Reddit Reddit reviews The Selfish Gene (Popular Science)

We found 45 Reddit comments about The Selfish Gene (Popular Science). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Health, Fitness & Dieting
Books
The Selfish Gene (Popular Science)
This revised edition of Dawkins' fascinating book contains two new chapters. One, entitled "Nice Guys Finish First," demonstrates how cooperation can evolve even in a basically selfish world. The other new chapter, entitled "The Long Reach of the Gene," which reflects the arguments presented in Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype, clarifies the startling view that genes may reach outside the bodies in which they dwell and manipulate other individuals and even the world at large.
Check price on Amazon

45 Reddit comments about The Selfish Gene (Popular Science):

u/Pelusteriano · 81 pointsr/biology

I'll stick to recommending science communication books (those that don't require a deep background on biological concepts):

u/[deleted] · 13 pointsr/TheRedPill

For people interested in the genetic origins of our sexual behaviors, read in that order:

  • Dawkins' The Selfish Gene: the original book on seeing evolution from the correct point of view: the gene's eye view. A bit raw though, as Dawkins probably hurried up writing a book before someone else did. Not much data available to confirm the theory at the time so it's full with speculations, which prompted many corrections and footnotes in the second edition.

  • Dawkins' The extended phenotype: the actual good book on the topic. After Dawkins secured his position as the inventor with his previous book, he had more time to refine the theory. Along with new data, there is less speculation in this one. If you only read one of these two, I advise this one.

  • A book on evolutionary psychology, such as Robert Wright's The Moral Animal: applying the above principles to understand human behavior.

  • Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: applying above principles to animals (and humans) sexual behavior.

  • Rollo's The Rational Male. A lot of the books above are infused with bias from the authors' blue pill indoctrination. The consequences of evo psych to explain the nature of women's sexual behavior are too damning for the man born and raised in a society bent to the Feminine Imperative. As a result, one needs to read the relevant parts of Rollo's work to truly appreciate how evolutionary psychology explain women's behaviors.

    EDIT: anyone with other suggestions on the topic?

    If you know your theory on mating systems, you know that animal sexual pairing comes in basically two different flavors.

    In the right corner we have polygamy, characterized by strong male competition (violence) for exclusive sexual access to all females of the group, little parental investment, strong sexual dimorphism (e.g. elephant seals, gorilla, lions, etc.). Only the strongest get to mate with all females. There are no betas, just one alpha per group (or a few, in special cases such as lions). Other males don't provide. They just masturbate if they can, or die challenging the alpha or trying to poach one of his females.

    In the left corner we have monogamy, characterized by strong parental investment, little sexual dimorphism, high female infidelity (e.g. bonobos, most birds). Estrus is hidden to facilitate female infidelity. There are no alphas, only betas, only providers. Females are out trying to cheat on their partner with males with higher-quality genetic material (but these are not alpha males in the previous polygamous sense) while their beta partner desperately display strong mate-guarding behavior.

    Humans are in between, we display traits of both types. We probably started as a polygamous species slowly shifting into monogamy. In this context, what sexual strategy do we choose in order to reproduce and pass on our genetic material?

    My view is that there are no set Alpha men and Beta men. They are just sets of behavior traits. I believe every man has the capacity to be Alpha or Beta, depending on his environment. I see it as two different "psychological modules". And which one is activated depends on the environment, which is: sexual options.

    A man can have many sexual options thanks to his good genetics, being born tall, strong and handsome. Or born wealthy or high value in a hierarchical society (e.g. the chief's son). Or a man might have early luck with women in his life, building abundance mentality as default in his teenage psyche. Preselection provides a feedback loop that maintain constant sexual options. Or maybe he has the luck of being surrounded by mostly women, due to a war decimating the male population. The high sexual options activates the "alpha module" in his psychology: high self-esteem, strong will to compete, refusal to commit, etc.

    Everyone else who has little sexual options gets the "beta module" activated. In order to reproduce, he must find ONE female and propose the deal of sacrificing his time and resources to her and her only in exchange for her bearing HIS progeny. Heavy insecurity, mate-guarding behavior, ONE-itis come with the beta module. Or to put a more positive spin on it: the desire to be loved, dedication, chivalry, the desire to be a father and attend to your kids.

    I think the Alpha and Beta modules and their activation predate feminism. Cultures prior to the '50s show the pussywhipped man, the cuckolded man, the poet, the white knight, the dedicated husband and father.. and alternatively the king and his courtesans, the harems, Don Juan, the Marquis de Sade... Just as hypergamy is a feature of all human females, the alpha/beta dual strategy is a feature of all human males: selecting the best strategy to pass on your genes given the environment (sexual options). If the environment changes, the active psychological module switches. e.g. the man who wins lottery and suddenly gets the attention of women is likely to all of a sudden lose his ONE-itis for his nagging wife, rationalize why all of a sudden he doesn't feel like "doing the right thing" is actually the right thing to do, despite having defended his opinion for so long, etc. All in all, our psychology automatically activates the most appropriate module for passing on our genes, given the environmental conditions. As OP suggests, beta strategy is adopted by low SMV males but this is simply because they don't have the options to do otherwise.

    No module is intrinsically good or bad. On a genetic level of course, alpha strategy makes more sense as it will get more copies of your genes in the next generation, but only IF your offspring can survive to adulthood (i.e. personal wealth, or wealthy society). Beta strategy is probably a good bet otherwise such as in times of famine, crisis. On a personal happiness level however, there is no contest. Both strategies have downsides for sure. Alpha strategy implies the lack of nurturing, lack of spouse support, constant competition with other men, constant need to maintain SMV... But beta strategy implies possible cuckoldry, possible abandonment and the loss of your investment. Even if successful, mate guarding means constant anxiety. All in all a pit of sadness that makes it the short end of the stick. And then add to it the current context (unchecked hypergamy, modern divorce laws). Strive to switch your environment to be alpha.
u/naraburns · 12 pointsr/askphilosophy

The Selfish Gene is a good place to start learning about Dawkins' real contributions to evolutionary biology (and is where the word meme was coined). A lot of philosophical work presently being done on game theory and signaling systems (Brian Skyrms is probably the central figure to consider here) is built on a foundation Dawkins helped to lay.

u/ExMennonite · 9 pointsr/Christianity

I would recommend you read him and refute him for yourself.

It seems pretty lame to just look for the refutation to something.

http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925

EDIT you can buy used for $0.99! :)

u/Ryguythescienceguy · 8 pointsr/videos

The real origin of memes for those of you interested.

u/jswhitten · 8 pointsr/evolution

I wouldn't bother arguing with them. It's notoriously difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.

If you're interested in evolution, by all means learn more about it, but do it for yourself. You can start here for an overview:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

http://evolutionfaq.com/

And these books will explain in more depth:

https://smile.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649?sa-no-redirect=1

https://smile.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491?sa-no-redirect=1

https://smile.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925?sa-no-redirect=1

u/cloans · 6 pointsr/changemyview

I can't give a good personal opinion, but an excellent scientific book about selfishness vs. selflessness is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. People often only know him for God Delusion and other stuff like that, and forget that he is also one of the finest evolutionary biologists of our generation.

I'll try to summarize the thrust of the book, but really, you'd do yourself and him more justice if you just bought it and read it. Basically, people, like all animals, are simply vehicles for genes to replicate themselves. Literally everything instinct any animal ever has, be it toward altruism or to self-centered behavior is just an extension of that goal.

By that logic, we, as higher primates, have a natural disposition towards altruism and favorable behavior towards our cliques that will help us be protected. However, the selfish gene can also lead to more selfish behavior, if it means those genes have a higher chance of replicating. It depends on the situation, and the millions of years of evolution that have brought us to this point.

So, in a sense, we disagree, but not in the sense you might think. According to Dawkins' book, humans are neither inherently selfless or selfish, so your statement is nontrue rather than untrue. The genes, however, are "selfish" and our innate instincts reflect that.

u/c3bball · 5 pointsr/KotakuInAction

except for you know, the one child policy, abortion debates, materity/paternity leave, tax breaks for dependents, hundreds of articles on declining birth rates across tons of countries, and the very foundation of evolutionary development. Sure there isnt as much to teach exactly but our very genetic foundation is to reproduce or to help offspring develop to the point they can reproduced.

Why dont you read The Selfish Gene
https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

u/Sentennial · 5 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

In no specific order: The Dictator's Handbook: presents a realist perspective on international and intra-national politics, specifically it presents a real-world analysis of politics through the lens of Selectorate Theory.

Something from Chomsky, I'd say Manufacturing Consent or Understanding Power or both. Chomsky has written about 40 books so it's impossible to keep up with him and you may end up disagreeing on substantial points, but I think he's probably the most important to read because he situates his political analysis outside the invisible constraints of American political culture, and American political culture tends to be naive about the goals and methods of government and other institutions.

Watch this CGP Grey video and consider how it applies to political parties, political discourse, and political activism. Afterwards you should either read the meme wikipedia page or Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.

Looking back I notice all my recommendations circle around studying politics itself as a phenomena, I don't know if that's what you meant but you might enjoy it. If you're more wondering which political stances you should take, decide that by which policies have empirical evidence of working and base your decisions on how robust you think the evidence is.

u/AmbitionOfPhilipJFry · 5 pointsr/science

Your idea is awesome. You created by yourself Richard Dawkin's theory for his first published book, ["The Selfish Gene"](http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925 "Amazon Books linkage"). You can get a used copy for under $5 or from your local library for free.

On a side note, in this book he also coined the idea of a meme in 1976.

u/tikael · 5 pointsr/atheism

The greatest show on earth or Why evolution is true are both very good overviews of the evidence for evolution. Probably a good place to start. Evolution is such a huge topic that no one book is a comprehensive overview of it all, once you understand the basics of evolution however I really suggest the selfish gene. You can also pick up a very cheap copy of on the origin of species, though remember that the book is 150 years old and predated genetics (still remarkably accurate however).

u/mancher · 4 pointsr/worldnews

Our genetic makeup allows us, or rather doesn't hinder us, to rape someone. Sadly I doubt that eugenics would be very much helpful for hindering rape as I believe everyone, even you and me, are capable of rape if we had a good reason to do so. As shown by the Milgram and Stanford experiment most people are capable of inducing a fatal shock or torturing innocent people as long as there is no social or legal repercussions.

Many people think that humans are some inherently noble beings when the truth is that we are just animals evolutionary geared towards reproduction that happens to be able to self reflect over our actions.

Luckily for us altruism is also shown to be a highly successful evolutionary trait(would recomend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins).

u/tempus-temporis · 4 pointsr/natureismetal

This is simply how evolution works. Read The Selfish Gene if you enjoy this topic. I promise it won't disappoint.

u/Kaputaffe · 3 pointsr/askscience

I think the other point to consider is the degree to which knowledge equals intelligence.

While we love our meme's here on Reddit, in actuality memetics is far more complex. Memetics is the study of how evolution occurs in intelligent minds, where memes evolve by changing through minds over time. Intelligence, then, is a combination of a) the memes you know; and b) how you associate/combine/transform them.

Putting this another way, without the basis/foundation that we inculcate into ourselves by living in the age we do, we would just be like empty workshops, full of tools but with no wood to form into ideas.

That's approaching it from one angle of Cognitive Science - I would love to hear what others can offer biologically / psychologically.

*The Selfish Gene is when Memetics was first introduced. It is proposed once all matter of genetics is discussed, and offered as one theory of intelligence.

u/vibrunazo · 3 pointsr/atheism

Loved the monkey with the cucumber.

On Selfish Gene, Dawkins shows mathematical proof that natural selection can and will select animals with altruistic behaviour. If the environment is such that doing so would be advantageous for both, then that's the "evolutionary stable strategy".

Really good book if you're interested in the nature of morality, I highly recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925

u/habroptilus · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Uncle Tungsten: Memories of a Chemical Boyhood by Oliver Sacks. Sacks is best known for writing case studies of his patients as a neurologist, such as The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat. Uncle Tungsten is part memoir, part history of and introduction to chemistry. There's nothing quite like it out there.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins's Twitter antics notwithstanding, this book is an unmissable classic in biology.

Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. An ode to consciousness, full of puns, music and metamathematics.

Mind, Body, World by Michael Dawson. This is a textbook, but it's (legally!) available for free online, and it's totally engrossing. The author uses his work in music cognition to introduce the major theories and paradigms of cognitive science and show how there isn't as much separation between them as it seems.

u/NukeThePope · 3 pointsr/atheism

I mostly agree with you and am wary of worsening your mood even more, but I disagree with this:

> In no way does natural selection apply to either ideas or morality.

That's wrong. Ideas can be shown to be subject to propagation, mutation, and natural selection just like genes are. This was the core of Richard Dawkins' work on memetics. Aside from his book The Selfish Gene, you can read about these theories applied to religious ideas in Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

That quibble aside, I agree with you, of course, that the OP's pseudo-scientific ideas have no foundation in real science.

u/immeditator · 3 pointsr/exmuslim

Sorry to break it to you. But it just ends. Just the way it ends for ant, dog, cat and any other species.

Just ends. It's living organism. It's only purpose is to pass on genes.

Read this beautiful book: https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

Might make you more humble more amenable to live in the moment and enjoy what you have.

u/HollowCreature · 2 pointsr/Turkey

Haaa ha sen dalga geç anca...



Bunları okuyup gelde, bi boyunun ölçüsünü alıyım meme lordu seni

u/water_is_blue · 2 pointsr/ethereum

To expand a bit on your points:

  • There is no specific objective, but if we look at the theory of natural selection, objective seems to be propagation of genes/species/families/... So what is the unit of selection, who or what do we want to propagate? We don't know. It depends on a lot of factors, and it's not unambiguous (for example, people devote unequal proportion of their time and energy to themselves, their families, friends, cities,...).There's more about this in The selfish gene by Richard Dawkins.

  • I'm not sure if collusion or bribe attacks exist in nature, but there are various ways individuals/groups try to exploit others. Quoting from the page I linked:

    > 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.

  • Individuals may be limited in intelligence, but once various communities are formed in the realm of specific environment, strategies that nature develops are not that trivial. Evolutionary game theory.

  • Agents are limited in communication capability and intelligence, but again, to acknowledge the beauty and efficiency of natural systems, one must study more than individuals. It's a completely different game when you look at
    families/packs/species/... and connections between them.

    Slime molds are limited in both intelligence and communication capability (in human sense), and yet they could probably be pretty good at balancing the shards. Take a look at this.

    There's always something we can learn from nature, but the question is how much of this knowledge can be applied to the blockchain? Not much if you ask me, because blockchain kind of is nature on it's own, ruled not by the law natural selection, but by laws we create (e.g. Casper). This is why the word ecosystem is used all over the place, as it should be. Because once you create a complex network of machines and humans living in a medium of truth that allows synergy between them, the statistics and the law of large numbers come into play and completely new field emerges yet to be explored.
u/AlwaysUnite · 2 pointsr/longevity

>PS. Don't ask me for sources as you won't be able to find the above in the existing literature on the matter.

Well that says it all don't you think? Also:

> Mediterranean etc diets being plant based is right,

This is not what I said, and it is also not true. The Mediterranean diet is better relative to the standard american diet as it includes relatively much greens and healthier oils. It is however not a plant based diet.

Finally I think you ought to read this book or any similar or more in depth overview of evolutionary theory. I can't be sure on this one, but from the general tone of what you are saying your understanding of evolutionary genetics sounds dodgy.

u/moviehousearcade · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

I found reading the selfish Gene
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925
to be enlightening

u/allahalanaha · 2 pointsr/AskWomen

See this is the right answer. Also everyone should just read a book about Selfish Genes because it clears up a lot of patterns in human behaviours, even if they are a tad uncomfy.

u/artyen · 2 pointsr/videos

Richard Dawkins has an insanely interesting book on this topic, called "The Selfish Gene." It's a fascinating read and fun read.

He argues that it's not altruism, but boasting. When one creature goes out of its way to "alert" others, they're not alerting them, but instead showing the incoming attacker that they've spotted them, thus making said potential prey less desirable; it's clearly clever & fit enough to see the coming attacker, thus less likely to be targeted as cover is blown.

It's less helping the group, and more trying to play mind games with the attacker. It comes off as altruism on the outside looking in when framed using human emotions, but his argument is that it's much more simple; it's showboating to seem less desirable to a predator.

It's been over a decade since I read the book, so if I'm misspeaking or misquoting Dawkins' ideas, I'm sure the internet will correct me.

u/brutay · 2 pointsr/progressive

You're arguing against a massive corpus of historical and biological evidence as well as evolutionary theory. If you don't find this argument convincing, can I suggest you first read a very important book: The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. In my view, the transformation of an electoral system into a tool of private interests is as inevitable and predictable as the return trajectory of a falling apple. To call the apple "flying" before it lands is as disingenuous as calling the electoral system "democratic" before it fails.

u/Quock · 2 pointsr/exchristian

Popular Richard Dawkins books are The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene. I haven't read the Selfish Gene yet, but I have read the God Delusion, and it is a very good book. It may be a tad technical if you aren't well versed in science, but it's still very manageable.

The late Christopher Hitchens wrote a very famous book called God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Admittedly, I have not read this one either, but it's an atheist staple.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is next on my reading list (as you can tell, I have a HUGE reading list...), but also widely regarded as an amazing piece of literature for rational thinking.

I'm sure others can suggest more specific books, but these are the basics as far as I know.

Edit: Definitely forgot to mention that the Skeptic's Annotated Bible can be found online. I assume that this is in it's entirety?

Edit 2: Found this list on GoodReads.com. Seems to be another good resource for finding books :). Happy reading!

u/FollyAdvice · 2 pointsr/SimulationTheory

> Why does that organism evolve? Why did microorganisms evolve into complex, diverse, and sometimes even intelligent, life in some scenarios?

The Selfish Gene covers this.

u/jayseedub · 2 pointsr/DCcomics

Oh dear god this is not what I became a doctor for, hell I'm a doctor doctor, but I'll give this a shot...

So Dixon (not Chuck) argues in "Sexual Selection and the Origins of Human Mating Systems" that penis size correlates with three things - 1) sperm delivery; 2) species size and 3) female reproductive anatomy. That is that the first job of the penis is to get sperm to where it needs to be. So a penis of the appropriate size has to be used. Too short and it doesn't penetrate too far into the vaginal canal. Too long and it misses the vaginal canal entirely.

The second determinant is the size of the species. Of the primates, humans don't really have much difference between average human penis size and our closest cousins the chimpanzees and bonobos. The average chipmanzee penis is around 15cm vs their average body size. Which is similar to humans. And neither chimpanzees nor humans have significantly larger or smaller penises compared to other great apes when accounting for body size.

Finally according to Dixon the penis has to actually fit. Too thin and it doesn't do anything. Too thick and it can't get in. Which Edward Bowman corroborates (sorry this link doesn't have the actual paper. If you really want it, I can grab it from the hospital library).

However, Dawkins and others quasi-refute these arguments. Instead signaling that size and penis anatomy may instead be health related. Lacking a baculum, a human penis relies on hydraulics. Specifically the cardiovascular system. A male unfit for mating - due to age, poor health, etc - will generally have erectile dysfunction. So they won't be capable of mating.

So what does this all have to do with penis size? Well, the overall trend that everyone seems to agree with is that species penis size is dependent not on anything the male has control of, but instead the female of the species. The penis has to fit and be useful for female genitals. If the female of the species doesn't have to pass a human baby through her cervix or vaginal canal, then both will shrink. The running hypothesis for why the human female cervix and vaginal canal is so large compared to other primates has to do with the overall average size of a human baby's head vs other primates. Large cervix means it can fit a large head through. During birth the cervix becomes wider and shorter to help push the head and body through when the uterus starts contractions. If Kryptonian women no longer have to give birth, then there's no reason for them to have larger vaginal canal or cervix. Which also means a larger penis, if for the purpose of sexual pleasure, is also unnecessary as a larger penis for Kryptonian women would be painful or just not fit at all.

So if you assume that Kryptonians have been using the codex for reproductive purposes enough that they've become evolutionarily dependent on it, then the entire species has bred themselves in the direction of smaller female genitals because the females no longer need to give birth. And the males would also need smaller genitals or they just wouldn't fit. I guess this also means all those Bruce/Clark and Tim/Kon writers need to rethink things?

u/ez617 · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Book. I think you'll get 31 circles out of your dough. Thanks for the contest!

Changed my mind

u/Doctor_B · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Read The Selfish Gene. It goes into pretty serious detail about the origins and evolutionary purposes of supposedly "altruistic" behaviour.

I don't want to spoil it for you, but individual organisms don't really have the ability to "sacrifice for the common good" as it were.

u/mnemosyne-0002 · 1 pointr/KotakuInAction
u/ShowMeYourGoodies · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

I would suggest reading Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene".


It has a specific passage regarding birds and the possible evolutionary reasons/preassures for mimicking sounds.


I think it's a quite complex answer and i am sure there are entire books dedicated to the subject - but this one can give ypu a general understanding of things and how they got to be.

u/oBLACKIECHANoo · 1 pointr/ukpolitics

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925

There you go, you're also free to go to google scholar or any site that aggregates papers and search for specific papers on the subject as there's plenty of those too.

And sure, animals live in groups, groups that fight each other out of selfishness and in those groups there is often a dominance hierarchy which is also requires selfishness to be at the top. Altruism is rewarded too but that's simply not relevant, any selfishness at all and communism falls apart which is the ultimate point of this comment thread.

u/El_Shakiel · 1 pointr/TheRedPill

> Over time, over much time, so many cycles of the game, so many years, the altruistic did flourish.

Wrong. Source ? Here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925

u/cosmic_itinerant · 1 pointr/Cascadia

You hit on a lot of good points, yes. But, it is indeed (thought not as our present level of technology) to create such a thing. The "me first" is the most primal, long before monkey, mammal, or vertebrate, programming or our DNA. As life on Earth evolved and became more complex, more layers of code were selected for and passed on. A lot of these systems play of of each other, modify each other, and sometimes play against each other. Cooperation, self-sacrifice, and charity CERTAINLY don't make sense for very primitive organism, but once you start scaling up and you start dealing with mammals it makes a lot of sense. You get new layers of genetic commands piled on top of the old ones, things like "defend kin. Sacrifice for kin. Have attachment to creatures with large heads and large eyes." That for the most part do their job, but also luckily spread outward and let us care about complete strangers and even other species and the planet. There are two really good books to help understand all this

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins goes into the broader category of why life behaves the way it does.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925

And Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved by Frans de Waal goes into goes specifically into how altruism, morality, and the more noble aspects of humanity came to be in our simian ancestors and cousins. P,us, it's just sort of an uplifting read that will make you feel good.

http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691141290/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419420928&sr=1-1&keywords=primates+and+philosophers

There is a reason for why we humans behave, for good and bad, the way that we do. For why we think the way that we do. But we have the advantage of being self-aware organisms that have the opportunity to look in the mirror and realize what we are doing and why we are doing it and choose a better, more moral course than what biology may demand of us. It is very difficult, many of us won't and of those that do none of us always will, but we can, and that is something fantastic. As far as we know a first for the history of life on this planet.

u/lowkeydatrickster · 1 pointr/worldnews

>Lamps are things. They have extent and form. Both extent and form are limited by their nature -- they are defined by their limits. The efficient cause of things cannot thus be limited otherwise it would fall prey to the same fallacy of infinite regress of causation.

I'm talking about the magic genie lamp. I get to define its attributes and therefore I say this lamp has no form and it's infinite (whatever that means). You can't prove it doesn't exist! If you try to, I'll just make the description even more vague and mysterious.

> The king isn't blamed for the tabloid and God does not deserve the blame for a murder, despite the king having the power to stop the tabloid and God having the power to stop the murder.

Personally, I'd blame a king for maintaining the system of monarchy, not for what someone from the press printed. Murder is chump change to what's gone on under god's watch. He could of at least intervened in something like 9/11. Or maybe the beheadings in Iraq. The holocaust. I mean, how can we take god seriously when these events go on under his watch?

>That said, it is within the natural order that things have a life span with a terminating point. That something alive eventually dies is not in itself evil.

Death is horrific. But luckily, death is not mandatory. Get ready for what science will bring. We're working on reversing the aging process all together. Stick around and you might get lucky enough to live forever.

>Citation please.

From a world renowned biologist:

>Are you suggesting that those prone to education have an evolutionary disadvantage? That they are an inferior branch of the species?

One's genes are only "working" to keep the genetic line going. If someone is able to survive longer, then that person's genes have more time to propagate and you don't need to use the resources to produce as many copies. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but kids are incredibly stressful.

>Some people have a lot of children because they are promiscuous and fail to properly use birth control. Be careful to not misappropriate your biases because both groups share the common trait of having more children than the societal median.

There is a correlation between teen pregnancies and religiosity:

The places that provide secular sexual education are proving much better at preventing unwanted pregnancies. They also invest a lot more in education.

>Which is...? Seriously, I'm not sure where you come off defining what the "real world" is for someone when you have no more authority over that matter than anyone else. We all participate in society.

Gay marriage. The emergence of women. The acknowledgement of our sexuality. The acceptance of atheists in the western world. Reality is finally shining after we've opened the blinds of religion. Now we have to raise the blinds to open the window. This new generation is going to prove tough on religion. And seriously, the church has been digging its own grave with their outrageous beliefs.

u/CreationExposedBot · 1 pointr/CreationExposed

> Where is the SCIENCE that shows beneficial mutations outweigh negative ones?

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

And if you want more:

https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

https://www.amazon.com/Extended-Phenotype-Oxford-Landmark-Science-ebook/dp/B01K2BLPN2/

> Who discovered it?

I already told you: Charles Darwin. And then Richard Dawkins filled in the most important details. (That's actually the reason Dawkins is famous, BTW, not because he's an atheist.)

Have you actually read "Origin of Species"? Or "The Selfish Gene"? Or "The Extended Phenotype"?

> He had virtually nothing original to offer

Then why do you think he gets all the credit?

It's possible that the credit should go to Blyth. I don't know, I'm not a historian. But either way, it doesn't matter. Someone discovered evolution, and if it wasn't Darwin then it was Blyth, and if it wasn't Blyth it was someone else. What difference does it make who it was? It's like arguing over whether Samuel Pierpont Langley was really the first to demonstrate powered flight and not the Wright brothers. Airplanes are going to fly either way.

> Darwin knew nothing of genetics

That's like saying that Einstein knew nothing of relativity.

The fact that parents pass traits on to their offspring has been known since ancient times. Not only did Darwin know of genetics, he actually uses the word "genetics" in Origin of Species!


---

Posted by: l****r

u/lisper · 1 pointr/Creation

> Where is the SCIENCE that shows beneficial mutations outweigh negative ones?

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

And if you want more:

https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

https://www.amazon.com/Extended-Phenotype-Oxford-Landmark-Science-ebook/dp/B01K2BLPN2/

> Who discovered it?

I already told you: Charles Darwin. And then Richard Dawkins filled in the most important details. (That's actually the reason Dawkins is famous, BTW, not because he's an atheist.)

Have you actually read "Origin of Species"? Or "The Selfish Gene"? Or "The Extended Phenotype"?

> He had virtually nothing original to offer

Then why do you think he gets all the credit?

It's possible that the credit should go to Blyth. I don't know, I'm not a historian. But either way, it doesn't matter. Someone discovered evolution, and if it wasn't Darwin then it was Blyth, and if it wasn't Blyth it was someone else. What difference does it make who it was? It's like arguing over whether Samuel Pierpont Langley was really the first to demonstrate powered flight and not the Wright brothers. Airplanes are going to fly either way.

> Darwin knew nothing of genetics

That's like saying that Einstein knew nothing of relativity.

The fact that parents pass traits on to their offspring has been known since ancient times. Not only did Darwin know of genetics, he actually uses the word "genetics" in Origin of Species!

u/uwjames · 1 pointr/atheism

Just posted this recomended reading/viewing list in another thread:

Universe from Nothing Video

Universe From Nothing Book (this is not released yet)

The Selfish Gene Book

How New Organs arise video

Why Evolution is true Video

Greatest show on Earth Book

"The Blank Slate", "Guns Germs and Steel" "Your Inner Fish" and "Journey of Man"

Of all these, the last three and "The Selfish Gene" are my faves. "The God delusion is a great book, but it's not as focussed on scientific revelations as these.

It's a fascinating universe, I envy you being able to explore it with freshly awakened curiosity.

u/jlarmour · 1 pointr/exjw

sigh throwing a pile of books at me instead of discussing the points kind of kills the discussion.

May I simply invite you to read a few books too then.

http://www.talkorigins.org/ - for general debunking of various evolutiony topics creationists cling to.

Two great books on biology and how it doesn't support god.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491
https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

And hey, everyone should read at last one Hitchen book.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446697966/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=YRA4TF2KH358H7VAVG9X

u/youreallmeatanyway · 0 pointsr/AskMen

Still not satisfied?

Read this. Apply its lessons to this. And it will bring you to this, which backs up my claim to a genetic cause.

u/Versepelles · 0 pointsr/TheRedPill

That is not the case.

When I am hungry, I eat; when I am done eating, I shit. These instincts are believable, and can be safely assumed. However, it is also the case that I can resist the urge to eat for a long while, to the point of death. While I'm not suggesting that treating people equally is anything like facing death, it does seem quite plausible that we are, by nature, selfish. However, we are also, by nature, social. It is our best interest to obey both of these instincts to a degree, but it is also in our interest to resist these urges at times, which we certainly do. Our society and all of the technological achievements which we have achieved and now enjoy all stem from the overcoming of our instincts, and this is the view which seems most legitimate to me.

Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book on the subject, titled The Selfish Gene.

u/imVINCE · -9 pointsr/pics

It's called evolution. Have you ever read anything about sexual reproduction? I recommend The Selfish Gene.

Also, I don't like the idea of a culture where women feel entitled to feel that men's "advances" are inherently negative.