enjoy "The Selfish Gene" a great deal and finish the book with a new appreciation for and understanding of evolution and biology.

Excellent, simply excellent. Buy it. Read it. Recommend it., November 3, 1999
I must say this book is excellent. The concepts are explained in a way that makes them very easy to grasp. The metaphors are truly illuminating. Dawkins may be the best science writer I have ever read.

The people who gave him one star must have serious problems in comprehending simple logic. I read one review where the guy was criticizing Dawkin's for titling the book "The Selfish Gene". His argument was that genes being molecules could not be selfish. WELL NO DUH!!! The genes are not selfish in an anthropomorphic sense they just behave as though they were only interested in their own replication. And this behaviour arises because they descended from succesful ancestors that had the same behaviour. Even the word "behaviour" is not absolutely the best fit here. We could say the genes operate to maximize their replication.

But all that rewording is only necessary for people who cannot bring themselves to accept the stark true logic of Dawkin's book. To the rest of us once Dawkins has illuminated the concept its logical appeal is self evident. Nitpicking the semantics is pretty lame.

Fascinating, but at times I wish I could unread it., August 7, 1999
I wish I could rate this book at 5 stars and 0 stars at the same time. It is a fascinating book, very well-written, and it conveys a real sense of how life works on the biological level, how all sorts of diverse factors interact with each other to create an incredibly complex system (the evolution of life, in this case); it also just as vividly conveys a sense of how scientists come to understand these processes.

I started it many years ago at the suggestion of a friend, thinking I wouldn't find it very interesting, and not much liking the kind of philosophy of life that (on the basis of my friend's description) seemed to lie behind it. But only a chapter or two in, I was completely hooked, and wanted to read more Dawkins.

On one level, I can share in the sense of wonder Dawkins so evidently sees in the workings-out of such complex processes, often made up of quite simple elemental mechanisms, but interacting so complexly to produce the incredibly complex world we live in.

But at the same time, I largely blame "The Selfish Gene" for a series of bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper - trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for me some years ago.

The book renders a God or supreme power of any sort quite superfluous for the purpose of accounting for the way the world is, and the way life is. It accounts for the nature of life, and for human nature, only too well, whereas most religions or spiritual outlooks raise problems that have to be got around. It presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature, and makes life seem utterly pointless; yet I cannot present any arguments to refute its point of view. I still try to have some kind of spiritual outlook, but it is definitely battered, and I have not yet overcome the effects of this book on me.

Richard Dawkins seems to have the idea that religion and spirituality are not only false, but ultimately unable to give a real sense of meaning and purpose in life. Their satisfaction is hollow, empty, and unreal, in his apparent view, and only a scientific understanding of life can give a real, lasting sense of wonder and purpose.

I would question this. While I am not sure what (if anything) there is spiritually, I know that a scientific view of life cannot offer the slightest hope of life after death, and since we're all going to die and most of us don't want to, this is a crippling drawback to the kind of scientific vision Dawkins wants us all to have. If there is nothing beyond death, no spiritual dimension to anything, and everything is just a blind dance of atoms, I fail to see how this by itself can give one a real sense of purpose, however fascinating the dance that Dawkins describes - and it *is* fascinating; let there be no mistake about that.

Because of this, I have the curious feeling of dichotomy about Dawkins' book that it is certainly fascinating on one level, but that I cannot give even qualified emotional commitment to the outlook on life that seems to lie behind it. I would in the end rather have the hope of something wonderful and purposeful that only some spiritual outlook can offer, even though it may be a deluded fantasy, than the certainty of a scientific vision that eliminates any possibility of long-term hope, that condemns us to an empty, eternal death of nothingness in the end. This scientific view may be completely rational; but rationality is not the only important consideration to shape our outlook on life.

Anyone who has a narrow religious view of life, who is absolutely sure their religion is completely right, would be best off avoiding this book like the plague - it probably won't change their views, but they will quite likely get very upset and outraged. And anyone with an open-minded spiritual view had better at least be prepared to do a lot of thinking, and perhaps be willing to change some of their views, because this book *will* challenge almost any spiritual or religious viewpoint I can think of - whether it is of the open-minded or dogmatic sort.

Some critics of this book have found its reasoning unconvincing, its materialist reductionism too superficial and shallow. But, from my perspective, the problem does not lie here; the problem with the book is that it is *too* convincing, that it is *entirely* convincing. The book makes it very difficult to continue to believe in anything that contradicts its basic premise, but which might be more comforting, and might give a greater sense of hope and inspiration, and provide a real sense of purpose in life.

Such have its effects on my life been that, in my more depressed moments, I have desperately wished I could unread the book, and continue life from where I left off.

It has been said that each of us has a God-shaped hole inside, and that we spend most of our lives trying to fill it with the wrong things. I firmly believe that God-shaped hole is there, that we have inner longings of a wonderful sort almost impossible to describe in words. Whether a God exists to fill it, I do not yet know. But what I am sure of is that, as wonderful as Dawkins' view of nature and of life may be on its own level, it will not fill that God-shaped hole.

Enjoy the clear text but buy it for the content., December 16, 1998
Reading Yehouda Harpaz' review, I realized that some people have trouble understanding Dawkins' ideas, apparently because they would rather confine evolution to a limited area -- the biology of animals -- and keep it from applying to humans, most especially to our minds. I'd like to express some of the ideas in Dawkins' book to entice you and clarify these misconceptions.

1) The central thesis is that genes act as if their intention was to selfishly help themselves spread throughout the gene pool. This is not because they have the ability to make decisions or are capable of being selfish the way a person could. It's simply that those that happen to act as if they had wanted to spread do spread, and they do so at the expense of the rest. This notion of apparent design from natural selection is the keystone of neo-Darwinism.

2) The idea of analyzing evolution by looking at how each individual gene spreads itself in the environment of other genes is not only clear but illuminating, solving problems that the organism-centered approach cannot. Remember, an environment consists of whatever circumstances, objects, or conditions one is surrounded by. That means that, just as it makes perfect sense to say that other people form part of each person's environment, it is logical that other genes form part of a gene's environment. A gene competes with other alleles -- alternative genes at its locus -- and often does so by cooperating with genes at other loci, as per Dawkins' rowing team analogy.

3) It's not that Dawkins ignores neurobiology, but that he supports the new understanding that there is neither biological nor cultural determinism for behavior, but rather development based on epigenetic rules. In other words, Dawkins denies the Standard Social Science Model of tabula rasa human nature, replacing it with a less extremist stance that is demonstrably true. As Steven Pinker makes very clear in _How The Mind Works_, humans are intelligent not because we are free from the instincts that drive other animals but because of our ability to use the mental organs that implement our instincts to solve general-purpose problems.

4) Dawkins does not in any way restrict cultural transmission to imitation. However, as his interest is in its neo-Darwinistic evolution, not mere transmission or random change, he focuses on the units of replication -- the memes -- that are naturally selected among. This is particularly interesting since it opens up the way to understanding the coevolution of genes and memes, as E. O. Wilson explains in _Consilience_.

In summary, if you want to understand these issues, don't take Yehouda's word on this or even mine. Get the book and read it for yourself. Life is so much more interesting than anti-evolutionists would have you imagine, and Dawkins is so painfully clear that even the layman has to work hard to misunderstand him. He is, quite literally, a joy to read.

Read the book, not just the title, November 25, 1999
This book was first published in 1976, and instantly became one of the classics of popular science. It stands as the best available introduction to modern evolution theory for the lay reader.

Curiously, while the actual content of the book has been becoming more and more mainstream over the past twenty-odd years, the book itself has been acquiring a reputation for controversiality. My own feeling is that most of the critics cannot have ever read past the title. Dawkins makes it abundantly clear that the selfishness of genes is metaphorical. How anyone could have read the book and come away with the impression that Dawkins ascribes motives and attitudes to genes defies my understanding. The theories that Dawkins puts forward are utterly mechanistic, and entirely in accord with conventional genetics and molecular biology (which are indeed outlined quite clearly in the introductory chapters).

Another misunderstanding (now fortunately less common) is that Dawkins predicts the selfish behaviour of all animals. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, 'The Selfish Gene' attempts to show how the forces of evolution give rise to [a limited degree of] altruism when they would seem, at first glance, to promote utter selfishness.

Thought-Provoking and Well-Written, August 18, 2000
Richard Dawkins certainly has a genius for witty explanations of complex phenomena. "The Selfish Gene" is among the best and most fascinating books on evolution ever written (and remains so today!). Dawkins may not be the first or the only proponent of the selfish gene theory, but he's certainly the most eloquent and captivating.

If the intellectual aha! experience of seeing that selection works at the genetic level isn't enough, read the last few chapters, where Dawkins hides a brilliant idea everyone else would die for. It is here that Dawkins proposes the revolutionary idea of the meme, or the "unit of imitation" (p192 in my copy) - in other words, the replicator responsible for cultural evolution. Since he first proposed the idea, the meme meme has really spread far and wide, which is a testament to its excellence...this is a great example of reformulating an old idea in a new way and ending up with something radically different.

This is the book that first introduced me to evolutionary theory as a study in its own right, and I hope it will stimulate your mind as much as it did mine. I've been a big supporter of Dawkins ever since!

Intriguing Evolutionary Science with Misleading Metaphors, March 23, 2005
Richard Dawkins's book is, for the most part, what people say it is: lively written, intriguing, and an exposition of evolution from the "gene's eye-view perspective." I found it rather interesting to read this book and Dawkins's notion of viewing evolution from the gene perspective (by the way not, as many claim, a notion that was entirely his) can certainly open up much debate in biology and beyond.

I do have some concerns with _The Selfish Gene_, however, namely that the prose is a bit too "lively." Repeatedly, Dawkins reiterates that he does not want to anthropomorphize genes, granting them consciousness and a will. Instead, his metaphor of genes "building survival machines" and willfully acting to increase their own propagation is simply what Dawkins calls "the language of convenience." Moreover, with words such as "selfish" and "gene," Dawkins carefully defines these words to try and avoid trouble. He uses this language of convenience in order to keep the tone of the book light and to keep lay people interested.

While these definitions and metaphors may be "convenient" for Dawkins, they are also downright misleading. Despite the fact that he takes measures to warn us of his "convenient" language, I am not sure that the average reader is careful to make these distinctions and to translate his convenient language back into the language of disinterested evolution. When you engage someone in conversation about this book, what they remember is the image of these little genes, running around making "selfish" decisions in order to increase their own survival rate. By "selfish," of course, I mean a psychologically selfish decision, and not the unconscious "selfish" behavior that Dawkins redefines. If you don't believe me, just ask someone who has read it. Thus, we are right back at a Lamarckian view of evolution, with young children believing that if the giraffe just strains its neck a bit more, they will grow longer necks. If one does read this book, which I do recommend, he or she would be wise to keep a tight focus on Dawkins's use of metaphor in order to not be misled by it.

What interests me more, especially as a student of philosophy, is the degree to which people have viewed this text as a definitive doomsday device for religion, ethics, and morality. One can see the problems Dawkins has caused by reading the upset reviews on this website. I believe that this despair is wholeheartedly mistaken and arises from common misunderstandings about these issues. First, evolution does not necessarily kick God out of the picture (though, many may have to modify their definition of "God" in order to recognize it). Secondly, the truth of ethics and morality does not rely upon the existence of a "God." There are many ethical theories that do not make reference to the supernatural and philosophy has been hard at work crafting these theories for some time now. Thus, even if Dawkins's arguments are completely true, it still could be the case that there is a "God" and, even if there is no "God," there still are very good reasons for believing in ethics and morality. One need not, therefore, despair.

It boils down to this point: even if Dawkins's theory of genetic evolution is correct and the human body is merely a "survival machine" built solely for the continued existence of our genes, the fact that humans have developed into rational, conscious beings sets us apart in some ways from many other "survival machines." Thus, not only do we have the ability to rise above our genetic programming (as Dawkins suggests we might), but it could also be the case that our particular constitution morally requires it. I would recommend reading this book as a landmark work of popular science in the field of evolutionary biology. Just keep your hand on your wallet and make sure you don't get tricked into believing something Dawkins is not arguing for.

Pure brain candy, October 20, 2001
Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is a wonderful non-fiction book. It was a joy to read from cover to cover, and leaves the reader with revolutionary new insights into the evolution of nature and man.

The simple premise of the book is that self-replicating genes are what matter - bodies, and even minds, are tools they have constructed to further aid in their reproduction. "Altruistic" acts - acts that aid other replicating genes at the expense of the gene committing the deed, would gradually be removed from the pool. Some people object to this line of reasoning - and this book for having proposed such - fearing that it reduces man to selfish automatons. It does not, for two reasons that Dawkins discusses in detail.

The first is an analysis of game theory, drawn from Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation". Dawkins soundly demonstrates that many apparently "altruistic" acts are actually a form of mutual cooperation, benefitting both parties. Dawkins shows that many of these cooperative behavior strategies would be expected to arise spontaneously in nature, and remain stable in the population after doing so.

Dawkin's second line of reasoning, dealing almost exclusively with humans, is perhaps the most revolutionary part of the book. According to Dawkins, humans have another type of replicator besides our genes - our ideas. Dawkins names such replicators "memes" ("memory + gene"). Dawkins dicusses the (dis)similarity of the replication of genes and memes, and how memes might well explain a great deal of altruism.

Overall, this was one of the most insightful and exciting works I have read in some time. I looked forward to the moments when I could set down and read another chapter, and was sorely disappointed when I reached the final pages. Highly recommended.

Classic science writing so good it's almost religious, March 13, 2001
"The Selfish Gene" is essential science literacy reading. It is the single clearest introduction to the concept of natural selection at the level of genes, the central concept in modern evolutionary theory. A classic of engaging and illuminating science writing that gets the point across. Maybe too well.

On the down side, the selfishness metaphor does seem to take many readers on a journey that Dawkins doesn't seem to intend, extending "selfishness" beyond the limited way it is used in the book, and even offering them some sort of alternate religion.

That's the power of a really strong metaphor, it tends to take on a life of its own. Dawkins begins to address that I think in his classic introduction in this book of the concept of "memes" as units of cultural replication akin to genes. That's an idea that has yet to be completely shaken out I think, as far as addressing the specific units that memes represent, and how generally and usefully we can model their propagation characteristics without reference to the specifics of the vehicles replicating them.

Thinking of genes as selfish sometimes distracts people from gaining a further understanding of the tremendous complexity of the evolutionary process, and all else that is also going on. That weakness however is more a side-effect of the tremendous strength of Dawkins' argument than any problem that can be faulted to him in this book.

There's also the technical issue of the gene's eye view of the world, which tends to dominate modern evolutionary thinking, because it is believed to dominate evolutionary processes. There are however probably some conditions under which other levels of selection make significant contributions to evolved characteristics. Dawkins doesn't go much beyond things like inclusive fitness and allusions to reciprocal altruism in explaining why some people and other organisms will sacrifice themselves (sometimes for strangers !), and why such a thing as a non-reproductive drone should be constructed by selfish genes. "The Selfish Gene" doesn't really address this in a satisfactory way.

Other authors, such as Elliot Sobel, Robert Wright, John Maynard Smith, and Brian Skyrms have explored these kinds of questions (regarding levels of selection in evolution) better. Also, for those topics, look into the excellent introduction to modern evolutionary thinking in "Sex and Death" by Sterelny and Griffiths, which gives a broader picture, though it lacks the focused clarity and near-relgious force of Dawkins' brilliant exposition of the selfish gene metaphor.

A classic, but nothing new here if you read the 2nd ed., October 1, 2006
My only complaint is that, unlike the 2nd edition, which greatly expanded on the 1st edition, including some very useful and clarifying notes by Dawkin's addressing much of the controvery his first edition created, this aniversary edition does not include any new material, other than a new forward. If you are interested in reading this book, a used second edition copy is as good as this one (skip the first edition -- lacks the last two chapters and Dawkins' comentaries).

The information in this book is worthy of five stars. It is the finest treatise on natural selection as the prime shaper of an evolutionary process to date. It clearly shows how a complex biological system (like humans) can arise from simple replicating molecules. It does not refute religious ideas of supernatural creation, but simply provides an alternative explanation via a natural biological mechanism. It isn't, as some think, ground breaking research -- as Dawkin's says himself, if is more a treatise of existing research. It's importance is in Dawkin's magnificent writing ability that bridged the technical fields of evolutionary biology and sociobiology to the layman. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This download is a free sample chapter from Breakthrough! How the 10 Greatest Discoveries in Medicine Saved Millions and Changed Our View of the World (ISBN: 0137137486) by Jon Queijo. Available in print and digital formats.

Read the following excerpt from the Introduction:

It's tempting to start right off with an apology for the word "breakthrough," a word that—depending on your point of view—can be as tedious as an overhyped headline or seductive as a brightly wrapped gift. Either way, it's hard to resist wondering, What breakthrough? A cure for cancer, an easy way to lose weight, the secret to living forever? But this isn't that kind of book, and apologies seem unnecessary when you're talking about the ten greatest breakthroughs in all of medicine. Sadly, none involve easy weight loss or living forever. However, all are arguably more important because they meet three essential criteria: 1) They saved, improved, or reduced suffering in millions of lives; 2) They changed the practice of medicine; and 3) They transformed our understanding of the world. That last item is too often overlooked. All medical "breakthroughs" profoundly impact health and how physicians work; far rarer are those that open our eyes to a fundamentally new way of seeing the world, giving new meaning to not only such questions as, Why do we get sick, and how do we die? but also, How are we put together and what connects us to the rest of nature?

Each of these ten breakthroughs came at a time in history when they struck humanity like a thunderbolt—a jolt of awakening followed by a palpable rise in human consciousness.

To continue reading, download this free preview of the Introduction & Chapter 1. The full book is also available for sale.

Reviews

Needs the hand of a good editor, March 27, 2010
Very early into the first chapter it became clear to me that the subject matter is very interesting but it needs a good literary editor to fix dubious sentence structures and incorrect word use.

Beware-I suppose you get what you pay for with the free book, March 5, 2010
The free e-book only includes the introduction and first chapter of the book. While I agree you get what you pay for I wish Amazon would say that in effect they are offering a sample instead of the full book as the description implies.

BE AWARE - this is just a 1 chapter review, March 5, 2010
Beware. Even though the title for this does not indicate it this is just one chapter of the book. If a book is just a sample then it should state it is just a sample. The way this was presented (ie save $24.99) you would think it is the full book. So if you think you are getting a full book for free YOU ARE NOT. Please authors be real with your descriptions. I would have written a much better review if I have been fully aware that this was not a full book

BEWARE: This page is designed to rip people off, November 16, 2010
I clicked on 1 click ordering from this page thinking that I'd get the free chapter for a limited time and my credit card was charged 9.99 for the whole book. I don't know who set this page up but it is designed to trick people into buying the book without realising it. Amazon should shut this page down. This page shows very very bad faith.

ONE CHAPTER DOTH NOT MAKE A BOOK!!!!, March 7, 2010
THIS IS JUST ONE CHAPTER OF A BOOK. When I saw it on the cover, I thought that maybe all the first pages to the chapters look like this and surely Chapter 2 etc. would follow right on. Wrong!!!! Where do we now get the rest of the chapters and by that time maybe we have lost interest? I LOVE my kindle, but this is not good enough and I was looking forward to enjoying this book! p.s. Don't say you should be happy it was free, I had to pay $2 for the pleasure of it!
Beware, is right. Kindle advertises this the same as when you buy any other kindle books with: You can read your kindle book ......
I am shocked that my beloved kindle supplier can lead me down the garden path like this. Call it a sample, not saying you save so much.

Extrememly Interesting, March 16, 2010
This book sample is clearly marked that it is only the introduction and chapter one. I think it is unfair to the author for readers to rate a book as one star simply because they aren't given the whole book free. The previous comments, & reason for them, does not speak well for the quality of person using Kindle. I found the preface and Chapter one very interesting, and in of itself I learned a lot. I would like to read the whole book. It was very well written, and easy for the layman, yet not so simple that my physician son might not enjoy it.

State that it is a sample., March 7, 2010
Started to read but realized I was half way through with the book in just a few minutes. Did not know that this was only Chapter 1 when I got it.
If I had known that I Would not have downloaded it.

KINDLE TEAM HEADS UP STANDARDIZE THE WAY SAMPLE BOOKS ARE PLACED ON AMAZON.

I NEVER PURCHASE SAMPLES. PERIOD.

Don't bother, March 11, 2010
Only first chapter. it now states that on the title but it didn't when i downloaded it. Amazon should delete the book and ban the author as a warning to other Authors to not con readers.

free preview; not a free book, March 8, 2010
I don't see much difference between getting a free chapter and the free preview we're all entitled to on all books, except this way is a little more sneaky. I see that the title now says it only includes Chapter 1. I don't know if they added that recently or not, but I thought I was downloading the whole book at first.

This book might be very good - the writing does not seem to be "dry," but beware that it is not free for the entire book. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Most people know Greg Graffin as the lead singer of the punk band Bad Religion, but few know that he also received a PhD from Cornell University and teaches evolution at the University of California at Los Angeles. In Anarchy Evolution, Graffin argues that art and science have a deep connection. As an adolescent growing up when "drugs, sex, and trouble could be had on any given night," Graffin discovered that the study of evolution provided a framework through which he could make sense of the world.

In this provocative and personal book, he describes his own coming of age as an artist and the formation of his naturalist worldview on questions involving God, science, and human existence. While the battle between religion and science is often displayed in the starkest of terms, Anarchy Evolution provides fresh and nuanced insights into the long-standing debate about atheism and the human condition. It is a book for anyone who has ever wondered if God really exists.

Reviews

I'll be damned. Two great books in one., October 1, 2010
Here's how nerdy I am: My introduction to Greg Graffin and Bad Religion came through his doctoral dissertation, which I purchased from Graffin and got autographed. And then I read it. And it wasn't very good. Since then I've read a couple of other things that Graffin has written or co-written (Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant?: A Professor And a Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity), but nothing prepared me for just how damned GOOD "Anarchy" is.

It must be said that the best parts of the book are the parts that only Graffin could have written--the autobiographical sections about his earlier childhood in Wisconsin, his transition to the California punk scene, his approach to music, and so forth. Much of what he write about evolutionary biology will be familiar, at least, to people who have taken some evolution classes or read books such as Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage), and Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. But he does have an interesting take on natural selection. Graffin makes it abundantly clear that his slightly unorthodox view of the importance of natural selection to overall evolutionary theory should give no aid and comfort to creationists (or their better-dressed cousins, Intelligent Design advocates). But he also wishes to show that science, maybe especially evolutionary biology, is still an active, lively field with vivid, animated debates...not about the fact of evolution, but about interesting details related to mechanisms.

And Graffin's chapter specifically on atheism was interesting as well, mostly for its biographical elements. I appreciate what he says about preferring a more dialectical approach that encourages questions, versus the more confrontational approach assumed by "New Atheists" in books such as God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, and The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. He makes an interesting and appealing case, but I'm still left thinking there is room for both diplomatic discussion and spirited debate. After all, the New Atheist books listed probably created a much larger space for the more nuanced and sophisticated conversation even to take place in.

I see this book finding its most natural audience among Bad Religion fans (and I don't know how intentional this might have been, but it's easy to see some cross-currents betwee Anarchy and Bad Religion's new album release, The Dissent of Man) and younger people--say high school age--interested in science, the arts, and their relationship to each other. Also fans of flipping off authority--a Graffin staple, and a real strength of both his musical and, it would seem, his scientific careers.

Uniquely Captivativating, September 28, 2010
An astonishing insight into a man who is not only a legend in the punk rock scene, but also a doctor in evolutionary biology. Graffin shares tales of life as the front man of Bad Religion and his years of study and fieldwork. He also discusses his insights on evolution, as separate biological and cultural phenomena, and how they relate to his naturalist worldview. Recommended for anyone with an interest in the sciences or into Bad Religion.

No one here can show you where it is but I can point to a sign, October 8, 2010
I admit I was skeptical about this book. I saw the titles of the chapters included "The False Idol of Natural Selection" and "The False Idol of Atheism" and wondered just what Greg was going to be rambling about. Now, Bad Religion has been one of my favorite punk bands ( and maybe band in general ) for a few years now. Punk wise, their only competition for the title of favorite is the Misfits, but since the Misfit's lineup has been chaotic, Bad Religion's overall consistency ( apart from the few albums without Brett) makes them the current holder of that title. I've admired Gregg for balancing a band and a PhD with a career in both teaching and science. This book has led me to a whole new level of respect for Greg and Bad Religion.

Greg tells you everything you could want to know. He talks about his childhood, his high school years ( which upon reading about, I STRONGLY relate to -- both of us had a small circle of friends, were into punk rock, but not the illegal shenanigans and drugs most are into, and have had a passion for science rooted in our childhoods ), how the band came about ( I'll leave the names that they almost called themselves as a surprise for you ) , how he got interested in science, and many other interesting things about his youth. As far as his adult life goes, I've come to apperciate that he balances school, science, and music with raising kids and having a wife. Greg is not arrogant about his life. He's honest about the difficulties in it, and about the mistakes he has made in his life.

Other than getting to know the great singer, he presents some scientific views and philosophical views covered in the two suspect chapter names I listed above. Fear not, he's not out to destroy Natural Selection. In fact, he's just putting it in it's place. He acknowledges that random chance and chaos ( hence ANARCHY Evolution ) have as much or more to do with evolutionary change than the algorithm of natural selection. He's not trying to break new ground like Stephen J. Gould did ( Read The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design for a good analysis of Gould's ideas ). As far as atheism goes, he is indeed an atheist. But he acknowledges that the word atheist just means without gods. As far as a description of your world view, that doesn't really imply a lot. I also saw Richard Dawkins make this point in a TED Talk lecture ( Richard Dawkins on militant atheism at the Ted website ). Instead, Greg ( as well as Dawkins ) say that the term Naturalist is a more meaningful term. It implies a specific worldview, which atheism is only a part of. While I call myself an atheist ( because since most people dont know what naturalist mean, I just say what they will understand ) , I can sympathize with this sentiment. Atheism is a single component of MANY ideologies, from Objectivism to Marxism to Soviet Communism , etc, etc ).

One quibble I have is his sometimes less than great choice of wording. One example would be the chapter titles I previously mention, which imply something grandiose, but really isn't anything groundbreaking. Another instance is that he said he doesn't promote atheism in his songs, but I think a better choice of wording would be "I don't tell people what to believe" which, if you read further a few pages, is what he actually means. Those are two very , very minor complaints, however. This book is not a book on God. It's not like the God Delusion ( though I love that book). It's not a science book ( though it has science in it ). It's not a book on the band or an autobiography either. Instead, it's a mix of all of those, beautifully woven together in a little over 200 pages of actual reading material that took me 3 days to finish.

Get this book. You won't regret it.

I Wanted to Give it 4 Stars, October 9, 2010
First of all I enjoyed this book and I really hesitated giving it only 3 stars. I found the final few chapters very inspiring and wonderful. The evolutionary ideas are pretty basic and the author tells too many biographical details of his punk rock experiences. They were interesting in the beginning of the book, but by the middle I just wanted him to get on with it. Even though it is a short and easy read, it could have done without so much irrelevant biography; in that case I probably would have given it 5 stars. I think the reviews here are mostly too glowing, so I'm offering a less enthusiastic thumbs up. You probably won't regret it, but you aren't going to have a WOW experience either.

Insightful, Inspirational, Captivating, October 21, 2010
First off let me say, I have been a Greg Graffin/Bad Religion fan since I was in Kindergarten. Brought up and have lived in the punk scene for as long as I can remember. The problem with the punk seen in general is that the lifestyle is full a self destructive nature that is very hard to escape from. Inspired by the depth of the lyrics if Bad Religion, I began studying the band only to find out that they were not your typical punk band, Dr. Griffin was an educated man that could balance the life of a punk rocker as well as the life of a professional. This made me realize, what is the ultimate defiance of a punk rocker? It is success. I achieved my Masters Degree and continue loving the roots of my inspiration.

I loved the book because it gave me great insight into the man that has inspired me throughout my life. Seeing the struggles that he went though, the items that inspired him, seeing the human aspect of a person that I would consider one of my greatest influences in life. The greatest gift humanity has is the ability to question everything and find truth through observation, experience, and the anarchy life presents us with. This book is this journey, definitely worth reading.

The naturalistic worldview of a punk rock professor, October 18, 2010
Great, easy to read book is an evolutionary primer as well as a memoir of a punk rock legend. For fans of Bad Religion (obviously) and those interested in evolution and atheism.

I recently had the privilege of interviewing Greg for ChuckPalahniuk.net. We spoke about everything from music to the new book to evolution to the existence of god. He gives a great interview.

[...]

Great book, October 13, 2010
Having been a Bad Religion fan for about 16 years, Greg Graffin draws great parallels to his career as a scientist and a musician. He shows that it doesn't have to be all spikes, combat boots and leather to help change and influence the world we live in a positive manner. Thinking for yourself and asking tough questions. Truly anti-authoritarian.

I just picked it up on a whim!, November 29, 2010
I ordered this after hearing an interview with Greg Graffin on NPR. I'm not a big Bad Religion/science fan but thought I'd give this a try and it's pretty interesting, nice to have a different perspective on evolution and I like how he incorporates his own stories about growing up and being in a punk band. :)

Evolution for Punk Philosophers, October 12, 2010
What made this book such an interesting read is that Greg Graffin was able to intertwine a lesson on evolution with the story of his life. The main appeal to punk rock to me has been the angry response to authority. I have also enjoyed the spontaneous order and surprising politeness (with the exception of one concert) that would emerge from mosh pits at Bad Religion concerts. Punk rock spoke to the side of me that rabidly pursues truth. Greg also seems to have this same view about science and punk rock, which was exactly what I was hoping for from this book. Although he does not go into his personal politics in any part of the book, he does explain the beauty behind the anarchy of evolution. The natural order in evolution that arises out of seeming chaos, free of rules and only regulated by reality speaks deeply to a philosopher like me.

Original and Thought Provoking Book, October 7, 2010
Although I don't agree with Graffin on some of his ideas regarding religion and evolutionary biology, this is a great book that deserves to be read. It is clearly written and one of those rare books that you feel like you can read for hours at a time. Graffin is an atheist, yes, or as he refers to himself : a naturalist. However, Graffin should not be lumped in with the "New Atheists" as one reviewer implied. This book takes a different approach than the more predictable NA's like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Stenger, and others. Agree or disagree with the author(s), this book is well-written, insightful, and thought-provoking! ... Read more

Editorial Review

"Speaking as an evolved Transhuman, I applaud this very entertaining, intelligent, and thought provoking journey to the edges of humanity." - Danny Rubin, author and screenwriter of Groundhog Day....

"Immortality is a fine, tense, scientific mystery adventure that puts mankind in a challenge of survival with a short time limit. This is the way the world could end." - Piers Anthony, author of 21 New York Times best-selling novels....

Immortality has been a best-selling techno-thriller on the Amazon Kindle since January 2008!....

Sci-Fi Reader - 4Stars - "This book manages to do what all the best sci-fi does - provide a thought-provoking, alternative viewpoint on the business of existence. I recommend you give it a go." - sfreader.com....

Kirkus - There is enough power in the premise to leave readers reeling. A novel that will surprise fans of science-fiction and doomsday scenarios... An eschatological techno-thriller that explores human evolution, technology and the threat of global environmental collapse. An illicit bulldozer operator begins hearing terrible noises from the depths of the Brazilian rainforest. It's too late for the operator and something terrible is in the air. Birds begin to fall from the sky, and before he find shelter, he slides into a deadly paralysis. Traversing the globe, the narrative picks up ten months later in a Wyoming mountain range. Nobel laureate Mark Freedman is leading an expedition to study bacteria with a group of graduate students. Unaware of the incident in Brazil, or the other "kill zones" manifesting around the world, his knowledge of a particular bacterial strain will become indispensable in the following months as humanity struggles to survive. In Atlanta, Dr. Kathy Morrison humbly prepares for a blind date, but in a few weeks she will be looking for the causes behind another demi-apocalypse this time on American soil. What follows isn't simply a rehashed viral saga in a level-four biohazard suit. It's a story about genetic revelation, environmental destiny and humanity's ecological responsibility. The science of the novel feels just on the side of authentic, and the expertly rendered sterilization procedures that Morrison must endure are as creepy and cool as anything on film or in print. But the novel's quasi-metaphysical implications make it more technically fantastic than hardcore science fiction. Bohacz takes great care establishing each character with personal details that serve the narrative well. Additionally, the science and science fiction are fascinating. There is enough power in the premise to leave readers reeling. A novel that will surprise fans of science-fiction and doomsday scenarios. - Kirkus Discoveries....

Dust cover: Without warning, something has gone terribly awry. In the remote and unnoticed places of the world, small pockets of death begin occurring. As the initially isolated extinctions spread, the world's eyes focus on this unimaginable horror and chaos. Out of the ecological imbalance, something new and extraordinary is evolving and surviving to fill the voids left by these extinctions. Evolution is operating in ways no one could have expected and environmental damage may be the catalyst. Once discovered, this knowledge changes everything....

The story begun in Immortality is not over. A sequel is coming soon....

A paperback edition of Immortality is also available on Amazon.... ... Read more

Reviews

An apocalyptic story that evolves, September 21, 2008
Deep in the Amazon, within specifically precise boundaries, humans drop dead within seconds, leaving behind animals and plant life. The areas are circular, and become known as "kill zones". Little notice is taken until a kill zone strikes in Anchorage Alaska ... American soil.

Dr. Kathy Morrison, a CDC doctor in their BVMC (Bacterial and Viral Maximum Containment) lab is assigned to study the kill zones. Are they chemical or biological? What she does find is large amounts of Chromatium Omri, a benign water bacterium, in eighty percent of the Anchorage victims. She needs an expert on the bacterium.

Dr. Mark Freedman, a bimolecular biologist, has been studying ancient layers of Chromatium Omri BIC 3.7 in fossilized form from the Cretaceous period. He's nicknamed the bacterium COBIC 3.7. Mark leaves behind his girlfriend Gracy, his ex-wife and daughter, to fly from Los Angeles to Atlanta to join Dr. Morrison's search for the cause of the kill zones. When Mark discovers a tiny "seed" embedded inside the COBIC, it's a race for time to discover if the seed is natural or foreign, and whether it's related to the kill zones. What they find is going to surprise you, over and over again.

Other major characters are Sarah Mayfair, a police officer in New Jersey and her hundred and twenty pound Rottweiler Ralph. Sarah finds herself a fugitive after surviving a kill zone, and must find her way back into society. Artie Hartman and his pregnant wife Suzy live in New York. Artie is a lawyer, working as an assistant DA and running from his past as a former gang member. General McKafferty, an ugly, determined man, leads the military research faction called BARDCOM ... but is BARDCOM working with the CDC or against them?

Mark and Kathy are in a race against time and a deadly foe, one that cannot be predicted or controlled. The fate of the world relies upon them breaking the code of the COBIC bacterium.

As an aficionado of Apocalypse books, 'Immortality' is a great addition to my collection. While marketed as a techno-thriller, it manages to fulfill both genres quiet nicely. Kevin Bohacz has done his homework. The descriptions are detailed, the dialogue is natural and flowing, and the plot has the distinctive feel of "real time". The characters are fully fleshed and naturally believable, you'll feel as though you know them personally as you travel with them through loss and triumph. The flow from one character's POV to the next is smooth and fits the flow of the storyline. Bohacz's coverage of possibilities, such as military mishandling, gang behavior, societal classes, changing politics, fear, herding and hoarding, and religious zealotry all smack of realism. 'Immortality' is a journey you don't want to miss.

On the downside, there are some typing errors, spelling and punctuation, probably due to a small press company, but don't let those distract you from a great story. The novel is not necessarily fast-paced due to the detailing, but I still found myself unable to put it down, and thinking about it while not reading. 'Immortality' is an overlooked gem in the apocalypse genre. I highly recommend this book. Enjoy!

Hard to put down, August 7, 2007
This is an all around GOOD read...and not just for SF fans!
I admit, science-fiction is my favorite genre. But this book should appeal to a very broad audience; it has just enough intriguing "science" concepts to keep your brain cells firing nicely without bogging you down outside of the plot line.

When I discover a book like "Immortality" I am thrilled: a well constructed plot, fast moving story-line, well developed characters, attention to small details that add the feeling of reality to the writing, adroit blending of innovative concepts and current issues for earth and humanity...Wow.

I've wondered about how it would be when modern humans began noticing an evolutionary movement into our future, and what specific events might generate that shift...enter "Immortality" and human v2.0 with its intriguing concept.

Enticing reading for anyone. If you enjoy a book that holds your interest so much that you don't want to put it down, and happily anticipate the author's next novel, then "Immortality" should be on your list.

A Thrilling Ride, April 13, 2007
Immortality is an exciting thrilling ride as scientists and the government race to uncover who or what is behind a killer that is rapidly spreading it's deathly web across the world. The characters draw you into their lives in such a compelling manner that you feel an impending dread as you realize their mortality is descending upon them. There is a timely theme of the destruction humans are inflicting upon their own environment and consequently each other. I think everyone should read Immortality as a cautionary tale of the dire consequences that could arise from our irresponsibility towards our only home - planet Earth.

I don't usually read science fiction but I couldn't put this book down. Whether you like science fiction, thrillers, mysteries, or just great writing, fascinating characters, and a first-rate story, you'll love his book.

Great fun!, June 29, 2008
I really enjoyed this book, and I'm sure that anyone who likes "hard" science fiction (and no doubt plenty of others) will enjoy this as well. A fun, absorbing read, interesting characters, a fast-moving plot - I could hardly put it down!

Shock of recognition, March 27, 2008
A profoundly realized vision of a world sliding into inevitable chaos. Bohacz shows us a population changing in the most extraordinary, terrifying ways. The vision of *Immortality* is that of a future where the boundary between computer and human, between the programmed and the self-generated, no longer exists. And--the real achievement here--this world is rendered in the calmest, most eerily placid and gentle prose, as if we could not but yield to its lures (which makes the story all the more frightening). Somewhere, Arthur C. Clarke is smiling.

Brimming with ideas, May 3, 2010
Kevin Bohacz' Immortality is one of those books I happened to stumble across while browsing Amazon. The plot sounded intriguing, so I took a chance and bought the book.

After a promising start set at an illegal tree cutting site in the South American rainforest, the novel grinds to a halt while most of the main characters are introduced and set in motion. I nearly gave up on the book at this point because the background, exposition and needless details bogged down the story. I'm glad I decided to stick with it. Once a mysterious "kill zone" forms over populated American soil, the book kicks into a high gear that moves the story along. Granted, there are still places in the book that slow the pace of the story, but as a whole the story of the kill zones and the work of a team at the Centers for Disease Control to find a way to predict where the zones will strike next (or maybe even how to stop them) makes for fascinating speculative fiction.

Bohacz weaves together paleontology, nanotechnology, computer networking, religion, psychedelia and other assorted subjects into a first-rate story. While some will be reminded of Stephen King's post-apocalyptic The Stand or perhaps a well-written Michael Crichton novel (if such a oxymoron is possible). And toward the end the novel seems to borrow heavily from Paddy Chayefsky's Altered States while the finale feels like a knock-off of Road Warrior.

I wasn't a big fan of the ending. It felt truncated. Obviously, the author is preparing a sequel, but it seemed like the action was cut short just to provide a stopping point for the novel. Frankly, I'm hoping for a sequel to find how he intends to wrap up the loose ends left behind in Immortality. For instance, what happened to the sole survivor of the first American kill zone? After being taken into custody by the military, he's not heard of again. I have a hunch that he'll show up in the next novel ... possibly as the story's new "big bad."

My only other quibble with the book is an apparent lack of research in some places. Obviously, Bahacz knows his stuff when it comes to computer networking and other technical topics; but when one of the characters gets his hands on a pharmaceutical that has been stored "for years" it has apprently lost none of its potency over time.

Even with its flaws I found Immortality to be a book brimming with ideas and would wholeheartedly recommend this book for anyone interested in speculative science fiction and end-of-the-world scenarios.

More, please!, June 16, 2009
Another Kindle book I've devoured. I am missing the characters already - and wondering what happens to the "new tribes" after the dust has settled. This book blends fantastic scientific ideas and terminology with our modern day global dilemmas... and leaves us with a 'what-if' that gives chills. What a ride this book was. I hope for a sequel, to bring us up to speed with Mark, Carl, Sarah, and Kathy. And Ralph, the Rottweiler, too! Thank you for a fantastic trip!

Thank You for an excellent read., April 12, 2009
Quite simply, thank you Kevin Bohacz for such an excellent read. It was very well paced, wonderfully written and difficult to put down (which frankly did not happen often). Writing is obviously something you should be doing. I will absolutely keep my ear to the ground for any and all future works including the sequel to "Immortality". Thank you again.

Excellent, March 11, 2009
This is top-notch science fiction, one of the best I've read in years. Hard science ideas are presented logically and believably, and in a way understandable to the non-geek. Characters are sound and manage to avoid complete stereotypes for the most part, though portrayals of military personnel, etc. stray a little close. The main knock I have is not the writing, but the editing. I'm not familiar with Cprompt as a publisher (self-publishing facilitator?), but the text could have benefited from a professional editor. Many typos and punctuation errors throughout, which were a bit distracting at times.

great read, May 5, 2008
similar to a michael crichton novel. a fun easy read. note that kindle edition has some minor formatting errors that do not affect the overall quality.

Note that the original minor formatting issues in the Kindle edition have been corrected in a recent revision (May 2008). This make it a truly great-reading thriller with enough real-world facts to make the sci-fi elements completely in-context. Can't wait to read more from this author. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Over the years, startling evidence has been uncovered, challenging established notions of the origins of life on Earth—evidence that suggests the existence of an advanced group of extraterrestrials who once inhabited our world.

The first book of the revolutionary Earth Chronicles series offers indisputable documentary evidence of the existence of the mysterious planet Nibiru and tells why its astronauts came to Earth eons ago to fashion mankind in their image.

The product of more than thirty years of meticulous research, The 12th Planet treats as fact, not myth, the tales of Creation, the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, and the Nefilim who married the daughters of man. By weaving together the biblical narrative with Sumerian and Babylonian clay-tablet texts, it challenges the established notions of the origins of Earth and mankind, and offers a compelling alternative history and prehistory of both.

Reviews

Ultra important book even if 50% of it is wrong..., May 23, 2002
Sitchin, if you didn't know it already, is one of the leading figures in alternative archaelogy and science in general.
These days, and especially the last 30-40 years, a "new wave" of scientists and non scientists alike has risen with the intention of re-examining what we as a species consider "knowledge", knowledge about what we are, and where we come from.
Sitchin, being one of the few people in the world who can actually read Sumerian, has spent his life examining our origins, and his conclusions have little to do with apes descending trees and miraculously evolving into humans.
In the "12th planet", his most famous of his alltogether 9 books, he suggests that we are actually the creation of an alien race which landed on earth more than 450 millenia ago, and who created us as slave labor for their purposes on this planet back then. From then on, and through a myriad interdevelopments and influences, we developed to what we are today.
Sure, this sounds controversial, and to most people content with swallowing mainstream teachings for "facts" this might seem as pure science fiction. You would have to read this book before you term it as such though.
It is an exhausting book too, as the author needs to use literally 100s of quotes on original translations he's made in order to make his argument and this isn't just any argument, you understand...
Exhausting as this book might then be at times, the reward is immense, to put it very mildly. Even if Sitchin happens to be wrong on half of his conclusions what he suggests is mind blowing and shatters to bits most of our current beliefs.
More importantly, Sitchin can serve you as a gateway to new paths of thinking. It is impossible -i would think- to read the "12th planet" and emerge the same person afterwards, providing of course that you read it with an open mind. All new knowledge recquires an open mind to begin with. This does not mean that you will necessarily agree with Sitchin if you do read it with an open mind, but the evidence he offers is important and solid enough to make you think in a way you've never thought before.
You ever wondered why we are the only species on this planet that definately does not fit in with its environment? Or why we have so many grey areas and disagreements about where we originate from and how? Or why the word "anthropos" (a greek word) means "the creature that always looks up"? Or even why the root word of the word "earth" comes from the ancient Sumerian (the word e.ri.du) and means "a home far away"?
The "12th planet" will provide you with some spectacular answers.

A hammer for the beginning, May 29, 2000
This is the first book of "The Earth chronicles" series in which Zecharia Sitchin tears the man's origins apart and puts them in a whole new perspective. Author is one of the top scholars in field of the ancient languages and offers his vision of extraterrestrial origins of Homo sapiens on Earth. His main point is that all ancient documents are written on the base of observations and facts and should not be taken symbolically. As we presume today, civilization has originated in Mesopotamia, but no one can really explain the fact that right from its start it was highly developed, that it blossomed virtually out of nothing and created incredible works, which we are not capable of performing even to date. Sitchin quotes many ancient documents, mostly Bible and Epic of Gilgamesh (which he read in Akkadian and Babylonian) and offers more sensful translation of these scripts. He also explains discrepancies of single/plural God in the Genesis and shows how the extraterrestrial wisdom has spread over other countries (Egypt, Greece, India...). Gods came from planet Nibiru (or Marduk in Babylonian), which has been created for special task: to bring order in our, at the time overcrowded solar system. After crushing Tiamat and forming Earth and Moon, planet Nibiru went on his comet-like journey, returning to the Sun in every 3,600 years. Life has formed and developed on it and some 450,000 years ago they noticed that our planet has some resources they desired. So they established settlements on Earth in range of Mesopotamia, because it is very rich with fuels, needed for space travelling. Man was created with genetic manipulation after their image (they mixed hominid's genes with their own in order to obtain higher IQ level) to do the mining work for them. In sitchin's light some very confusing and presumably highly imaginative texts suddenly seem very realistic. He explains why such monumental works like ziggurats, pyramids and other vast temples have been made and for what purposes they were used. The most monumental event in Earth's "modern" history was the Deluge, the Great Flood, found written and known everywhere around the world. Sitchin explains how Gods knew that it's going to happen and why Noah (or Ziusudra or Utnapishtim) was chosen to survive. After the waters flew away (the Deluge was coincided with the end of the Ice Age and the gravital pull of the passing Nibiru, therefore it lasted for a year), Gods gave many different technologies to people and they spread all over the Earth again. The book is very well written - if you don't accept the theory inside, it's still interesting piece of science fiction for you. I think Sitchin knows what he writes and the evidence written inside is sure enough for me. I already look forward what volume 2 will bring. And - if you disagree, maybe you know better?

An interesting but badly flawed premise, March 1, 2004
Okay, I can buy the idea that the Earth might have been visited by alien cultures in the distant past (in fact, considering what a fascinating species we obviously are, I'd be surprised if they hadn't.) I can also buy off on the idea that these ancient visitors might have been worked into the mythology of many cultures. I'm even open to the idea that life was `seeded' on this planet and that homo sapiens may be the result of some ancient genetic engineering. My problem is I can't buy off that all this occurred via a rogue planet that is in orbit around our own sun and that passes by every three-and-a-half millennias to `help us along' the evolutionary path.

I have great respect for Sitchin as a researcher and expert in ancient manuscripts, and I found much in this book to ponder. However, he makes the mistake most ufologists do in taking ancient texts as literal historical documents about real people and events rather than as fictionalized epics of antiquity. While he does at points recognize the metaphorical nature of some of their writings, he takes the ancient Sumerians far too literally, and strikes me as a man espousing a theory in search of evidence. His theory is simply too fantastic to be taken seriously and, while he makes a far more sophisticated attempt at demonstrating his thesis than Von Daniken, he makes many of the same mistakes Chariots of the Gods makes. For example, he has the residents of this twelfth planet (actually, the tenth, for he counts the moon and the sun as planets as well) fly to earth in spacecraft and have the means to genetically alter early primates, but then they travel about by means of paddle boats and utilize 19th century extraction techniques to pull gold from mines in Africa. He also stresses that the Mesopotamian region was chosen by the ancient astronauts-in part-because of its vast petroleum reserves (implying the ancients were using fossil fuels) yet there is no discussion of things like cars or trains or other types of technology these fuels might have been used for (unless we are to assume they were to be used somehow in propelling their spacecraft. Imagine, gasoline/oil powered rocket ships; what will they think of next?) He also pulls a `Von Daniken' by suggesting the ancients needed large expanses of flat ground to land their ships, giving one the impression of space shuttles and hyperjet transports, yet it would seem any technology sophisticated enough to maintain an interplanetary spacefaring capability should have figured out how to make space craft land and take off vertically (just as our own Apollo landers did on the moon.) In other words, their technology is inconsistent.

What's especially difficult to understand is why these beings don't seem to advance technologically themselves. Sitchin states they could only make the transit from their planet to our own when it swung into range every 3,600 years, but wouldn't any civilization have advanced considerably in such a vast amount of time? Consider how far we've come in just the last century; shouldn't these ancient peoples have developed an interstellar (or even intergalactic) capability over such a lengthy time? As such, there is much about these beings that appear inconsistent and inexplicable.

Finally, my biggest complaint with this book is the preposterous idea that a planet exists within our solar system that possesses such an elliptical orbit that it appears only once every 3,600 years and, more so, that this planet is teeming with beings similar enough to ourselves that they are capable of interbreeding with humans. First, if this is the case, why wasn't this planet reported during it's last pass through by ancient astrologers? Sitchin maintains this planet last made an appearance in 3,800 B.C. (just in time to get civilization kick started) yet if it has an orbit of 3,600 years, shouldn't it have shown up again around 200 B.C.? That's not all that long ago, historically speaking, and should have been quite a notable event (even if it's residents chose not to visit that time); one would assume someone-and astrology was a fairly well developed science back then-would have noted such a spectacular visitation from an unknown planet. Yet not a word exists in any ancient texts that even hint at such a remarkable event taking place. Curious.

The bigger problem, however, lies with the idea that such a planet could sustain human-like beings, despite being in complete darkness for 99% of the time. Even if it was massive enough to maintain it's own atmosphere and generated enough internal heat to prevent it from being a giant ball of ice in space, how does photosynthesis and, with it, the production of oxygen, take place? Clearly, for life to have evolved on such a planet conditions should be, at least to some degree, comparable to those on Earth. How anything more sophisticated than single cell organisms and fungus could exist on such a planet is scientifically inexplicable.

There are other problems with the book as well, but this should be enough to at least give the reader some idea of what they're getting into here. I appreciate Sitchin's scholarship and thoroughness (perhaps a little too thorough-the book is ponderous and a tedious read at times) but I can't say much for his science. An interesting book if you're into ancient civilizations and ufos and such (one might consider Sitchin the thinking man's Von Daniken) but nothing to be taken too seriously. In fact, it might have been better if Sitchin didn't take his own theory so deadly seriously; at least then he could have had some fun with it.

Optimistically Skeptical, June 8, 2000
I've read the Sitchin collection. It's a mind boggling experiance. It's also very scholarly. An expert in Sumerian language, culture, et al.., Mr. Sitchins findings, if remotely accurate, explains a lot of empty holes in our History. I have never bought the fact that ancient cultures could be THAT imaginative. I am a believer that imagination is based on some basis of experience, exposure to or passed on story. You've heard the expression, there are no original thoughts, just original ways of presenting old ideas. I can't imagine that these civilizations just made up all those elaborate stories without some sort of core truth. Was there another more advanced culture? I wouldn't doubt it--there is so much we don't know. Mr. Sitchin's assertions are worth the read if only to spark further inquiry intoour mysterious and ancient past. Also read the works of Graham Hancock. His assertions are the same but different. He looks at the world where Sitchin focuses on a region. Never the less, why is it so hard to believe that our past may have been manipulated, Why couldn't there be a prehistory that has yet to reveal itself to us in detail. It's fascinating and deserves a serious study. Those who mock these ideas now once believed the universe rode on the back of a great turtle, or thought the world was flat or mocked Copernicus. A small question can ignite an inferno of curiosity and lead those who are brave enough into a wonderful world of adventure.

A revolutionary theory - needs to be read with "caution", May 9, 2002
OK, let's get step by step to the point: This book (and the other 5 of the Earth Chronicles series, as well as the 3 companion books) presents a very exciting, revolutionary view to the ancient history, to the universe and to the sacred texts and myths. Sitchin's unique, "brave" interpretations, based on Sumerian/Akkadian clay tablets and cylinder seals and Egyptian papyri, suggest a very extraordinary alternative on the roots of our civilization which claims to replace the mainstream, orthodox understanding of history and universe. His main axis is a mysterious planet (belonging to our very own solar system, lurking in the depths of outer space but still "unknown" to us) which was somehow "hidden" in the mystical and "mythological" bulk of ancient sacred texts. Sitchin spots the "vague point" in myths, then clears the dust and mud carefully, finally points at this "surprising" planet which had been waiting to be discovered by us since millenia: This planet was called NI.BI.RU in ancient Sumerian (meaning "Planet Of Crossing"); had an orbital period of about 3600 years around the sun; and it was symbolized by the holy sign of "Winged Disk" in ancient cultures, as well as the cuneiform sign of "Shar" (meaning "3600" and "destruction".) He deciphers almost all the details about this huge planet and its "inhabitants" from a series of clay tablets, beginning with "Enuma Elish", the Babylonian Creation Epic, with a very careful attitude on ancient symbolism. This finding alone is enough to make his theory one of the most significant approachs on ancient history. But Sitchin goes further.

According to Sitchin, the "inhabitants" of planet Nibiru, "The Anunnaki" as they were called in Sumerian, had landed on Earth 450,000 years ago; had colonized our lonely planet for their mining purposes; had searched for gold and other valuable materials which had been needed in their own planet for the sake of their "atmosphere"; and at one time, when they had needed "extra labour" they had created the mankind "in their own look", by manipulating the genetic structure of the "ape man"; then they naturally had become the "powerful gods" of our ancestors. Seems very radical at first look, but also a very logical explanation, especially when considering the fact that even the "monotheistic" religions had made up their holy books (Old Testament, for example) by borrowing themes from much ancient resources and modifying them. (Thus, biblical Nephilim was nobody but the Anunnaki according to Sitchin.) A more intriguing point is about the two puzzles of modern science: "Planet X" theory (astronomers believe there should be another planet beyond Pluto since last century) and the "missing link" in evolutionist theory between the "humanoids" and "homo sapiens".

I do not want to spoil your reading fun, so I won't mention any other details on Sitchin's unique theory but I feel I'd like to state a "caution" about him: Though his theory of planet Nibiru with a 3600 years orbital period and his powerful explanations on "ancient gods" concept are very important to understand the roots of our civilization, there is something very "disturbing" with Sitchin's approach: His obsession to prove and verify the Old Testament as an actual historical resource. He puts the dawn of Sumerian civilization to 3800 BC (and puts the orbital passage of Nibiru at exactly the same date) just to make his theory to conform with the Jewish calendar, which begins on 3760 BC. He goes even further and suggests 3760 BC as the starting point of the Nippur calendar - which actually is thought to begin around 3100 BC. More disturbing than this, Sitchin takes biblical Abraham as a real personality and claims him as the real descendant of the Sumerians - a "wise" man from Nippur (thus, making the Hebrews literally "the chosen people of the god(s)" as the Old Testament states).

This religous and "nationalistic" approach not only ruins his exciting theory with his prejudice and religious obsessions, but also forces him to make dramatic mistakes on the dawn of civilization (and with the orbital periods of Nibiru) just to make everything "literally" conform to the Old Testament. And in the course of his "Earth Chronicles" series, he uses a method which can hardly be considered as scientific: He begins quoting a Sumerian myth (often without exact references) then inserts his commentary on the events; goes on with another quote from the same story (this time from an Akkadian source); again puts his commentary and then quotes a passage from the Old Testament he believes related to the same myth. This makes up a very eclectical version of the original story: A collage, just made everything to conform his view and of course, the Old Testament.

Strangely enough, Sitchin ignores Maya end-date of 2012 AD (which could contribute well to his theory on orbital periods of Nibiru); does not pay attention on Indus "kaliyuga" (starting of which coincide with Mayans "5th Sun"); and does not mention the Revelation of St John (which is very intriguing and without doubt was borrowed from much older sources.) Because none of them has any use for his efforts to verify the Old Testament. Do read Sitchin's books, they are very important works; but be warned and read with "caution".

THE MOST COMPLETE THEORY EVER PRESENTED, April 13, 2001
Zecharia Sitchin presents the most academically comprehensive, most scientifically believable, most bizzare theorum on our human evolution and intergalactic origins imaginable. The 12th Planet ranks as the best I have ever read on the subject.

Mr Sitchin's theory is that our human species was an evolutionary jumpstart advancing our expected progression by a million years. This jumpstart was the result of the crossing of ancestral primates with intergalactic travelers some 300,000 years ago. Rather than biblical mythology, Sitchin tells us that the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the extreme longevities of biblical heroes are all real events. Mr Sitchin provides the greatest level of comfort I have ever felt with Darwin's evolution -- which is to say Darwin had it almost correct until he tried to fit homo sapiens into the same mold of environmental and sexual selection as all other taxa.

Most fascinating is Sitchin's postulate that humanity has existed only for 300,000 years, as opposed to the conventional wisdom of either linear or punctuated progression from something that crawled out of the oceans millions of years ago. This postulate, based on his scholarly interprestations of the most ancient hieroglyphs he penned years before current biochemistry substantiated exactly the same timetable of between 220,000 and 270,000 years ago. His theory that we are a genetic cross between resident primates and interstellar "gods" predated our current and rapidly magnifying ability to clone within species, which is undoubtedly the precursor to our being able to genetically cross disparate species. And Mr Sitchin presents all of this truly out-of-the-box thinking with rheems of scholarly evidence.

ANYONE who has ever been interested in evolution must attempt this book with an open mind. (Darwin's original theorums are no longer taken seriously by any serious evolutionist, having been replaced with "punctuated equilibria" without any explanation as to what causes the punctuations.) Anyone who has a keen interest in the origins of biblical thought and other pre-diluvium stories, should likewise attempt this book with an open mind. If you can't approach Sitchin's ideas with an open mind because your are too wed to your beliefs, save your money -- buy something more traditional.

I would have given it 5 stars instead of 4, but my conservative self wants to hold back a little something, just in case.

A provocative new theory of man's history, January 27, 2002
This is the first book in Sitchin's monumental Earth Chronicles series. It is important to remember that fact because there is necessarily a lot of introductory material to be presented here in order to lay the foundation for what is to come. In other words, most of the really interesting stuff comes later in the series--Ancient Egypt, MesoAmerica, etc. Parts of this first book are somewhat dry and hard to get through. As one gets into the latter half, though, some pretty amazing arguments are made. If you read this book and no other, you may well have a hard time even sanctioning the kinds of ideas Sitchen presents, let alone believing them. When you read the rest of the series, though, the arguments are threshed out much more thoroughly and should at least lend an idea of possiblity to objective readers.

The idea that "ancient astronauts" (a term I dislike) had a hand in Man's creation and evolution is not new. Sitchin goes far beyond the normal arguments, however. He argues that there is an undiscovered planet in our own solar system upon which life developed and evolved millions of years before life on earth, a planet that seeded earth with its earliest life forms millions of years ago when this undiscovered planet entered our solar system and essentially crashed into a large planet between Mars and Jupiter--the planet in question was broken up into two parts, one eventually forming Earth and the other the asteroid belt. The 12th planet (counting the sun and moon as planets) he calls Nibiru; it is a planet with an eccentric orbit carrying it well past the other nine planets thousands of years at a time. Here life developed and advanced at a very early period. Needing resources, particularly gold, the planet sent forth emissaries to earth. In order to free themselves of the hard labor of mining, these aliens, the Nefilim, created Man by combining their genes with those of the ape men then on earth, a procedure made possible by the fact that the two races were in fact genetic cousins. Thus, the Nefilim became early man's gods, and their stories were told in the artifacts of the ancient Sumerians and of the kingdoms that came after them.

Sitchin makes a determined effort to tie Christianity and the Bible to the tale he unfolds. He effectively, and with good evidence, shows that the early stories in the Bible are based largely on older manuscripts from Sumeria. He explains many of the mysterious passages in the Bible by tying the stories to more complete Sumerian tales--the Elohim, the plural Deity mentioned in the Creation story, the great flood, the Tower of Babel, and others. In this endeavor, he is very successful. While one may not be convinced of his story of life on Earth, one cannot doubt the fact that the early books of the Bible are basically a condensed version of former manuscripts. He makes a convincing argument for his theories, but one will not be and should not be convinced based on this one book. Much supporting evidence is to be found in the later books in the series, where a far richer version of man's history is presented by the author. As unbelievable as many of his ideas sound, Sitchin actually does an effective job of answering many of the big questions that scientists and theologians have been unable to answer about life on earth, the most important of which is an explanation of why home sapiens developed so suddenly and miraculously 300,000 years ago. Right or wrong, his ideas answer a lot of questions and deserve serious study. Sitchin's knowledge of ancient civilizations is immense, and his judgments cannot be dismissed without serious attention paid to them.

Is God an Alien?, December 16, 2005
Sitchen readers are of two types: either they love him and believe him, or they relegate him to the fringe.
There are a few authors who influenced the direction of my work and my life, and Sitchen is definately one of them. I travelled the Old Silk Road in search of ancient manuscripts, never knowing where the search would lead.
From ancient documents in Tibetan monastaries, to Hindu concepts of the Garden of Eden and Shangri-La, there was much in Asia that corroborated Sitchen's translations and interpretations in the Middle East and Suneria. In India there are even directions for building and fueling personal vimanas (flying machines)written down five thousand years ago.

This gives Sitchen's theories and conclusions a lot of corroboration even he didn't expect. He doesn't have to one hundred percent right on everything, but it's obvious he isn't one hundred percent wrong either. This is already a classic and one you should read.

Finally, a theory that makes sense!, April 30, 1999
Mr. Sitchin does more than point out an intelligent alternative to the impossible teachings that have been thrust upon us since childhood. His information explains and corroborates ideas expressed in ancient and religious texts throughout our world in terms and interpretations that at first seem possible, then plausible, but finally, probable.

Yes, it's a bit hard to swallow the 'spaceman' theories, but give his evidence a chance. It is certainly no more incredible than many of the traditional ideas we've been taught over the years. If you feel a strong literal belief in some of those well-established dogmas, or are offended when people contradict the typical interpretations of today's largely Judeo-Christian society, you may feel that Sitchin's material shows anti-religious leanings or even approaches blasphemy. To the open minded individual, though, this book will expose an entirely possible origin of life on this planet (both all life and later, human life), more intellectually explained than the bible stories we've been asked to believe, but in fact in complete agreement with them!

If nothing else, Sitchin shows us a concise view of the evolution of myths, religions and 'sacred' teachings on this planet, and shows direct evidence that they mostly boil back to the same events. Even if you don't buy the whole Ancient Astronaut bit, the historical perspective is fascinating. And if you DO buy it (I did within the first 20 pages), it opens up a whole new interpretation of old and current events.

I'd also recommend another book, William Bramley's The Gods of Eden (personal rating: 3.5 stars). It begins with the basic Ancient Astronauts premise, but opines about the motives of the supposed extraterrestrial race. In The 12th Planet, though Sitchin tries to stay objective regarding the intent of the Annunaki, he does show evidence of mixed feelings among the community of "Gods" about the welfare of humanity. He even states that Man was, in fact, created by the Annunaki specifically to be a slave race, literally owned by the ETs. Mr. Bramley shows some impressive research of his own in The Gods of Eden, but suggests an even darker, more conspiratorial extraterrestrial race that he believes could be the cause of most or all human warfare, famine and discontent on this planet. Bramley's book also puts a very interesting slant on many current events, and suggests the possible methods these ETs use to direct and control human activity even today.

A bit sinister, but in the spirit of lively discussion, and for another phenomenal historical perspective, read The Gods of Eden (but only AFTER you read The 12th Planet)! Chew on these suppositions long and well before swallowing, but a little enlightenment goes a long way toward satisfaction!

If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings., May 27, 1998
Mr. Sitchin is one of the few people on the planet who can read ancient Sumerian Cunieform tablets. I have always tended to admire those who rebel at the status quo when asking why, how and not liking the answers, "That's the way it's always been," or, "It is written." The 12th Planet and all the others of Zecharia Sitchin's books are quite controversial, but this does not mean without merit. If true, they would provide us with the means and understanding needed to make sure that we "adams'" are not re-enslaved by our "creators" the Annunaki. The information supplied with these books tells a more sobering story of a man who has come to be used to being disbelieved. His work represents over 40 years of study over such diverse areas as archeology, biology, medicine, space flight, astronomy, myth, legend and history. In all these areas, there rings the peal of logical truth. Mr. Sitchin's hard effort tells an incredible yet apparently logically tight and factually correct story of how humanity can tie together evolutionary thought with religious tenets. Many view this work as fictional or delusional, but to those who can read with an open mind, the implications are truly Earth Shattering. If true, and I believe it to be so, then we, as a race, need to rethink our near future plans to ensure that, as a race, we remain free from slavery and free to claim our place in the heavens. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Details on a Major New Discovery included in a New AfterwordWhy do we look the way we do?Neil Shubin, the paleontologist and professor of anatomy who co-discovered Tiktaalik, the “fish with hands,” tells the story of our bodies as you've never heard it before.By examining fossils and DNA, he shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins, our heads are organized like long-extinct jawless fish, and major parts of our genomes look and function like those of worms and bacteria. Your Inner Fish makes us look at ourselves and our world in an illuminating new light.This is science writing at its finest—enlightening, accessible and told with irresistible enthusiasm. ... Read more

Editorial Review

10 World-Changing Revolutions in Medicine...and the Remarkable Human Discoveries That Made Them Possible

• The unforgettable life-or-death stories behind antibiotics, vaccines, DNA, X-rays, and more
• What happened, how it happened, and what it means to you today
• A colorful cast of characters whose discoveries were often driven not only by personal tragedy, curiosity, and hard work, but petty bickering, dumb luck, and a healthy dose of humor
• For anyone interested in science, medicine, and beyond...

Why are you alive right now? Chances are, you owe your life to one of the remarkable medical discoveries in this book. Maybe it was vaccines. Or antibiotics. Or X-rays. Revolutionary medical breakthroughs like these haven’t just changed the way we treat disease, they’ve transformed how we understand ourselves and the world we live in. In Breakthrough!, Jon Queijo tells the hidden stories behind 10 of history’s most amazing medical discoveries. This isn’t dry history: These are life-and-death mysteries uncovered, tales of passionate, often-mocked individuals who stood their ground and were proven right. From germs to genetics, the ancient Hippocrates to the cutting edge, these are stories that have changed the world—and, quite likely, saved your life.

Reviews

Nine Breakthroughs and a Breakdown, April 20, 2010


The author describes what he believes are the 10 greatest discoveries in medicine that have saved millions, etc. 9 of them are uncontroversial discoveries that have been on other top-10 lists, but his 10th choice is one that no other list of top discoveries has ever included. He realizes that, and even admits in his introduction that a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine refused to review his book because there is no such thing as alternative medicine, only treatments that work and treatments that don't. But he "respectfully disagrees."

Hippocrates' discovery that disease had natural causes, sanitation, germ theory, anesthesia, X-rays, vaccines, antibiotics, genetics, and treatments for mental disorders are all worthy candidates for the list. But Queijo ludicrously lists the "rediscovery of alternative medicine" as the tenth "great discovery." He presents no evidence (because there is no evidence) that alternative medicine has "saved millions" or that it has saved anyone. He doesn't realize that alternative medicine represents a betrayal of exactly the kind of rigorous scientific thinking and testing that led to all the other discoveries. His list of ten breakthroughs is actually a list of 9 breakthroughs and one breakdown.

He tells compelling human-interest stories about the discoveries. The complexities, the mis-steps, the near-misses, and the ups and downs make fascinating reading. He offers fascinating tidbits of historical information. He tells how, in the early days after the discovery of x-rays, Thomas Edison received a request to "Please send me one pound of X-rays and bill as soon as possible."

Most of the book is entertaining and informative, but in the chapter on alternative medicine, Queijo loses it entirely. He seems to think that modern medicine has become so fixated on diseases and technology that alternative medicine had to rediscover that diseases occur in people. He criticizes the reductionism of the scientific approach, but offers no evidence that a non-reductionist approach has ever resulted in discoveries or provided better patient outcomes. He sees the struggles between scientific medicine and alternative medicine as politically motivated turf wars rather than as efforts to establish the truth.

He accepts homeopathy uncritically and seems to think it is supported by science. He likes the idea of homeopathy because it "shares some underlying values seen in ancient traditional medicines" such as vitalistic energy concepts, detailed interviews to inquire into every detail of the patient's life, stressing the healer-patient relationship, and deriving many of its remedies from natural products.

He says, "Alternative medicine offered something Western medicine had too often abandoned: the view that every patient was an individual, that natural treatments were sometimes better than dramatic surgery and dangerous drugs; and that the essence of medicine begins with a caring relationship between healer and patient."

This is a straw man argument that badly mischaracterizes mainstream medicine, and it fails to show that alternative medicine has any advantage over scientific medicine practiced with judgment and empathy. He even goes as far as to accuse the stethoscope of being a nefarious device that distances practitioners from patients! He calls its invention "a dark omen for the terrible turn Western medicine was about to take." Now, really!

Much of this book is an eloquent paean to the value of science. Unfortunately, it abandons science in its discussion of alternative medicine. It deteriorates into apologetics for belief-based medicine based on misunderstandings and opinions rather than on any evidence. Alternative medicine represents a breakdown of the process that led to the real breakthroughs.

If you read this book, I recommend skipping chapter 10.

A great book until the last breakthrough, November 15, 2010

Mediocre Book, December 5, 2010
I bought the book (Kindle) expecting an informative and entertaining read.
It was neither:
The info is 6th-7th grade level.
It is not especially well written or entertaining either.
Wasted 2-3 days on this disappointing book. Removed it from my Kindle !

Thought-provoking, September 7, 2010

A Disappointing Book, September 7, 2010

A Layman's Resource, October 20, 2010
I am a layman when it comes to science and medicine. That is why I thoroughly enjoyed and was informed by this book. It speaks of important medical history in language and style that a person like me can understand. It may be too simplistic for those in the field, and some reviewers think it wrong that he included a chapter on alternative medicine, which may be threatening to some, but I don't know how a serious author could just ignore the topic. It was an interesting and enlightening book.

Thought provoking, September 15, 2010
Reminiscent in many ways of the Connections book and series by James Burke, this book pulls together the threads of discovery creating modern medicine into a mostly coherent whole. The discoveries and events which have created modern medicine did not occur overnight, or in most cases, over decades. There are numerous citations and references listed in the back of the book.

I was rather disappointed in the inclusion of "alternative medicine" or CAM as a breakthrough, since many of the schools of thought mentioned were old before Hippocrates was born. The scientific method, which was pointed out time and time again showing that a theory was correct, is glossed over by comments which explained that because treatments are so personalized, it is dificult or impossible to compare CAM to allopathic (modern) medicine. I know numerous physicians who use the same arguments, "My patients are different", as to why they should not have to follow a protocol yet treat all of their patients the same for a condition.

One glaring mis-statement that I found, was in the chapter on CAM which stated that "For example, in 2008 (NCCAM), released results from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) which showed that in 2007, half of all Americans-- 38% of adults and 12% of children-- used some form of CAM". Huh? not even close to true, as can be seen by reversing the statement: 62% of adults and 88% of children did NOT use some form of CAM. ... Read more

Editorial Review

For over three decades, Ray Kurzweil has been one of the most respected and provocative advocates of the role of technology in our future. In his classic The Age of Spiritual Machines, he argued that computers would soon rival the full range of human intelligence at its best. Now he examines the next step in this inexorable evolutionary process: the union of human and machine, in which the knowledge and skills embedded in our brains will be combined with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our creations. ... Read more

Reviews

Important extrapolations, but not as careful or concise as I wanted, September 22, 2005
Kurzweil does a good job of arguing that extrapolating trends such as Moore's Law is better than most alternative forecasting methods, and he does a good job of describing the implications of those trends. But he is a bit long-winded, and tries to hedge his methodology by pointing to specific research results which he seems to think buttress his conclusions. He neither convinces me that he is good at distinguishing hype from value when analyzing current projects, nor that doing so would help with the longer-term forecasting that constitutes the important aspect of the book.
Given the title, I was slightly surprised that he predicts that AIs will become powerful slightly more gradually than I recall him suggesting previously (which is a good deal more gradual than most Singulitarians). He offsets this by predicting more dramatic changes in the 22nd century than I imagined could be extrapolated from existing trends.
His discussion of the practical importance of reversible computing is clearer than anything else I've read on this subject.
When he gets specific, large parts of what he says seem almost right, but there are quite a few details that are misleading enough that I want to quibble with them.
For instance (talking about the world circa 2030): "The bulk of the additional energy needed is likely to come from new nanoscale solar, wind, and geothermal technologies." Yet he says little to justify this, and most of what I know suggests that wind and geothermal have little hope of satisfying more than 1 or 2 percent of new energy demand.
His reference to "the devastating effect that illegal file sharing has had on the music-recording industry" seems to say something undesirable about his perspective.
His comments on economists thoughts about deflation are confused and irrelevant.
On page 92 he says "Is the problem that we are not running the evolutionary algorithms long enough? ... This won't work, however, because conventional genetic algorithms reach an asymptote in their level of performance, so running them for a longer period of time won't help." If "conventional" excludes genetic programming, then maybe his claim is plausible. But genetic programming originator John Koza claims his results keep improving when he uses more computing power.
His description of nanotech progress seems naive. (page 228) "Drexler's dissertation ... laid out the foundation and provided the road map still being followed today." (page 234): "each aspect of Drexler's conceptual designs has been validated". I've been following this area pretty carefully, and I'm aware of some computer simulations which do a tiny fraction of what is needed, but if any lab research is being done that could be considered to follow Drexler's road map, it's a well kept secret. Kurzweil then offsets his lack of documentation for those claims by going overboard about documenting his accurate claim that "no serious flaw in Drexler's nanoassembler concept has been described".
Kurzweil argues that self-replicating nanobots will sometimes be desirable. I find this poorly thought out. His reasons for wanting them could be satisfied by nanobots that replicate under the control of a responsible AI.
I'm bothered by his complacent attitude toward the risks of AI. He sometimes hints that he is concerned, but his suggestions for dealing with the risks don't indicate that he has given much thought to the subject. He has a footnote that mentions Yudkowsky's Guidelines on Friendly AI. The context could lead readers to think they are comparable to the Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology. Alas, Yudkowsky's guidelines depend on concepts which are hard enough to understand that few researchers are likely to comprehend them, and the few who have tried disagree about their importance.

Technically brilliant, culturally constrained, September 25, 2005
Ray Kurzweil is unquestionably the most brilliant guru for the future of information technology, but Joel Garreau's book Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- and What It Means to Be Human covers the same ground, with the same lack of soul, but more interesting and varied detail.

This is really four booklets in one: a booklet on the imminence of exponential growth within information technologies including genetics, nano-technology, and robotics; a booklet on the general directions and possibilities within each of these three areas; a booklet responding to critics of his past works; and lengthy notes. All four are exceptional in their detail, but somewhat dry.

I was disappointed to see no mention of Kevin Kelly's Out of Control: The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization and just one tiny reference to Stewart Brand (co-evolution) in a note. Howard Rheingold (virtual reality) and Tom Atlee (collective intelligence) go unmentioned. It is almost as if Kurzweil, who is surely familiar with these "populist" works, has a disdain for those who evaluate the socio-cultural implications of technology, rather than only its technical merits.

This is an important book, but it is by a nerd for nerds. [Sorry, but anyone who takes 250 vitamin supplements and has a schedule of both direct intravenous supplements and almost daily blood testing, is an obsessive nerd however worthy the cause.] It assumes that information technologies, growing exponentially, will solve world hunger, eliminate disease, replenish water, create renewable energy, and allow all of us to have the bodies we want, and to see and feel in our mates the bodies they want. All of this is said somewhat blandly, without the socio-cultural exploration or global evaluation that is characteristic of other works by reporters on the technology, rather than the technologists themselves.

The book is, in short, divorced from the humanities and the human condition, and devoid of any understanding of the pathos and pathology of immoral governments and corporations that will do anything they can to derail progress that is not profitable. It addresses, but with cursory concern, most of the fears voiced by various critics about run-away machines and lethal technologies that self-replicate in toxic manners to the detriment of their human creators.

The book is strongest in its detailed discussion of both computing power and draconian drops in needed energy for both computing and for manufacturing using new forms of computing. The charts are fun and helpful. The index is quite good.

I put the book down, after a pleasant afternoon of study, with several feelings.

First, that I should give Joel Garreau higher marks for making this interesting, and recommend that his book be bought at the same time as this one.

Second, that there is an interesting schism between the Kurzweil-Gates gang that believes they can rule the world with machines; and the Atlee-Wheatley gang that believes that collective **human** intelligence, with machines playing a facilitating but not a dominant role, is the desired outcome.

Third that there really are very promising technologies with considerable potential down the road, but that government is not being serious about stressing peaceful applications--the author is one of five advisors to the U.S. military on advanced technologies, and it distresses me that he supports a Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA) that focuses on making war rather than peace--imagine if we applied the same resources to preventing war and creating wealth?

Fourth, information technologies are indeed going to change the balance of power among nations, states, and neighborhoods--on balance, based on his explicit cautions, I predict a real estate collapse in the over-priced major cities of the US, and a phenomenal rise of high-technology villages in Costa Rica and elsewhere.

The singularity may be near, as the author suggests, but between now and then tens of millions more will die. Technology in isolation is not enough--absent broad ethical context, it remains primarily a vehicle for nerds to develop and corporations to exploit. As I told an internal think session at Interval in the 1990's ("GOD, MAN, & INFORMATION:. COMMENTS TO INTERVAL IN-HOUSE". Tuesday, 9 March 1993" can use as a Yahoo search) until our technologies can change the lives of every man, woman, and child in the Third World, they are not truly transformative. This book hints at a future that may not be achieved, not for lack of technology, but for lack of good will.

EDIT of 24 Oct 05: Tonight I will review James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century His bottom line is that cheap oil underlies all of our surburban, high-rise, mega-agriculture, and car-based mobility, and that the end of cheap oil is going to have catastrophic effects on how we live, driving much of the country into poverty and dislocation, with the best lives being in those communities that learn to live with local agriculture and local power options. Definitely the opposite of what Kurzweil sees, and therefore recommended as a competing viewpoint.

EDIT of 12 Dec 07: ethics is something I have thought about a lot, and my first public article outside the intelligence community was entitled "E3i: Ethics, Ecology, Evolution, & Intelligence: An Alternative Paradigm for *National* Intelligence." It must be something about engineers. Neither the author of this book, nor the Google Triumverate, seem to grasp the moral implications of technology run amuk without respect for ethics, privacy, copyright, humanity, etc. This is one reason I admire E. O. Wilson so much--the first of his works that I read, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, answered the question: "Why do the sciences need the humanities?" The second, The Future of Life, answered the question, "What is the cost and how do we save the planet?" Science had little to do with the latter. The two authors are poles apart.

Technophilic ecstacy, September 22, 2005
The author is definitely one of the most inspiring of all researchers in the field of applied artificial intelligence. For those, such as this reviewer, who are working "in the trenches" of applied AI, his website is better than morning coffee. One does not have to agree with all the conclusions reached by the author in order to enjoy this book, but he does make a good case, albeit somewhat qualitative, for the occurrence, in this century, of what he and other futurists have called a `technological singularity.' He defines this as a period in the future where the rate of technological change will be so high that human life will be `irreversibly transformed.' There is much debate about this notion in the popular literature on AI, but in scientific and academic circles it has been greeted with mixed reviews. Such skepticism in the latter is expected and justified, for scientists and academic researchers need more quantitative justification than is usually provided by the enthusiasts of the singularity, which in this book the author calls "singularitarians." Even more interesting though is that the notion of rapid technological change seems to be ignored by the business community, who actually stand to gain (or lose) the most by it.

Since this book is aimed primarily at a wide audience, and not professional researchers, the author does not include detailed arguments or definitions for the notion of machine intelligence or a list of the hundreds of examples of intelligent machines that are now working in the field. Indeed, if one were to include a discussion of each of these examples, this book would swell to thousands of pages. There are machines right now used in business and industry that can manage, troubleshoot, and analyze networks, diagnose illnesses, compose music definitely worth listening to, choreograph dances, simulate human behavior in computer games, recommend and engage in financial transactions and bargaining, and many, many other tasks, a detailed list of which would, again, entail many thousands of pages.


There are various psychological issues that arise when discussing machine intelligence, which if believed might prohibit the acceptance of any kind of notion of a technological singularity. For example, it is one of the historical peculiarities of research in AI that advances in the field are later trivialized, i.e. when a problem in AI becomes solved it no longer holds any mystery and is then considered to be just another part of information processing. It is then no longer regarded as `intelligent' in any sense of the term. This phenomenon in AI research might be called the "Michie-McCorduck-Hofstader effect", named after the three individuals, Donald Michie, Barbara McCorduck, and Douglas Hofstader, who discussed it some detail in their writings. If one examines the history of AI, one finds many examples of this effect, such as in knowledge discovery from databases, the use of business rules in database technologies, and the use of ontologies for information systems development. One of the best examples of this effect though is the backgammon player TD-Gammon, a highly sophisticated example of machine intelligence but which is now considered to be merely part of the "programmer's toolbox." The Michie-McCorduck-Hofstader effect is important in discussing the notion of a technological singularity since if one does occur this effect would diminish one's ability to recognize it as being real. The author does not name this phenomenon as such in the book, but a reading of it definitely reveals that he is aware of the skepticism expressed by many towards any "advances" in machine intelligence.
Another one of these psychological issues regards the attitude of many philosophers on the notion of machine intelligence. In most cases they are extremely skeptical, and many AI researchers seem to feel the need to "refute" their opinions on the "impossibility" of intelligent machines. Unfortunately the author is one of these, and devotes space in the book to counter various philosophical arguments against AI. His arguments, although valid, are really a waste of time though. Such time would be better spent, both for the author and for AI researchers, in the actual development of intelligent machines. A moratorium should be declared among AI researchers on all philosophical speculation. Such musings are best left to professional philosophers, who have the time and the inclination to indulge themselves in them.

There are other issues that should have been given more attention in the book, such as more details on the energy requirements needed to bring about such a singularity. In addition, the author needs to sharpen just what he means by intelligence and move away from the Turing test/human brain benchmark that he uses in the book. There are many examples of intelligence in the natural world, and these can and have been emulated in many different types of machines. Interestingly, the fixation on human intelligence and the reverse engineering of the human brain (that is exemplified in this book) has inspired a few research teams to attempt to build a machine of "general intelligence", i.e. one that can think in many different domains, as clearly humans can. But it is still an open question whether this intelligence is "entangled" over these domains, i.e. whether or not a decrease in ability in one domain will affect the ability in another. From an evolutionary or efficiency standpoint it would seem that that domain specific intelligence is more optimal.

The notion of a technological singularity can be met with both exhilaration and a sense of foreboding, since (radical) change can be embraced with enthusiasm and with some feelings of anxiety. Even the author expresses this when he writes in the book that he is not "entirely comfortable" with all the consequences of a technological singularity. He has though made a fairly strong case for rapidly accelerating change. If the book concentrated more on the actual examples of intelligent machines and included the enormous amount of data from activities in applied AI that are now going on, an even stronger case could be made.

Agree or disagree, it's well worth a read, October 2, 2005
I'm going to rate this book five stars, because at nearly 500 pages packed with important ideas (plus another hundred pages of notes) there is no question that this weighty book was well worth my $20.

As you might expect, Ray is at the top of his game when examining trends in computer science. He has many examples of "narrow" A.I. to share. More importantly, he believes that computer modeling of brain functioning will yield the algorithms we need in order to eventually achieve an artificial general intelligence. Indeed, cognitive science is exploding thanks to increases in computing and scanning power, and the brain will likely yield up many of its secrets in coming years. I find his predictions in this area quite believable.

I found some of his arguments regarding nanotechnology to be less convincing. In particular, his predictions for nanorobotics seem optimistic beyond all reason given the currently nascent state of this technology. Examples drawn from the current state of the art seem almost hopelessly far removed from the robust and exceedingly powerful technology he imagines within 25 years. On the other hand, if these surprising predictions are borne out it will be a powerful confirmation of his "law of accelerating returns". I guess I'll be reserving judgement until then.

There's alot more I could say (good and bad) about this important book, but the bottom line is that if you frequently find yourself wondering about the role of technology in the future of our species, "The Singularity is Near" will give you far more than your money's worth in food for thought.

Brave New World, October 13, 2005
To say that Mr. Kurzweil is a bit of an optimist is like saying Shaq is a bit on the tall side. Mr K is positively bubbling with enthusiasim. Had it not been taken by Joe Namath a suitable title might have been "The Future's So Bright I Just Gotta Wear Shades". But therein lies the problem. Mr K comes across more like a passionate evangelical than a reasoned scientist. Whenever someone is absolutley convinced about the rightness of his assumptions I become skeptical.

If you're reading this you know the premise of the book. Mr. K maintains that the pace of technological change (and by technology he means the really cool technologies, like infotech, biotech, and nanotech) is not simply increasing, but increasing exponentially, so fast that we will soon reach a point where man and machine have become one, and are brains are a million (or maybe a billion) times more powerful. When this happens everything we know will have changed forever.

Moreover, this is not someting that will happen at some vague time in the far future. It's just around the corner. Mr. K even gives us a date: 2045.

While reading the book I kept thinking, What if Mr. K had written this in the mid 1950's? Certainly he'd have backup for his basic premise--the changes that occured in the first half of the 20th century were indeed tremendous. Take aviation, a hot technology in those days. Mr. K would no doubt have observed that we went from Kitty Hawk to the Boeing 707 in just 50 years. Projecting ahead, Mr. K would have concluded that the second half of the century would see an even greater rate of advancement, so that by now we'd all have our own personal flying devices, zipping off to Europe in just minutes.

But that hasn't happened. Certainly there has been signigicant progress in aviation in the last 50 years, but not like the 50 years before that. In some says it's worse. I suspect that since 9/11 the time it takes to fly from Los Angeles to San Francisco (from the time you get to one airport to the time you leave the other) may be longer now than it was in the 1950's.

Why has this happened? A lot of this has to do with social conditions, not technological ones. Supersonic trasport never got off the ground (so to speak) in part because people didn't want the sonic booms near populated areas. These same social factors may well put the brakes on a lot of what Mr. K predicts.

It's not that Mr. K's book isn't based on hard science. It's positively larded with science, so much so that my eyes tended to glaze over many times. It's just that he doesn't seem very critical. While he does acknowledge the existence of contrary opinion, he quickly (albeit politely) dismisses any cautionary thoughts. Those who disagree with his beliefs are clearly stuck-in-the-mud, nay-saying Luddites.

Mr K is obviously a brilliant, well-informed scientist. I don't have enough knowledge to judge the accuracy of his facts, except in a few situations. When that does occur, though, I become unimpressed. For example, he spends a few pages talking about the increases that have occured in life expectancy, and uses this to project further increases to 150 years and then to 500 years. But he fails to distinguish between life exoectancy and life span. The former has indeed increased, but the latter has not. I am certain Mr. K knows the difference. His failure to make the distinction is misleading and disingenuous. It makes me wonder about the veracity of the rest of the book.

As to the book itself, it's far too long. He repeats his points so much it seems as though he thinks that by mere repetition the reader will become more convinced that he's right. And some parts of the book are simply annoying, like the smug pseudo-conversations among past, present, and future personages that appear throughout the work.

To his credit, though, his optimisim about the future is refreshing, and certainly an antidote to the dystopian views typical in literature and Hollywood (Brave New World, 1984, Blade Runner, Mad Max, The Terminator, Waterworld, etc.).

The bottom line here is that Mr. K. doesn't seem to remember that virtually all predictions about the future are wrong, since the predictions are simply extrapolations of current trends. The future is never what we think it will be, and Mr. K is no exception.

Then again, he could be right. If so, I just hope I can live long enough to enjoy the sigularity, so I can have my body filled with nanobots and my brain uploaded to (as he would say) a suitable substrate. Maybe being a cyborg won't be so bad.

Impressive, May 19, 2006
Ray Kurzweil is a well known inventor and entrepreneur, he founded and managed a string of successful companies, most of them related to the application of artificial intelligence.

One of Kurzweil's interests is predicting future technological trends. He analyses technological progress and builds mathematical models that can, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, anticipate the progress of different technologies. His track record of predicting things is better than you would expect.

The whole book revolves around the concept of "The Law of Accelerating Returns". This is an extrapolation of Moore's law. Moore's law states that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit is doubling every 18 months. The law of accelerating returns states that the rate of technological progress in general is increasing exponentially.

Another point is that these trends are VERY stable, they exhibit smooth acceleration, and thus, they can be used to accurately predict the future. He makes an analogy with a gas - while the trajectory of each individual particle inside a gas appears as essentially random, the behavior of the WHOLE SYSTEM is predictable. The same is true for technological progress, while individual events are apparently random, the whole system moves according to a stable pattern, which makes its future states predictable.

Most of the book centers on analyzing what the future has in store for us. According to Kurzweil, we are approaching "the knee of the curve" of technological progress. A point where progress will be so fast that unenhanced human intelligence will no longer be able to track it. This point is called "the singularity", meaning explosive technological growth. This, according to the book will happen around 2045. He predicts complete understanding of biology by 2020 (which will enable us to modify our bodies to live forever) self-replicating nanothech by 2025, strong AI by 2029, and eventually a fusion between human and machine intelligence, followed by a positive-feedback loop in which we continue to (exponentially) increase our intelligence until all matter in the universe becomes optimized for computation.

Do not dismiss the book simply because of its stranger than fiction conclusions. I found that the arguments behind his statements are VERY solid and I had great difficulty finding any fault with them. First READ the book, than judge for yourself.

Many people do not agree with him, but their main "reason" for not agreeing is basically that "this doesn't feel right". Ray explains that the main reason why it "doesn't feel right" is that people generally use linear thinking.

Suppose somebody asked you how the world will look like 10 years from now. How do you go about answering such a question? You'll probably try to remember how things were like 10 years ago and project a similar change into the future. That makes sense. Right? WRONG! The assumption underlying this reasoning is that progress is linear, that things will change AT THE SAME RATE in the next 10 years as they did in the last 10. Intuition is incapable of grasping exponential growth and thus fails miserably at predicting the future of technology.

The book gets quite technical and you find yourself reading the same paragraph 10 times over trying to understand some complex concept or trying figure out how some piece of exotic technology works, but, overall I'd say it can be read and understood 90% by people with basic technical skill. Ray's knowledge and understanding of numerous scientific fields, as well as his view of "the big picture" is impressive. He also has a very refreshing, clear and logical style of writing.

BOTTOM LINE:

The law of accelerating returns is the main theme of the book and after having read the arguments in favor of it I think it's undisputable. Some people place too much emphasis on Kurzweil's timing of events. It doesn't matter if strong AI is achieved by 2025 or 2045, the idea of exponential progress however is VERY important and the book is worth its money for that alone.

If you're still there, thanks :)

This book is definitely worth it. The perspective it offers, if properly understood, can and WILL change your outlook on life. Read it!

"Get Ready! The Beginning is Near!", October 19, 2005
"Repent! The End is Near!"

If I saw a person holding up this sign on a street corner, I might think, "Poor fellow. Where has his mind gone? Too bad there are crazy people like this in the world."

Yet, in Ray Kurzweil's book "Singularity," his message is even more far out, but more like,

"Get Ready! The Beginning is Near!"

And yet, with Kurzweil, my response is, "Okay, I understand so far. Tell me more." Then I see the data. Then I see his inexorable logic. I would bet a lot of money on his predictions. "Singularity" is the most startling book I have ever read in my life (and I have read a lot of great books).

Well before the year 2030 (within 25 years), if you are still alive, you will have the choice about whether or not you want to "live forever" (in THIS reality; not some "afterlife").

Well before 2030, there will be a computer that, by all measures, will be smarter than the smartest "regular human" (i.e. non-computer-enhanced human) on this earth. This computer will then be able to invent an even smarter computer, which will then be able to invent an even smarter computer, which....

The changes in the next 14 years will be as much or more than the changes since 1955 (the last 50 years). And double again. And double again. And double again....we are fast approaching the asymptotic infinity of change and "progress"!

And there is basically nothing we can do about it. It will happen whether we like it or not (and most of us will end up liking it). We can "manage" it to some extent in order to provide a measure of protection against the end-of-the-world scenarios that could arise, either accidentally or intentionally, out of this run-away progress.

In his close-to-700-page manifesto, this is the essence of our future that Ray Kurzweil paints for us.

As an author myself ("Courage: the Choice that Makes the Difference-Your Key to a Thousand Doors"), I have a deep respect for what it takes to write a great book. The only other author that comes to mind whose breadth of knowledge and wisdom would compare with Kurzweil is philosopher Ken Wilber (although their writings are quite dissimilar). In reading Kurzweil I am continually amazed by the breadth and depth of his insights and conclusions.

There is one issue that he addresses from many perspectives (will computers become conscious? - his answer is "yes") that I cannot get my mind around. Even though his logic makes "sense" to me, I still can't quite accept it. However, that is not a big issue for me (as it might be for others), since, for all intents and purposes, I can totally accept that computers will be able to APPEAR as fully human (should they "choose" to do so).

I noticed that some of the other reviewers of "Singularity" have faulted Kurzweil for his optimism. Although I can see their point, I think that neither optimism nor pessimism is most appropriate here. Obviously we are facing an eventuality that holds the possibility of both the greatest promise as well as the greatest peril. Creativity, intelligence, and courage are our best tools at this unprecedented time in the history of our solar system.

I give "Singularity" five stars. It ranks that based solely upon the "wake up call" it is for humanity.

[...]

Insightful, December 18, 2006
I think some of the reviewers are missing the point of this book. Kurzweil is not an optimist - and I don't even think he would consider himself a 'proponent' of GNR, specific IT advances, or the changes he is predicting. The whole point is that these advances are part of our evolution as a species - any resistance by governments, ethicists, or individuals are automatically calcuated into his predictions. He's looking at the net effect of progress (spurned primarily through economics and economic darwinism) and not by renegade or revolutionary scientists or technologists.

The advances he is predicting are based on the worldview that these advances are inevitable - just as our biological evolution was inevitable (especially with hindsight) - and, all the technological advances (especially in the past 100 years) are the proof that the speed of developing and adopting technologies into society is ever increasing, to a point where it is unstoppable and ubiquitous.

Take the cell phone example - some may resist the adoption of cell phones - saying that they invade their privacy, and overcomplicate their lives to a point that is unacceptable to them. This is a valid view, and individuals have the option to choose not to adopt this technology. But, the fact of the matter is that this technology has and is changing the world - the overwhelming majority of the world population does not object to cell phone use, and in fact many are being empowered by them (look at subscription rates in China and India over the past 6 months - something in the millions of new subscribers every month).

This technology changes society - it changes human interrelationships - and it changes human-technology relationships. Having a cellphone brings us one step closer to being 'always-on' - always connected. It comes closer to being integrated into our biology (you can sleep with a cellphone - carry it where-ever you go - this level of connectivity previously would have required being physically tethered to a land-line)

There is little (if any) judgement in Kurzweil's conclusions. They are logically grounded (which is why he provides so many counter arguments, and supporting data). They are based specifically on the worldview that our evolution is now in our hands, and much of what we do with it can be predicted by how we've developed and adopted technologies in the past - or how biological evolution occurred. He admits to a large unknown - the fact that we don't know what the resulting convergence of technology and biology will look, or feel like. The fact that this will happen does not allow us to see or even comprehend what this will mean for us.

My personal feeling is that this is the most worriesome part - the fact that the change may be so radical, that some people (or even class of people) may not even survive the transition - or it could in fact create multiple classes of humans (humans & proto-humans). But, again, there is no judgement in this - if that is our fate, it will be. Just as wars in the past have determined the current global power-structure - there will likely be conflict involved in the process. I hope that some of these advances and their inherent connected nature will preclude or somehow prevent the conflict from being a violent one - but, you have to imagine it is a possibility.

There is a lot of evidence to support the likelihood of Kurzweil's near-term worldview. If his predictions about the speed of change are correct, if you are one of the few capable of internalizing and understanding the implications, I believe you will be at an advantage in life and business. If you understand and believe the potential of this, but close your eyes to it because you don't like the implications, you will be one of the worst off when it does happen. And, the best situation is if you understand the implications, and are in a position to direct them when they start to occur, you can help to make sure that they do so in the most equitable and positive fashion possible.

An Absolute Gem of a Book, November 5, 2006

Ray Kurzweil is a national treasure, a man who thinks at the level of Einstein but only 50 years later. There are a number of people like Kurzweil walking around on the planet. You have to search for them. When you find them, try to learn everything you can from them. They will help you move exponentially to the next level. He is a solitary thinker, operating on the outer limits of human knowledge, and then some.

I have read his other books, and in many ways, this book is the sequel to "The Age of Spiritual Machines". What Kurzweil is writing about in this book is his belief that we are moving towards s UNION if you will, of human intelligence and machines or objects that will have equal and eventually superior intelligence. Is this the goal of the people who spend their lives working in Artificial Intelligence, probably?

The difference is that Kurzweil knows so much more than his fellow thinkers, and more importantly for us, he has the capacity to convey it to those of us who are not full-time players in his arena. This quality of information conveyance is a vastly underappreciated skill. In my work investing billions of dollars in stock investments, I have access to just about anybody I want, because I have the capacity to write a check. You have no idea how many actual geniuses I deal with who CAN'T speak, let alone write the English language.

Kurzweil is different. He can get these concepts across to us in an interesting language spiced with stories that we can all understand. He does not visibly suffer from the ego needs of most geniuses. He is comfortable in his own skin, and that feeling is conveyed to us also.

Due to his position in the exalted world of the super Mensa types, Kurzweil can also access the top minds of who's doing what in the world today. Men who run Fortune 100 companies are more than willing to share the knowledge of their research departments with this famous thinker.

At the upper levels of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department are some of the smartest people on the planet working on Artificial Intelligence, and edge-of-knowledge sophisticated computer applications. Kurzweil is in a position to interact with all of them, and this accounts for why much of what he writes about appears nowhere else.

He also brings something else to the table. He is a very successful inventor and entrepreneur who is now independently wealthy. He knows what works in what environment, and what doesn't. He knows when something is being brought to market too early, or way too late. In the book he states, "I realized that most inventions fail not because the R&D department can't get them to work, but because the timing is wrong. Inventing is a lot like surfing: you have to anticipate and catch the wave at just the right moment." I am an investor; I have never heard it said better.

His concept of his "intuitive linear view of history" is absolutely fascinating, and compelling. He believes that the rate of change is accelerating. For years we have all heard the concept that the only constant is change. Kurzweil believes the calculus is changing. We have already entered a world where we are witnessing a dramatic change in the rate of acceleration of change.

Just ten or so years ago, cell phones had minimal impact. The Internet was nowhere near the adaptive state it is in today, and universal information flow did not exist. There were no bloggers, traditional media dominated, and people were more easily lied to by politicians with impunity. Things are changing aren't they?

Here's the bottom line on Kurzweil. Most of the time you read a book to take one major thought out of the document. Sometimes it's a single page; sometimes it's a single line. Occasionally, you find that rare book where there is something on every page that is outstanding, motivating, even framework changing. This is such a book, and therein lays its importance.

There's one more reason to read a book like this. Do you remember when Ross Perot ran for President? One of the metaphors he used to refer to was a story of the carpenter he knew. The words were "Measure twice, cut once." This is an example of what I call the need to be mentored. There are people that can teach you things that if you spent 20 years studying the topic, you would never learn. The carpenters' of "Measure twice, cut once," is an example of that.

When you read Kurzweil, you are eliminating the need to read hundreds to thousands of other books. There is knowledge on every page for you to absorb and ponder. Buy this book, and have an orgasm of the mind.


Richard Stoyeck

Reversible computer projections may be over-optimistic, May 31, 2006
Kurzweil's projections are all too frighteningly plausible in many respects, but I retain some doubts. This is because, on the one topic Kurzweil mentions that I am a certified expert in (having worked in the field in depth for 10 years now) - namely, reversible computing - I can attest that he is being much more optimistic than is warranted by a comprehensive examination of scientific and technical progress on the subject. To build a *practical* reversible computer has turned out to be an extremely difficult engineering problem, and might not even be possible. Although it is not technically a perpetual motion machine, the goal of reversible computing is really to get as close to perpetual motion as possible, and accomplish this in a complex machine with many interacting parts that goes through an intricate, non-cyclic trajectory. Achieving this requires a near-exact correspondence between the natural built-in physical dynamics of the manfuactured system and the logical structure of the desired computation; we must really track where *all* energy and information goes in the mechanism, and ensure that it all is continually redirected in a controlled way into new useful processes. One finds that this is much easier said then done when one gets down into the nitty-gritty engineering details having to do with eliminating unwanted reflections of resonator energy into undesired modes, precise load-balancing in the logic, and so forth. In fact, as of this writing, we still don't even have a truly *complete* and physically realistic *theoretical* model of reversible computing that fully accounts for all of the important physical constraints (such as momentum conservation), let alone a working demonstration of any physical system more complex than a simple cyclical oscillator that does anything computationally meaningful (i.e., beyond just "computing its own evolution") with a high system-level energy recovery efficiency. This doesn't mean that it can't eventually be accomplished, but the progress to date has been glacially slow, and I see little indication that the necessary heavy investments in basic research will be made any time soon. Further, even if the physical problems are solved, reversible computing in general imposes substantial computational complexity overheads (much more than Kurzweil suggests). If these difficulties are not soluble (and they might not be), it seems that computer performance per unit of power consumption may be forced to level off for all practical purposes (either temporarily or permanently) within the next few decades by Landauer's limit. Whether that will happen early enough to prevent singularity-like effects from occuring, I don't know. But, the fact that Kurzweil seems over-optimistic (and makes several misstatements) about the one field that I know the most about makes me suspicious that he might be being over-optimistic in other technical areas as well. ... Read more

Editorial Review

We human beings share 98 percent of our genes with chimpanzees. Yet humans are the dominant species on the planet -- having founded civilizations and religions, developed intricate and diverse forms of communication, learned science, built cities, and created breathtaking works of art -- while chimps remain animals concerned primarily with the basic necessities of survival. What is it about that two percent difference in DNA that has created such a divergence between evolutionary cousins? In this fascinating, provocative, passionate, funny, endlessly entertaining work, renowned Pulitzer Prize–winning author and scientist Jared Diamond explores how the extraordinary human animal, in a remarkably short time, developed the capacity to rule the world . . . and the means to irrevocably destroy it.

Editorial Review

This book is an intellectual tour de force: a comprehensive Darwinian interpretation of human development. Looking at the entire range of human evolutionary history, Melvin Konner tells the compelling and complex story of how cross-cultural and universal characteristics of our growth from infancy to adolescence became rooted in genetically inherited characteristics of the human brain.

All study of our evolution starts with one simple truth: human beings take an extraordinarily long time to grow up. What does this extended period of dependency have to do with human brain growth and social interactions? And why is play a sign of cognitive complexity, and a spur for cultural evolution? As Konner explores these questions, and topics ranging from bipedal walking to incest taboos, he firmly lays the foundations of psychology in biology.

As his book eloquently explains, human learning and the greatest human intellectual accomplishments are rooted in our inherited capacity for attachments to each other. In our love of those we learn from, we find our way as individuals and as a species. Never before has this intersection of the biology and psychology of childhood been so brilliantly described.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," wrote Dobzhansky. In this remarkable book, Melvin Konner shows that nothing in childhood makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Editorial Review

Reviews

Brilliantly written, challenging and kind of creepy, June 10, 2009
Challenging assumptions is always excellent mental exercise. In this book Robert Lanza takes on one of the key tenets of modern thinking: that all scientific disciplines ultimately reduce to physics. In its place he offers the provocative thesis that biology is primary, and the Universe literally flows from the conscious perceptions of living creatures.

On its face this sounds absurd, which demonstrates all the more just how brilliant this man is. He draws on findings from quantum physics and anatomy studies to establish a series of foundational principles for his biocentric theory, which he then elaborates on and defends.

He begins by reminding us of something we all know but rarely think about: that reality is literally "all in our heads." We don't see the sunset, we see the interpretation of it our brain creates. We don't smell the rose, we experience the sensation of a scent created by a neural network.

We believe that these impressions are imposed on us by what Stephen Hawking calls the RWOT (Real World Out There). But our evidence for this belief amounts to subjective internal experiences! In pointing this out Lanza shifts the burden of proof to the physicalists, who assert that the outside world is what is truly real, while our qualia are illusory.

He expands on this thought by citing evidence from quantum physics.
The famous two slit experiment, observations of split photons switching spin directions simultaneously, and observations of true backwards causation (the present determining the past) are all cited. Einstein once asked a colleague if he truly believed that the moon wasn't in the sky if no one was looking at it. Lanza would reply "of course it's not!"

In reading this book I was reminded of some of the implications of Relativity. It occurred to me that there are no absolute measurements of length. What my tape measure says is three feet would not be that at all
for someone traveling at 99.99% of light speed. Nor would my estimation of the distance from my living room to Disneyland be the same as theirs. And their figures would be just as valid as mine! If space and time are completely dependent on the perspective of the observer, then in what sense are they real?

I have to also comment on Lanza's excellent writing style. He makes esoteric concepts understandable to laypeople like me. He also injects quite a bit of his life story into the text, talking about how he escaped from a less than ideal upbringing to become a medical doctor and a highly regarded research scientist. Being from a very similar background, I was able to identify with his struggles, though my resume is nowhere near as impressive as his.

This book so successfully challenged my current view of reality that it actually left me feeling a little unsettled, "creepy." But it also gave me an abundance of food for thought. Am I convinced he's right? Not yet. But I suspect he may be. So will you. This book gets my highest recommendation.

Fascinating proposal for a paradigm change, July 7, 2009
I've just finished reading the book and there is still a lot I need to process. The comments I have read (not so much here but on other sites) have been, not surprisingly, mostly negative. Personally I do think Lanza is on to something important. Reading the many criticisms of his ideas, however, makes me aware that evaluating biocentrism is going to be very difficult because it is a proposal for a paradigm shift. By definition, a new paradigm always appears to be nonsense from within the established paradigm. A proposal to change from one paradigm to another is very different than a proposal to replace one idea with another within a paradigm. Most of biocentrism's critics, it seems to me, are treating it as if it's the latter rather than the former.

It's been a long time since I read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions but this is, I think, one of its most profound insights. For example,from the Ptolemaic perspective Copernicus and Galileo were crazy. Their critics and persecutors were not unreasonable. What Copernicus and Galileo were proposing, however, was a change in reason. As Kuhn shows, the shift from one paradigm to another is inevitably messy and chaotic. In the end, a new paradigm is finally adopted for very pragmatic reasons: it works, or at least works better than its predecessor.

For this reason, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of what Lanza is proposing. He is being critiqued from within the assumptions of the paradigm he is seeking to replace, which is understandable and even inevitable, but nonetheless very confusing. For example, traditional Christianity and modern science have debated whether God created the universe or whether it originated spontaneously in an event like the Big Bang. When Lanza says consciousness creates the universe he is not now offering a third alternative. Rather, he is proposing a model in which origins-in-time questions are meaningless.

For Lanza, the universe is created and re-created in our consciousness every time we interact with it and this is its most important moment of creation. To many/most, such an observation will seem obvious and inconsequential. Lanza's assertion is that in practice this is much more significant a truth than we are aware. Ignoring the universe in our heads, he maintains, is leading scientists and others to numerous misunderstandings and on a whole assortment of fruitless quests (e.g. for a TOE/ "theory of everything or GUI/ "grand unified theory").

In the long run, biocentrism will be judged on its utility. Lanza is certainly right in identifying the many problems that exist with our current model of reality, which are more profound and consequential than probably most people realize. It will take awhile to see if biocentrism is the replacement model that both addresses these problems and opens up new avenues for exploration and problem solving. In any case, I think Lanza has opened up a path that needs to be explored.

Biocentrism is not overly long or technical and is well written, including several enjoyable and even moving passages from Lanza's own life. It will certainly make you think and see things from a different perspective, which I believe is always a good thing. Strongly recommended.

Perhaps Lanza and Hawking converge?, June 10, 2009
I must concur with all of the thoughtful reviews so far presented that Robert Lanza and Bob Berman have crafted a beautifully written account of a potentially revolutionary idea. Where as most current cosmological theories represent life and consciousness as emergent, and even accidental, properties of an otherwise lifeless universe. Dr. Lanza proposes, to the contrary, that life and consciousness are actually fundamental properties of the universe and all that it represents, so much so that the universe cannot possibly exist without life to give it reality.

From this simple idea, some might immediately assume that Dr. Lanza is seeking to justify a form of Intelligent Design or Creationism, but that would be a huge mistake. Dr. Lanza is a consummate scientist who fully embraces the latest knowledge that science has brought us, from evolutionary theory to relativity and quantum mechanics. His biocentrism, in fact, proposes to make sense of some of the most perplexing discoveries that quantum mechanics has revealed together with Einsteinian relativity, and he does this in the most engaging, patient (to this layman), and conversational style, with a minimum of mathematics. He even takes the time to explain the little math that he uses for the most innumerate among us to understand.

Basically, he contends that any unobserved universe can only exist in a state of probability that requires living observation and measurement to give it any certain reality. Some have assumed that Lanza refers only to human consciousness and question the idea on this very basis: what gave the universe reality before humans arrived? However, it is clear that he is referring to consciousness as it exists, to one degree or another, in all forms of life, known and unknown. While for an individual, what is not perceived may not exist for them, clearly the larger reality is far more complex than that, and such, at the very least, is the work that remains to be understood.

A previous reviewer draws a distinction between Robert Lanza's biocentrism and Stephen Hawking's sense of the "RWOT (Real World Out There)." However, from a recent article on Dr. Hawking's latest thinking, it appears that Lanza and Hawking may actually be converging on the same point. Hawking is quoted in the July/August 2009 issue of Discover magazine as follows ("Return of the Invisible Man," pp. 50-51):

"Hawking's most recent work explores the implications of the notion that the universe is a giant quantum phenomenon. The problem with conventional attempts to understand the cosmos, he now believes, is that researchers have failed to appreciate the full, bizarre implications of quantum physics. These efforts to create a unique theory that would explain all the properties of the universe are therefore doomed to fail. Hawking refers to such attempts as `bottom-up' theories because they assume the universe had a unique beginning and that its subsequent history was the only possible one.

"Hawking is now pushing a different strategy, which he calls top-down cosmology. It is not the case, he says, that the past uniquely determines the present. Because the universe has many possible histories and just as many possible beginnings, the present state of the universe selects the past. `This means that the histories of the Universe depend on what is being measured,' Hawking wrote in a recent paper, `contrary to the usual idea that the Universe has an objective, observer-independent history.'"

Dr. Lanza insists that future theories of the universe will be biocentric in nature. That Dr. Hawking might agree, in a complete reversal from his past writing about this, certainly raises the most intriguing of possibilities, does it not?

Compelling and Relevant Book, August 9, 2009
This is a brave new book. For me, it exhibits the same courage as the 2006 The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

In the August '09 issue of Discover Magazine, Roger Penrose participated in an interview in which he states that physics has been looking in the wrong corners. He believes some of the newer theories may not be valid and calls for a new way of thinking. That's how I recall the article anyway.

The same week I read this magazine, Amazon delivers Biocentrism to my doorstep. While Lanza and Berman may not be kindred spirits with Penrose, they most certainly attend the same family reunion. That is, I believe Biocentrism addresses a large part of the problems espoused by Penrose.

This book sets forth a new look at the universe. Lanza and Berman contend that our current theories of the physical world simply don't work. Instead of placing life as an accidental by-product, the authors place life at the apex of universal existence and purpose. It is a very thrilling and disturbing read. And I also could use the adjectives, compelling and relevant as the arena of physics seems to be moving in a direction of silliness (multiverse, string theory, etc.) that can possibly never be proved.

While the proposals made in Biocentrism seem radical and counter-intuitive at first, a bit of reflection will soon make the images clearer and place us on the pathway to a better and more commonsensical mindset.

You may also enjoy Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe and The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality

I hope you find this review helpful.

Michael L. Gooch

Biocentrism: a good start, July 2, 2009
Dr Lanza does present some interesting perspectives on the role of life and consciousness in the origin and nature of the Universe. He goes on to ascribe six principles to his Biocentrism hypothesis, where the role of the conscious observer is central to the very existence of the Universe itself; and that time and space, or physical objects themselves do not have an independent existence or reality without an observer. In fact, he concludes that life creates the Universe. It is a refreshing review of biology as being more central to the origin and evolution of the Universe over the more typical emphasis of physics and mathematics as the primary language of cosmology. Biology is intuitively more understandable than the application of advanced mathematics to describe the inner workings of the Universe. Dr Lanza provides an excellent biological emphasis for Cosmology to help individuals grasp the role of the observer in the understanding of the Universe, which is the foundation of his Biocentrism hypothesis.

The observer's role in the creation of the Universe stems from a "quantum weirdness" that describes how the act of observation effects the outcome of a quantum measurement. Most of this hypothesis is based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that posits the observer as the key element in determining the result of a quantum measurement. The experimental result of any quantum measurement remains undetermined (in a state of superposition) until a conscious observer looks at the quantum system. At the extreme view, no object exists until someone looks at it; not even the sun, moon, stars or the Universe itself. Unfortunately, this is by no means a new hypothesis: the eminent cosmologist John Wheeler had made a similar acertion more than 6 decades ago, that only the presence of a conscious observer brings the Universe into existence.
Dr Lanza asserts that it is biology that gives meaning to time and space; indeed that space-time does not exist without the perception by a biological observer. In other words, there is no existence beyond the self, which boils down to the philosophy of Solipsism. However, again, there is nothing novel or new in this position. He offers no clues as to what degree of consciousness an observer must possess to bring spacetime or a quantum measurement into reality. Does a dog, cat, insect, amoeba and quantum physicist equally qualify as an observer? Or, if only human consciousness qualifies, then at what point in time did the Universe come into being? Was Australopithecus sufficiently self aware to bring the Universe into creation by possessing tool making capability; or was it Homo Erectus, with the power to control fire, the evolutionary triggering point? None of these issues are discussed, much less even introduced into the argument for Biocentrism. Biocentrism emerges fully formed based on a human conscious observer, without regard to the consideration that human evolution and consciousness is a process that occurred over millions of years.

The Biocentric model, as Dr Lanza describes, hangs solely on human consciousness, but that is pure hubris in a Universe 13.7 Billion years old with trillions of stars with orbiting planets and moons, which may also support other intelligent life who gazed back at the universe as conscious observers long before earthly pre-hominids descended from trees. I was disappointed that these more expansive biological views of a Universe that was presumably designed to be observed was limited to that of only the Earthly human observer.
Consider, for example, in quantum mechanics, a set of entangled photos may be created to produce a diffraction pattern when not observed and a bimodal distribution pattern when observed no matter how far they are separated. If such a pair of entangled photons were produced from across the universe, then theoretically, if no diffraction pattern was measured when they arrive and measured by a conscious earthly observer, then they must have been previously observed by some other conscious entity. Therefore, it should be theoretically possible to detect extraterrestrial life in this manner. Now, that would have been a novel concept to bring to light in a Biocentric model of the Universe!

Dr Lanza often refers to consciousness as a DVR that contains information but only exists when the DVR is played back. However, a DVR can only play the past it cannot be played into the future and quantum information appears to be non-local such that either information comes from the future or there is supraluminal transmission of information.
As an aside, it is rather self-indulgent to devote several chapters on Dr Lanza's associations with several Nobel Prize winning scientists. As an undergraduate at UC San Diego, Francis Crick was one of my professors, as a medical student at UC San Francisco I performed research on oncogenes under J Michael Bishop (Nobel Prize Medicine 1989); and had dinner with James D Watson in Cold Spring Harbor when I presented at the Human Evolution conference held there in 1998. Therefore, it is certainly not unheard of for physician scientists to have multiple associations with prominent scientists, including Nobel Prize winners.

For readers interested in the origin and evolution of the Universe and the role of observers from a quantum mechanical viewpoint, there are several books that may be placed on the reading list, including John Gribbin's Schr�dinger's Kittens or John Barrows Cosmological Anthropological Principle both are a more expansive extension of a Biocentric hypothesis.

The Copenhagen Interpretation Resurrected, December 17, 2009
This is a fascinating book which posits that if we accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics on face value, a new understanding of the world is possible.

Lanza marries Physics with Biology to produce a scientifically grounded world-view which he calls Biocentrism. In a nutshell, the theory states that the physical world doesn't exist in actuality until we observe it AND since all observation takes place inside the human brain, reality (even physical reality) is wholly a construct of human consciousness. While this sounds somewhat audacious on the it's face, there is some extremely good science behind Lanza's amazingly understandable argument and the author presents his case in a manner which is accessible to all. Even if you don't have any previous knowledge of quantum weirdness, this book is comprehendible and, if for no other reason, this makes the book useful.

If you ever wanted to understand the basic strangeness of the quantum world but felt daunted by the scope of the task, read this book and it will make sense to you. If you are initiated into such subject matter and you've started to wonder why there's been no fundamental break throughs in our understanding of the world since the first half of the 20th century, read this book. It's possible that science has been speeding down the wrong track for 75 years because scientists refused to accept what physics experiments were telling them at face value.

Whether the theory of Biocentrism is actually right, wrong or somewhere in between, it's a fascinating and thought provoking read.

A paradigm changer, September 25, 2009
According to Eric Berger, Science editor at the Houston Chronicle, Biocentrism is "one of the most interesting books to cross my desk. The book is an out-and-out challenge to modern physics." I would add, it succeeds wonderfully at doing this. It may change your life.

A Must Read, March 8, 2010
This book blew my mind. Fascinating, thoughtful and provocative, it is a fresh spot in a bleak scientific landscape that has, sadly, been lacking in original thought since Galileo. Lanza's work has changed my life and forced me to re-examine my notion of life, death, and everything that falls in between the two.

A Fascinating Book by a Fascinating Mind, April 28, 2009
I eagerly awaited Lanza's latest book and was not disappointed. He is one of the few great scientists remaining who is unencumbered by the stilted and boxed in thinking characteristic of current scientific thought. How refreshing it is to know there is at least one, as Time Magazine refers to him, "renegade thinker" in our midst unafraid to express radical, new ideas. All the rest seem to have gone the way of Galileo.

While I can't say I totally agree with Lanza's postulations, I also cannot dispute his logic. I challenge others to provide an alternative rationale to explain the unexplainable two-hole experiment or Heisenberg's `uncertainty principle'. Bravo to Lanza!

Readable and engaging - deserves a wide readership, January 2, 2010
This is mind-blowing science, which reminds you how much further contemporary science still has to go. As others have pointed out, Stephen Hawking's latest thinking appears to converge on the same point as Lanza. A recent issue of Discover magazine states, "Hawking's most recent work explores the implications of the notion that the universe is a giant quantum phenomenon. The problem with conventional attempts to understand the cosmos, he now believes, is that researchers have failed to appreciate the full, bizarre implications of quantum physics. These efforts to create a unique theory that would explain all the properties of the universe are therefore doomed to fail." Hawking is now pushing a different strategy, which he calls top-down cosmology. "It is not the case, he says, that the past uniquely determines the present." In a recent paper, Hawking's wrote "The histories of the universe depend on what is being measured, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has an objective, observer independent, history." Dr. Lanza insists that future theories of the universe will be biocentric in nature. It seems (in a reversal from his past writing) Dr. Hawking might agree. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The book that shook the world
First time from Signet Classic

This is the book that revolutionized the natural sciences and every literary, philosophical and religious thinker who followed. Darwin's theory of evolution and the descent of man remains as controversial and influential today as when it was published over a century ago. ... Read more

Reviews

Darwin, with intro by Huxley - is the REAL BOOK... BEWARE the copy with intro by Comfort, October 26, 2009
The original book by Charles Darwin is a classic that should be on everyone's reading list. There are ample reviews here which address it, praise it, and I am completely in agreement with them. Darwin's Origin of Species is a true masterpiece.

Unfortunately, this review is to help readers/buyers realize that there is a 'vandalized' version which has been published, and to tell you how to avoid it and get the real thing.

To explain; there is yet another edition also called "The Origin of Species, 150th Anniversary Edition", put out by Christian Fundamentalist Ray Comfort in an attempt to discredit evolutionary theory and Charles Darwin, and it has some extra 50 pages of unintelligible drivel about creationism, as well as having ABRIDGED Darwin's original text. If you want to read about creationism, find another book... if you want the facts, read ALL of what Darwin has to say, and please don't give any money to Comfort by accidentally buying his ABRIDGED version.

Note that he used the EXACT same name as the 'real' anniversary edition -- "The Origin Of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition by Charles Darwin". You can easily tell which version you're getting by who wrote the introduction - go with Julian Huxley, NOT Ray Comfort, and you'll have the correct and complete version.

Also, note that Amazon reviews are mixed between the books (normally not a problem at all) - I hope they are straightening this out, but currently that's not the case. Sadly, the negative reviews of the Comfort version are bringing down the rating of the 'good/real' book.

Sorry to have to write about the 'drama', but I'm sure you want to know that you have ordered the correct book, and I know you'll love it.

Enjoy.

a must read, November 17, 2005
It's really amazing how polarized people's opinions of this book are! Whether you accept evolution or not though, it would be foolish not to read Origin of Species if you expect to have an informed opinion on the subject. I gave it only 4 stars because it gets pretty dry in places, however I definitely recommend reading this book. Reading it two or three times would be an even better idea.

Should be part of everyone's education, February 24, 2007
I read this book after discussing "intelligent design" with someone. It had never has occurred to me that the theory and facts of evolution wouldn't be more compelling to someone than Bible myth that wasn't intended to teach science at all.

Darwin's writing style can be awkward. He is working with a lot of facts to try to discern some laws. It isn't easy material to begin with. After a long delay of collecting evidence and formulating ideas, he was in a hurry to publish and may have skipped a useful rewrite to increase readability. He is clearly not adverse to long sentences.

Nevertheless, he does present himself clearly and in an exemplary manner for a scientist. He packs his presentation with supportive facts. He presents tentative laws to explains what he observed and then sees how well this explain the data he had collected. He points out his assumptions, raises doubts about them and responds sincerely to those doubts.

As can be seen in this book, Charles Darwin was scientific, inquiring, open, honest, and genuinely concerned about advancing human knowledge about the natural world.

It is surprising, as Darwin explains, how much can be accounted for given sufficient time (millions of years, not 5000, as scientific dating methods show), given small variations within any single generation and given conditions of scarcity. Darwin recognized that what may be hardest of us to accept is that we can not see the cumulative changes that took those millions of years to occur. He does make an effort to explain why the fossil record has gaps for which intermediate forms of life are missing. He also explains that grouping life into species is just a scientific convention and that the apparent fixed form of species can be explained by consistent conditions on earth over long periods of time (such that new variations aren't selected).

Darwin does, both to identify a regularity and to make reading smoother , reify the process of "natural selection". "Natural selection" should be understood as the complement to "artificial selection" or variation under domestication, which Darwin considers first as such selection influenced by humans was well known. There is no one doing natural selection, but rather it is process that some variations are able to survive under certain conditions which they themselves cannot be aware of in advance. It is the considerable variation that occurs which enables life in some form at all to go on for so many million of years while other forms become existence.

That Darwin was able to formulate the laws he did prior to the science of genetics is a tribute to his skills and to the science involved.

It is a work that makes me proud to be a human being and grateful to Charles Darwin. Anyone who thinks evolution is incompatible with their religious beliefs should read this book and then realize that they have misunderstood the spirit of the portions of the Bible they believe conflict with Darwin's and science's great contribution to us.

If there is a Christian God, you should feel certain He will have a special place close to Him in heaven for Charles Darwin.

An aspect other than the brilliant scientific insights, March 20, 2004
Besides natural selection, Darwin in this book laid the groundwork for ecology (doesn't use that term), and the scientific study of animal behavior. One other point which often gets overlooked is that if you can get past the Victorian prose style you will see a nearly flawless model of how to patiently build a complex argument out of a mass of raw data. The way Darwin himself brings up objections to his ideas, treats them carefully and respectfully, and then disposes of them is an example to everyone who has to deal in complex, controversial ideas. This book is one of the high water marks of the human mind.

This is the gunuine article, October 22, 2009
Don't buy the one in RED cover with Ray Comfort's introduction.

This one is the genuine article, a landmark work that forever alters our understanding of nature.

A Very Important Work that should be read!, January 14, 2005
I recommend reading of this book because of the importance of it. When Charles Darwin published this in 1859 it rocked the English speaking world. Up to that point the religious idea of creation was unquestionably accepted. Religion held a lot of power over people and their lives. Then this book came out, and it put into question all that the English world held dear about God and creation. I don't know if any piece of literature has had such a profound affect on society and its beliefs. When I read it, I thought that it might be boring because of the scope of the work, but it's actually not boring because it's simply and plainly written. Remember the whole theory of evolution originated from this one work.

Not for the average reader, May 8, 2009
I bought this work because the insert said it was readable by the common reader with little or no scientific background. While I dont deny Darwin's work has influenced generations of scientists this is a difficult book to comprehend for the average reader.

The prose is filled with scientific jargon that can bog down the reader; also it was written in the mid-19th century so its prose may alienate readers looking for a more contemporary style narrative.

Still worth a look for its historical value alone. I would strongly recommend it to anyone with an interest in evolution.

Brilliant, October 22, 2009
The book that started it all. This edition commemorates 150 years of Christians getting owned by science. (technically they'd been owned by science for centuries before, but never on quite this large of a scale)

This is the sixth edition of the Origin of the Species, August 13, 2010
My four-star rating is more for this particular product than for the work of Darwin itself. Clearly Darwin's book is the cornerstone of modern biology, and I won't even pretend to try to rate its importance using one to five stars.

However, I felt it was important to let people know that this is the *sixth* edition of the book. I ordered it thinking it was the first, although I admit I had no confirmed reason to believe that. The main problem with later editions is that Darwin continually responded to his critics in subsequent editions, thus changing some aspects of his theory. He also added the obnoxious concession "by the Creator" to his beautiful final sentence in order to appease the religious critics. The sixth (final) edition even has an extra chapter in response to criticisms by Catholic biologist George Mivart (which chapter is present in this edition, thus proving it is the sixth edition).

The benefit to later editions would be that they contain minor corrections to the writing, as well as these answers to objections and criticism, but at the same time I don't feel that Darwin's answers needed to be added to the book itself. "The Origin" should simply present his theory (as the first edition does) and he could easily have answered his critics in other ways and not by editing the actual theory itself.

But to reiterate my main point, I am not reviewing the actual work of Darwin. I am posting this review to inform people of which edition they are getting with this particular book, because I wish I had known in advance.

Edit: I should add that the copy I received did not have the same cover as what is displayed here. My copy shows a bird, a wildcat, and a dolphin on the cover. The cover shown on the product page at the time of writing is of a ship. However, my copy is still the 150th Anniversary Edition (Signet Classics) with an introduction by Julian Huxley.

Book report: The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, February 16, 2010
When it comes to subjects like biology and medicine, I am an absolute moron. I only barely avoided failing the one and only biology class I ever took, thanks to an absurd amount of extra-credit outside reading assignments and a science fair project that I still don't understand. I can never remember if DNA is made out of chromosomes or the other way around. Same with proteins and amino acids. I'm not a generally stupid person, but I do recognize my limits: biological matters are opaque to me.

It was with the hope of redeeming myself that I read "The Origin of Species". I felt that, if I could read and somewhat comprehend probably the most influential and controversial book ever written on biology, then I might once again be able to present myself in modern society without wearing a veil.

"The Origin of Species" sold out its entire first printing on the day of publication in 1859, largely because of its expected controversial contents. Darwin had written and spoken on such subjects for years, so the public anticipated some pretty scandalous stuff. The book is still considered controversial for several reasons. First, the theory that it presents appears to contradict the Biblical account of creation. (I say "appears" because it doesn't really. Anyone who genuinely believes in a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, as opposed to a metaphorical interpretation, must necessarily also believe that Jesus actually was a door, a shepherd, a vine, a light, and a loaf of bread, which rather diminishes his or her credibility.) Second, it seems to contradict common sense ideas of inheritance: how can the offspring of a horse be anything but another horse? Third, it's kind of icky: we're essentially the same kind of things as slugs and worms: ewww. Fourth, it brings up uncomfortable ethical issues: if we're essentially the same kind of thing as the contents of a Happy Meal, how do we justify being the eaters and not the eatees? Finally, it's hard to comprehend that it's all true, in much the same way that it's hard to comprehend that we are all really blizzards of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

The book is very different from any science book I've ever read. Darwin is not lecturing from the podium of an auditorium. He's your learned friend sitting in the easy chair next to yours, probably in front of a cheerful fire after a nice dinner, telling you about some really interesting things he's seen and ideas he's had. Much of it is written in first person, which is very refreshing and personal.

It's clear that Darwin is multiple kinds of a genius. He's a lucid writer, with concise and telling expressions: he never uses two words if there's a single better one. He's also a gifted experimenter. He refers in many places to decades of clever experiments he's done with pigeons, bees, ants, grass, flowers, and other organisms, and you get the definite impression that these are only the tip of the iceberg of his accomplishments. Besides his deliberate experiments, he's also an amazing observational naturalist. He alludes to many things that he himself has witnessed, not only on his famous voyage around South America, but also on trips around England and Europe. In addition, he's an exhaustive and thorough researcher. The first part of the book is a review of everything (and I mean everything) written to that point on the subject. It's obvious that he's read everything available on the topic. Finally, he is an active correspondent with everyone doing related work or research at the time. He quotes the research and observations of numerous others, from some of the most famous scientists of his time to ordinary farmers who raise crops and animals for a living.

He begins by discussing the variations possible among members of the same species that are easily observable and are obviously deliberate, namely among domesticated animals and plants. This makes it clear that significant differences within a species are possible during only a few generations. This is what he calls "selection": deliberately choosing animals and plants for definite features, and encouraging these features.

He then expands his view to look at variation within nature, outside domestication. This allows him to bring up "natural selection": the conditions of nature favoring certain features over others. Organisms with good features are more likely to survive and reproduce. Organisms with bad features are unlikely to reproduce, and may become extinct.

Darwin packs a lot into his writing. His sentences are fireworks. Practically every one explodes off the page as a condensation of vast amounts of detailed research, or the statement of an amazing observation or theory. He consistently refers to this book as a "sketch," because he feels that he is not presenting all the detail he could on each point. But this is a sketch in the sense that Michelangelo's David is a rock. There is a vast and astonishing amount of detail in this book. Indeed, for me to say that I have "read" this book is not accurate. To truly appreciate this book, you would have to read one of his blockbuster sentences, then go off and contemplate its significance for hours, days, or weeks. In that sense, I have really only skimmed this book.

This is not dry theory, by any means. The wealth of practical examples he offers is amazing. I have to repeat one bit of reasoning about how the population of cats in an area affects how many flowers there are. Ready? The more cats there are, the fewer mice there are. Since mice gnaw on beehives and bother the bees, the fewer the mice, the more active the bees can be in the area. The more active the bees, the more pollen they can spread. And the more pollen they spread, the more flowers bloom. So, the more cats, the more flowers. Is that great?

Moron that I am in biology, I was surprised to find that there were things I know that Darwin didn't. He didn't know about Mendel's laws of inheritance, for example. Truth be told, I don't remember what these are, but I know that there are such laws, and Darwin didn't. I often found myself wishing that I could tell him about Mendel, DNA, radioactive dating of geological strata, mass extinctions, continental drift, and other topics.

One consequence of this for me, the biology moron, is that this book is pitched at just the right level to not lose me. He talks about animals and plants, things that even I can relate to. He doesn't - because he can't - delve into the biochemical stuff that always loses me. His writing is always concrete.

Having established his theory, and the usefulness of this theory in explaining the variety we observe in nature, Darwin brings up the difficulties of his own theory. This is the mark of the true scientist, as opposed to the partisan promoter. He recognizes that there are difficulties, and doesn't sweep them under the rug. Among the problems he discusses are the lack of fossils of in-between forms, how sterile insects can pass on their features, how complex organs (like eyes) come about, where complicated instinctive behaviors come from, and how similar species get distributed globally. In what I've read elsewhere, I've never seen a criticism of his theory that Darwin himself did not anticipate and address here.

Here's something interesting. I didn't notice the word "evolution" anywhere, for which I am grateful. I think that "evolution" is a terrible label for his theory of descent by natural selection. "Evolution" implies that something - some thing - is changing, which is not true. No animal changes into another animal. No dinosaur changes into a bird, no wolf changes into a Pekingese, no monkey changes into a human. The word "evolution" gives the wrong connotation entirely.

In the end, the book is absolutely convincing. The wealth of examples that Darwin presents, and the clarity and thoroughness of his discussion of his ideas, is compelling and persuasive. It's hard to imagine someone reading this book and saying, "Yeah, but." I am tempted to sum up by saying that a person either accepts the theory of natural selection or they have not read this book. And I now have that nifty cat story to tell at cocktail parties.
... Read more

Editorial Review

With an extensive catalog at its heart, Prehistoric Life profiles hundreds of fascinating species in incredible detail. The story starts in earnest 3.8 billion years ago, with the earliest-known form of life on Earth, a bacteria that still exists today, and journeys through action-packed millennia, charting the appearance of new life forms as well as devastating extinction events. Of course, the ever-popular and endlessly intriguing dinosaurs feature large, but Prehistoric Life gives you the whole picture, and the plants, invertebrates, amphibians, birds, reptiles, and mammals that are the ancestors of today's species also populate its pages, making this book unprecedented in its coverage of prehistory. Specially commissioned artworks use cutting-edge technology to render species in breathtakingly realistic fashion, with astonishing images of prehistoric remains, such as skeletons and fossils, to complete the story. To put all the evidence in context, the concept of geological time is explored, as is the classification of species and how the evidence for their evolution is preserved and can be deciphered. ... Read more

Reviews

Another Home Run for DK, October 21, 2009
DK has certainly made a name for itself in producing a long line of visually stunning, reference books. Prehistoric Life is a good example of a genre that DK seemed to have invented. The visuals are perfect. DK has some secret printing method that allows its pictures to be excitedly fine textured and vivid. The writing which could be quite pedestrian is well done and done at a adult level. The material is very current and original. It presented material that was totally new to me: the prototaxites on pages 114-115 which look like an eerie spike that was over 26 feet tall and could be either a plant or a fungus. I also liked that DK didn't dwell on dinosaurs (although it has a lot of material about them) but also spent time on plants and invertebrates. At 512 pages it covers a lot of territory. And at the bargain basement price it carries, if you are going to get one book about ancient life, get this book. My only quibble is that the maps showing the distribution of the continents are needlessly simplified. However, that said, I am going to give this my highest recommendation.

Huge, Visually Stunning and Informative, October 14, 2009
This is your typical coffee table book from DK Publishers. Massive in size as well as scope, it covers everything from the beginnings of the planet until we settled down and started farming. With breathtaking CG images as well as real pictures of fossils, "Prehistoric Life" will entrance younger members of the family, while its informative text and nicely-arranged narrative will give adults all the prehistory they can handle. What you have here is a high-quality tome, printed on thick, glossy paper. It gives the impression that you should have paid $100.00 or more for it. Quite a value at the price offered here. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.

WOW, November 30, 2009
This work is a masterpiece. It tells the whole story of our planet, life here and the causes and effects of changes through time. It is both highly scientific and highly visual. It should be the founding text of any life sciences curriculum. I can't put it down.

SPECTACULAR!!, January 1, 2010
This is one of the most beautiful,informative and spectacular books on Natural History ever made. It deals with everything from the origins of life in the sea to the evolution of man. I am fascinated with the subject. I am especially fascinated with the Natural History of Dinosaurs and yes the book does go into the history but it also takes you back to their origins. Mammals, Insects, Aquatic animals. Just about everything you need to read about the ancient Earth is here. This book is worth alot more than I paid for. Anyone interested in The Natural History of Life On Earth NEEDS to get this book!

amazing, November 12, 2009
if u are thinking about getting this book, Definitely purchase it! amazing beautiful color pictures with text explaining it all. so great to read through this book with about 2,500 images. if ur interested in fossils, how the earth began, evolution, the emergence of species, anything like that, u must have this book. i paid the full price but i dont even care. this book is so interesting to flip through i cant put it down. def a must have for anyone into science or anyone wanting to learn more about the amazing planet and how we evolved.

Fantastic Voyage through the History of Life on Earth, November 30, 2009

Having been captivated by fossils at a very young age I always have the desire to learn more. This book widens the scope of knowledge I thought I had and opens up even more fascinating areas of discovery. You will not be disappointed and will want to share this with family members young and old.

High quality, bargain price, November 2, 2009
Just received this book, and it's clear the other reviewers are exactly right. It's a huge, heavy, very high quality scientific reference book. The subtitle is 'Definitive Visual History of Life on Earth' and it may just be. There's probably more than 2,000 pictures, painting and maps in this book and on a quick scan they all look first rate. Every page oozes quality.

You can't go wrong at this very low price, a big discount from the surprisingly low cover price of $40. Editorially the book looks to be the work of designers in Great Britian and India with the book printed and bound in Singapore.

DESERVING OF ALL 5-STARS AND MORE, June 8, 2010

Years ago my course of study was a B.S. in anthropology and in my opinion this book is not only a fine, detailed one of both words and photos for both paleontology and prehistory, but will remain so for the near future. A time will come no doubt when another volume will update the information, however, for now this is a book most readers will enjoy.

My wife said upon seeing the book something as "Wow, what a coffee table book". I answered yes but if read much more indeed. She of course referred to the overall size of this book, which is mammoth compared to most scholarly books. The book will far surpass the tag "coffee table book" once the reader begins to mine its depths. I read Scientific American magazine each month and for any reader who does likewise cannot see that this book and subject will not be a veritable feast for their eyes and brain.

I can easily offer this book up to readers who have interest in the subject of prehistoric life up to present time. The book may not be the best that has ever been, nor it may not be the best of all time and all time to come, but it is one fine book indeed for the present time.

Semper Fi.

Prehistoric Life, December 5, 2009
This is an excellent compendium on the
evolution of life on earth. The book
describes and shows full color samples of
fungi, plants and animals.

The origin of the earth was described at
length. This consisted of cold gas,
protosun, rings and planetesimals, rocky
planets, gas giants and debris.

The earth core consisted of the solid
inner core, the liquid outer core,
the mantle, crust and primitive oceanic
material. There is an extensive
Mid-Atlantic Ridge in Iceland, volcanoes
and plates, the San Andreas Fault and
other fantastic land masses.

The evolution of life is further described
as Eukaryotes, seaweed, plants and animals.
This is an excellent research volume for
students and faculty everywhere.

DK Prehistoric Life, December 3, 2009
DK Prehistoric Life has it all. There are hundreds of illustrations. The text is concise and informative. The book explains the formation of the earth, traces the origin of life, through multicelled organism, the Burgess Shale and Cambrian explosion of life forms, age of reptiles and the evolution of man. A discription of the plant kingdom is also given. The book explains fossil formation, how fossils are dated and the different geological periods. Each geological period is marked with mass extinctions. The permian-triassic boundry at 251 million years ago was the worst all mass extinction. This period started the age of the giant reptiles. This book is packed with all types of facinating information. The 12 by 15 inch book makes a great center piece for sitting on a coffee table and is sure fire way to intiate conversations. ... Read more

Editorial Review

“Original and awe-inspiring . . . an exhilarating tour of some of the most profound and important ideas in biology.”—New Scientist Where does DNA come from? What is consciousness? How did the eye evolve? Drawing on a treasure trove of new scientific knowledge, Nick Lane expertly reconstructs evolution’s history by describing its ten greatest inventions—from sex and warmth to death—resulting in a stunning account of nature’s ingenuity. 20 figures ... Read more

Editorial Review

A Compelling Case for Intelligent Design Based on Revolutionary Discoveries in Science

In Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer has written the first comprehensive DNA-based argument for intelligent design. As he tells the story of successive attempts to unravel a mystery that Charles Darwin did not address—how did life begin?—Meyer develops the case for this often-misunderstood theory using the same scientific method that Darwin himself pioneered. Offering a fresh perspective on one of the enduring mysteries of modern biology, Meyer convincingly reveals that the argument for intelligent design is not based on ignorance or "giving up on science," but instead on compelling, and mounting, scientific evidence.

Reviews

Who's signature?, December 27, 2009
I come to this book with two peeves, one pet, the other a stray that is beginning to wear out its welcome.

My pet peeve is fanatics who attack ID out of ideological compulsion, rather than using the "think" cells hidden deep within their brains to evaluate and argue. That includes most of the reviewers who gave the book 1 or 2 stars so far. Meyer, we are told, is "lazy," a "creationist," "idiot," "fraud," and "liar" who hawks "error-prone" "snake-oil," "gobbledygook," "pseudo-science." We should read Richard Dawkins new Greatest Show on Earth instead (I did -- it isn't about the origin of life, you numbskulls). One "reviewer" blasts the book after reading four sentences, and gets 69 of 128 "helpful" votes. Another "reviews" the first few pages and calls Meyer a liar.

Hardly any negative reviews even try to point to any scientific errors. Two exceptions: reviews by A Miller and K. M. Sternberg are worth reading. Sternberg's is particularly eloquent. (Though having written a couple books on the historical Jesus, I tend to wonder about the objectivity, awareness, and / or good sense of someone who thinks there is no evidence for the life of Jesus!)

My second peeve is a growing dislike for the way Discovery Institute often packages its arguments. I visited DI a year ago when another ID book came out -- I won't name it, seeing no need to embarrass the author. His presentation essentially said, "Look at all the wonders of creation. How can evolution possibly explain all that?" When Q & A time came, I was the only one to ask any critical questions. "That sounds impressive, but why don't you engage the explanations evolutionary biologists offer for those features?" Like the talk, the book (he gave me a copy) simply ignored detailed arguments.

This book does much better. Meyer's critics to the contrary, he does offer detailed scientific and philosophical arguments. Signature is NOT mainly about evolution per se - it is about the origin of life. It is, therefore, not strictly parallel to Dawkins' books or arguments -- ID is in a sense broader than evolution as a theory, since it seeks to explain things that evolution does not.

My main beef is the book is too long. While many of Meyer's illustrations are interesting, he uses too many, and repeats himself too often. Meyer should chop out some of the remedial 7th Grade biology, cut some stories and the "I was in Akron when I thought A and in Baton Rouge when B occurred to me" stuff, and cut the book in half.

The first-person auto-biographical is overworked. No one thinks you're neutral, Stephen -- so just argue! Don't pretend your conversion to ID was purely scientific -- reasonable people understand that people act under a mixture of motives, and the unreasonable ones are not worth arguing with. Dawkins, Behe, Stephen Hawking, and Darwin for that matter write serious arguments without losing ordinary readers; models that Meyer could profitably shoot for.

But the issue here is the origin of life, and when Meyer finally gets to it, he argues it well, I think. The central chapters seem to cover most of the main issues well. He discusses different solutions, and explains fairly clearly why they do not work, and why some sort of design seems preferable. It is interesting that none of Meyer's critics here dispute those arguments. (Again, Miller and Sternberg come closest, but do not really engage his most important points.) I wish, however, that Meyer had expanded those central chapters, and discussed in more detail leading rival contemporary hypotheses.

Many of his secondary arguments work, too. I suppose one can't complain if a philosopher of science writes a lot about the philosophy of science, and I suppose those arguments are made necessary by attempts to marginalize ID proponents through the sheer power of wordplay. Pardon the self-indulgence, but as I wrote in Truth Behind the New Atheism, in response to Dawkins' attempts to marginalize ID proponents: "David Bohm once defended science as 'openness to evidence.' The best scientist -- or theologian -- is not someone who shouts 'heresy!' when he hears strange views, but one who listens carefully and responds with reason and evidence. When it comes to ultimate questions, 'openness to evidence' is the definition that counts."

The scientific evidence is what matters, and I would have liked to have seen more detail on that. Still, all in all, a strong ID perspective on the origin of life.

Positive case for design, December 29, 2009
First a note on the reviews I have been reading on this book:

A lot of the one star book reviews seem to be attacking Dr. Meyers, and not the topic of his book. Please let us get something out of the way up front. "Signature of the Cell" is not about Stephen Meyer, the Discovery Institute or God for that matter. It is about an argument, and a lot of the negative (and positive, let's be honest) reviews seem to overlook this fact. There is a lot of spin on both sides of the Intelligent Design debate. One side often states that Judge Jones III was appointed by George W Bush, while another side makes certain we know that Judge Jones III was previously a former Head of a Liquor Control Board. Please let us approach this topic with reason and give our honest-if biased-opinions.


In "Signature in the Cell", Dr. Meyers walks us through what information is and the different ways information is defined, created and discovered. He also goes into great detail on probability theory and the history of scientific reasoning. He then lays out the history of origins of life research including a fascinating exposition of the discovery of the DNA double helix, and the surprise of specified information that lies within. Dr. Meyers argues why the current OOL theories fail to explain how the first cell could have arisen by chance alone due to the insufficient probabilistic resources (temporal as well as physical) of the universe. He further argues why self organization/bio-chemical predestination models do not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of life. He also explains why the RNA world and other current models fail to explain the OOL, or what Dr Meyers calls the "DNA enigma"

The DNA Enigma is that which researchers have not been able to uncover. That is, the origin of specified information or digital code in every living cell. The information in the DNA molecule is not only complex, but has specified complexity. All of the current OOL models Dr. Meyer critiques contain what he terms the "displacement problem" That is they push back the source of the information or assume that the information simply occured or merely ignore the source, and put it on the back burner. In the book Dr. Meyers explains why evolutionary computer simulations and that why trying to manufacture "life in the lab" are actually very good examples of ID and are ideal cases for design theory.

Dr. Meyer does not make an appeal from ignorance or a "God of the Gaps" argument, but makes a positive case for design in OOL. Dr. Meyer appeals to the same historical branch of science that Darwin employed, and argues that if ID theory is arbitrarily deemed unscientific then Darwin's theory would fail to be classified as scientific on the same reasoning.

For those that say that "ID is not science", please read chapter 18 of the book-"But is it Science?" Following are the headings for the reasons Dr. Meyers regards ID as science, specifically historically scientific..
Reason 1: The case for ID is based on Empirical Evidence.
Reason 2: Advocates of ID use Established Scientific Methods.
Reason 3: ID is a Testable Theory.
Reason 4: The Case for ID Exemplifies Historical Scientific Reasoning.
Reason 5: ID Addresses a Specific Question in Evolutionary Biology (OOL).
Reason 6: ID Is Supported by Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature.
(You'll have to read the book for the details.)

"Signature in the Cell" is not "Creationist Tripe", but a 600 page argument. Dr. Meyers does not necessarily argue for a God as the intelligent agent behind the OOL, but that an intelligent agent is the most likely cause of the specified information in the double helix and information processing systems of the cell. Dr. Meyers argument is not that "It is way too complicated to understand
so therefore God did it" but an appeal to what we know about how information is created and that information comes from minds, or agents. As some like to say and I'm paraphrasing several ID opponents here.."Let's not kid ourselves, we all know who Dr. Meyers means when he says an intelligent agent, he means God" Well maybe, or if your ontology will allow, probably, but both Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick believe in, or are at least sympathetic to an intelligent agent as the cause of life on earth. They just believe that the intelligent agent was or could have been extra-terrestrial. The panspermia theory too has it's problems, and ultimately pushes back the OOL or "DNA Enigma" to an earlier time and certainly from what we know of the universe, one is stopped by the previously mentioned wall of probabilistic resources.

In the epilouge Dr. Meyers opens the door to some of the latest discoveries of the hierarchical nature of DNA information storage. Quite interesting really, Super folders, folders within folders in optimized locations for efficient retrieval. He also touches briefly on what used to thought of as "Junk DNA" or non protein coding regions of the DNA molecule. What was once considered to be only leftovers and redundancies from transcriptions can now be shown to work as a sort of operating system. It will be interesting to see what comes from the ongoing research..


Dr. Meyer concludes the book in Appendix B with solid critique of multiverse theories and in chapter 17 provides a very powerful answer(rebuttal) to the ubiquitous "Who designed the designer?" question (challenge).


There IS an answer to the DNA Enigma, and Dr Meyer's positive argument is that life on earth was caused ~3-4 billion years ago by an intelligent agent, most likely God. Perhaps he is correct.

What is the Premise of Intelligent Design?, February 27, 2010
Stephen Meyer answers this question. But why was the creation of this excellent work necessary? What could motivate Stephen Meyer to make himself (and his family) a target for the inevitable derogation and questioning of his credentials, intellect and character? The simple fact is this; the evolutionists have declared war on any thought not of their origin, indeed academia is generally intolerant of any ideas not of their creation, aggressively intolerant. A recent quote by one of the god's of evolutionary dogma; "It is absolutely safe to say, that if you meet somebody who does not to believe in evolution that person is ignorant, stupid or insane", the tone of this sediment is ubiquitous. That the disagreement between divergent points of view has been passionate is nothing new, the tone and overt antagonism from those with a naturalist view point, perhaps is. The purpose of this tactic is to shut down any discussion or disagreement with their orthodoxy; this to me displays a lack of confidence with the premise of their belief and argument, obfuscation by derogation.

Stephen Meyer not only explains with clarity why what the evolutionists believe is simply not possible or even remotely possible, but gives creditable proof of design, intent and purpose in the architecture of cells. The hostility towards Meyer in exposing the inherent flaws in the theory of evolution take a tone of religious zealotry. The false superiority, arrogance and condescension of the vast majority scientist and academics make this work (and others like it) necessary.

This work begins with the concept of what is the best explanation possible for the origin of life based on "historical scientific reasoning". To answer this question Meyer reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA. He dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem, I will not bore you with the details of the competing theories. Meyer goes on to give a very detailed (and extremely interesting) probability analysis regarding the possibility for even one functioning protein to come into existence simply by chance at 10/164, to put that number in some kind of perspective, there are only 10/65 atoms in the known universe. Meyer further explains how at least two hundred different kinds of proteins are necessary for the simplest cell to exist, which would then put the probability of one cell existing by chance at 10/41,000, this is an order of magnitude more than the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. He then quotes recent work by James Brook and Gordon Shaw regarding geological and geochemical evidence for the prebiotic atmospheric conditions being friendly or not, for the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life. Their work is conclusive, there is no evidence in metamorphosed Precambrian sedimentary rocks that such conditions as envisioned by evolutionist ever existed. This puts the probability for evolutionary theory providing a credible explanation regarding the origin of life at exactly zero. (my words, not his)

He continues on the theme of what provides for the best explanation possible for the origin of life which begins his argument in favor of intelligent design. His discussion develops on what does the evidence suggest? Below is a sample;

"Intelligence is the only known cause of complex functionally integrated information processing system. It follows once again, that intelligent design stands as the best- most causally adequate- explanation for this feature of the cell, just as it stands as the best explanation for the origin of the information present in DNA itself".

Meyer then concludes his work with a discussion of the "implications" regarding the theory of Intelligent Design, which does after all get to the real problem secularists have with any compromise regarding ID as a scientifically relevant concept. One thing that is particularly well illustrated in the final chapters is that any argument against ID as a legitimate scientific concept apply with equal (perhaps more so) weight against the theory of evolution.

Lastly I would to thank Mr. Meyer for the elevated tone and substance of his latest work, this book contains no vitriol, condescendence, arrogance or anything remotely unpleasant. It does contain well reasoned arguments for his points of view with extensive documentation in the notes and Bibliography. Meyer has taken no cheap shots at the scientists who do not happen to share his point of view, this in marked contrast to the screeds presented to the public as legitimate scientific discussion by the evolutionists. While I at times enjoy returning the fire of evolutionary zealots with a nuclear weapon, Meyer has chosen his words with the upmost care and demonstrated a particular graciousness to those who will not and perhaps cannot reciprocate this courtesy, this in my mind demonstrates the confidence and pure scientific ability bought to this study. I give the highest endorsement possible to the purchase of this worthy publication.

Was the editor dead, or merely comatose?, March 13, 2010
This book is long. No, not long...it is LOOOOOOOOONG. It is kind of a stream of consciousness narrative that incorporates the author's journey of discovery into a larger web of the history of modern biological science. I totally don't care about the author's job looking for oil in the gulf of Mexico before transferring to Oxford University. Oh, my. Who will read and enjoy this book?
Unfortunately, scientific illiterates will not enjoy this book. It will be overwhelmingly complex and difficult to understand. Although they will have the occasional "aha" moment, they will have a difficult time following the development of the thesis of the book.
More unfortunately, those of us who are knowledgeable about science will find the prolonged rehash of basic scientific concepts to be insufferably boring. After wading through page after page, it is easy to lose the philosophical underpinnings of the thesis of the book.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the medium is drowning out the message. Reading this book will require a great deal of patience and tolerance.

Okay, so what is the thesis of the book? The thesis is EXACTLY the same thesis that has been espoused by Watson and Crick in their "panspermia" theory of the origin of life. In case you don't know, "panspermia" is the idea that life originated from aliens who seeded our planet with life. Presumably, these aliens were "intelligent." And, presumably, they "designed" the sperm or seed that caused life to originate in our solar system. Basically, the idea is that DNA is a complex computer code, more complex and compact than the highest tech computers that we have ever designed on earth. The likelihood of all this information showing up spontaneously, due to random chance, is almost infinitely small. So it follows that there was some sort of intelligence that caused life to exist on earth. For Watson and Crick, that intelligence was an alien intelligence. For Stephen C Meyer, that intelligence was...well, he does not make any speculations about the nature of the intelligence that caused life on earth. In this way, Stephen Meyer's "Intelligent Design" is far more intelligent than Watson and Cricks "Intelligent Design." But BOTH are advocating ID.
Difference between PANSPERMIA and ID:
Intelligent design speculates that there might be an intelligence behind the bioinformatics of the cell. Panspermia is ID with aliens. Which version is in the textbooks? That's right--the one with the aliens. (I know, I read one of my kid's bio texts)

Oh yes, and a rebuke to the "one star" crowd that is spamming this review site with comments about "religious crap" and "creationist dogma"....all I can say is that you obviously have not read this book at all. If you had read the tome (and I suspect many of you are not capable of digesting a full 500+ page read of this caliber) you would realize that Meyer never invokes any religious ideas at all, nor does he engage in any "pseudo-science." Rather, he recounts the amazing history of genetic research and information theory. He also covers the history of the philosophy of science and origins, finally asking some questions of his own. Ultimately, the reader will be led to evaluate his own assumptions and think. Granted, there are those who are not willing to do either.

My reason for awarding a mere 3 stars to this weighty work is that the editor did not do his job. This book should not have been written in this lengthy narrative style. It is very difficult to tease out the philosophical bits from the technical bits. It is impossible to use this book as any sort of reference. You basically need to mark up the book with page notes and highlights if you ever expect to piece together a narrative that is useable. The editor should have gone through and marked up the book for us. But he didn't. Boo for him.

Much appreciated!, May 14, 2010
As a former agnostic who had his eyes opened in micro and
cellular biology classes as a pre-med student I very much
appreciated such a concise work by one of the greatest
intellects in the field.

I was amazed as a student at the blind unquestioning way
that my peers accepted that the genetic code and impossibly
complex, and easily demostrated irreducibly complex structures
and functions of the cell "just happened".

That was when I realized that a lot of "educated" people were
simply idealogues plodding along a path determined not by the
facts and science, but by their apriori assumptions.

This book is refreshing and validating for real free-thinkers
and truth-seekers willing to follow the facts rather than their
prejudices.

A must read.

It's now time for software engineers to step up, January 10, 2010
Intuitively, for anyone who has written more than 10 lines of computer code that actually did something, considering the DNA code; several billion lines long, written in 3D with chemicals instead of 0's and 1's, error checking, error correcting, very small, very efficient, replicating, and most important a working program (with consciousness and self awareness as a bonus), denying the fact that an intelligence wrote the first code is intellectual prostitution. The biology departments at our august learning institutions need to be subsumed by the computer science departments and the emphasis should be on reverse engineering the code and teaching software engineers more chemistry so they can try designing similar type code.

Many professor-tutes are wasting the people's time and money waging a reborn inquisition trying, I assume, to protect their position, job and/or funding. Please shut up, learn the code and share the code's information with the rest of us. It is a crime that some noisy biologists are using the force of law, with help from the ACLU!?![pages 432-433], to garrucha, toca and potro [torture] those who dare to challenge CURRENT biological orthodoxy. Opposition to Dr. Meyer has been Climategate times ten, going after teaching and editorial positions, refusing publication and hiding or losing the source data.

This is a very good book. The DNA program is not just very good, it is spectacular and I would like to learn more about what each part does and why. (Is it possible there are any comment/remark statements in the code?)

A Great Resource, March 23, 2010
The book is far longer than it needs to be to make its point; nevertheless, its review of the history of the search for DNA, and the science of cellular processes, make the book and invaluable resource. Meyer is careful to show in what ways the "signature in the cell" is evidence for intelligent design; and any reader with an interest in the subject will gain much.

A glimpse into how things work, April 24, 2010
I went into medicine partly because I wanted to understand how the human body works. I guess I've always wanted to understand the underpinnings of how all living things "work". The first time I heard about the "prebiotic soup" as the place where life spontaneously emerged, I thought it was a joke. It just seemed so unlikely.

Now, thanks to Signature in the Cell, I know just how unlikely it would be for life to emerge in that manner. Time since the big bang is limited (10 to the 16 power in seconds) and the number of elementary particles in the universe is limited (10 to the 80th power) and even if the maximal interactions possible occur between those particles occurs (10 to the 43rd power interactions per second), there still isn't time for a single 150-amino-acid functional protein to spontaneously develop). So how could all the proteins necessary for a simple cell develop -- and simultaneously, and in the same place? This is from page 216 and following.

This is a very readable, logically satisfying book, and I highly recommend it.

Must Read for ID Fans and Critics Alike, April 5, 2010
Do not be daunted by the size of this book or by the criticisms from those who have not even read it. If you want to know the accurate definition of intelligent design, why ID is a scientific endeavor, and why this all matters, you must read this book. While a good portion of the book is aimed at those who are well versed in various scientific disciplines, there is still something in the book for those are just generally interested in science and Intelligent Design specifically. I found Chapters 1,2, 20, the Epilogue and Appendix A especially useful in addressing some of the issues raised by critics of ID.

This one takes some time, but is well worth it regardless of which side of the debate you're on., March 18, 2010
Anyone on either side of this debate should read this book, if for no other reason than to see what actual ID advocates think. So many of the negative reviews on Amazon.com, for instance, have clearly not even glanced at the table of contents.

This book is a significant time investment, being almost 600 pages long. To give you an idea of how thoroughly this book is researched, there are 32 pages of bibliography and there are 52 pages of end notes.

Meyer gives an extensive history of scientific methods and demarcation criteria (what is and is not science) for different scientific disciplines. He also gives a compelling case for the necessity of agency in the formation of specified information. I'd be pleased to hear a thorough refutation of his analysis rather than the typical ad hominem name-calling and genetic fallacies. This book specifically deals with the multiple competing hypotheses on the origin of biological life which is understood today as the origin of biological information.

Interestingly, the many detractors of "Signature in the Cell" skirt the topic actually found in this book and argue philosophy of science instead of the evidence.
... Read more

Editorial Review

Referring to Lewis Carroll's Red Queen from Through the Looking-Glass, a character who has to keep running to stay in the same place, Matt Ridley demonstrates why sex is humanity's best strategy for outwitting its constantly mutating internal predators. The Red Queen answers dozens of other riddles of human nature and culture -- including why men propose marriage, the method behind our maddening notions of beauty, and the disquieting fact that a woman is more likely to conceive a child by an adulterous lover than by her husband. Brilliantly written, The Red Queen offers an extraordinary new way of interpreting the human condition and how it has evolved.