Best biological science books according to redditors

We found 4,941 Reddit comments discussing the best biological science books. We ranked the 2,011 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page


Botany books
Zoology books
Biology books
Anatomy books
Bioinformatics books
Life science taxonomies books
Bioelectricity science books

Top Reddit comments about Biological Sciences:

u/DK_Ranger · 384 pointsr/Survival

Bear spray is much more likely to be effective in this particular situation. Don't get me wrong I love my guns (I carry a .357 in bear country, there is a time and place for it) but in this particular situation the chances of fatally shooting a bear that large which is that close are slim. Bear spray is specifically made for these kinds of encounters and has statistically much higher success compared to firearms.

For detailed breakdowns of the mechanics of bear attacks, when to use which weapon, and why certain weapons fail in certain circumstances check out the work of Stephen Herrero, especially Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. NOLS has also put out many resources on bear country safety, and of course the copious research by Dwight K. Schrute is also invaluable.

u/aspartame_junky · 122 pointsr/politics

They have already tried to establish their own "facts" with Conservapedia.

For example, Conservapedia suggests that the Theory of Relativity is not supported by evidence, and in fact, says "Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false." ... This assertion by Conservapedia is itself just plain false.

Chris Mooney goes into much more depth with this and other examples in his book "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science - and Reality", worth checking out.

EDIT: I just checked out a few entries in Conservapedia. The following are good for a laugh:

Global Warming



Counterexamples to an Old Earth

u/HorseVaginaBeholder · 119 pointsr/funny

Unfortunately his non-fiction book Last Chance to See about a serious subject is waaaayyyy underrated because everybody concentrates on HHGTTG. I laughed much more while reading Last Chance to See.

As a German my favorite part was when DA described two German tourists in his group when they go to see mountain gorillas in Zaire.

Quotes from the book (but with all the context missing they are not nearly as good as actually reading the whole book, also, I've doubts those quotes are the best parts)



u/pithed · 80 pointsr/news

Everyone should have this book:

i don't forage for mushrooms but have the book on my coffee table because the cover makes me giggle every time I see it.

u/Spidda · 78 pointsr/memes

There’s a book about this, it seemed really interesting because the tiger stalked him for days I’m pretty sure.

Edit: found it

u/Cr4nkY4nk3r · 60 pointsr/pics

Last Chance to See - one of my favorite books ever!!!

u/Brothernod · 53 pointsr/NatureIsFuckingLit

The Tiger: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival (Vintage Departures)

u/Rothbardgroupie · 50 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Per your request, I left out the links based on ethics:

3. State Formation:
6. Historical Anarchy Examples:
7. Evolution of Anarchy:
13. Ancap Legal Theory (Polycentric Law):
18. National Defense:

u/highrisedrifter · 47 pointsr/atheism

THe book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" is what you need.

It lists over 190 in chapter 2 alone and states that Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been documented in about 500 species as of 1999, ranging from primates to gut worms. Across all the chapters, it compiles
more than two centuries of observations of homosexual behavior, pair bonding, and coparenting in more than 400 species.

All the peer reviewed statistics and data sources are included in the book for those skeptics.

(Though let's face it, if Anti-vaxxers can ignore hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific documents and focus on the one discredited idiot who stated that vaccines cause autism, then people will cherry pick from this too).

u/Maggie_A · 44 pointsr/worldnews

>Metropolitan Anthimos of Thessaloniki, Greece’s second largest city used his pulpit just days before the vote in Greek parliament to suggest that “not even animals” have these tendencies.

Too bad "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" hasn't been translated into Greek. Because this person needs to read it...

u/tubergibbosum · 42 pointsr/Portland

Two general types of experience you can get: hands-on, and book learning.

The former is very important, but not too difficult to do. A fair number of people in the Portland area go mushroom hunting occasionally, even if they only know a species of two. Sucking up to the right people is surprisingly effective. Also, getting in touch with or joining organizations like Oregon Mycological Society or the Cascade Mycological Society can be immensely helpful in making contacts and finding hunting partners/mentors.

The latter is also very important, as there is some much you can learn without actually holding a mushroom in your hands. For books, accessible guides like Mushrooms of the Pacific Northwest and All That the Rain promises and More are great for getting started, and heftier books like Mushrooms Demystified are good for those looking to take the next step in learning. Online, the hunting and identification board on The Shroomery, Mushroom Observer, and /r/mycology are great places to lurk and just soak in info, while sites like Mushroom Expert are good places to explore and follow what interests you.

u/dkuhry · 41 pointsr/television

This will be good. If you have interest in this topic and famous Brits, you should read Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams (Author of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy).

He travels the world and experiences some of the most endangered animals and writes about them and the experience in the way that ONLY he can. (it was written in the late 80s, so some species he writes about are in fact now extinct)

u/CompNeuroProf · 39 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

As someone who has studied dynamical systems for years, I'm pleased to see so many redditors getting interested in them through the double pendulum system. If you're a student and want to learn more, take a course in dynamical systems. If you're not a student, consider reading this book, which is my favorite math book of all time, and I'm far from alone in that sentiment.

u/davidmcw · 37 pointsr/pics

'Last Chance To See' - one of my favourite books

u/ProfThrowaway17 · 37 pointsr/math

If you want to learn a modern (i.e., dynamical systems) approach, try Hirsch, Smale and Devaney for an intro-level book and Guckenheimer and Holmes for more advanced topics.

> a more Bourbaki-like approach

Unless you already have a lot of exposure to working with specific problems and examples in ODEs, it's much better to start with a well-motivated book with a lot of interesting examples instead of a dry, proof-theorem style book. I know it's tempting as a budding mathematician to have the "we are doing mathematics here after all" attitude and scoff at less-than-rigorous approaches, but you're really not doing yourself any favors. In light of that, I highly recommend starting with Strogatz which is my favorite math book of all time, and I'm not alone in that sentiment.

u/NukeThePope · 35 pointsr/atheism

Hi there, and thank you for your trust!

It sounds like your boyfriend is going about this a bit insensitively. Logical arguments are OK for debates, when both sides do it for the intellectual challenge. It's not humane to tear a person's world view out from under them when they're unprepared for it and a captive audience. I'm sure he means well and wants you to be closer to him, but he's being a bit of a caveman about it. Don't be mad at him, but tell him you think you'll be better off if you do your own information seeking, at your own pace. Ask him to have the patience and the trust to let you educate yourself. If he really cares for you, he should be fine with this: It may even be taking a burden off his shoulders.

I think there are some things you can consider and think about that will put things into focus and make this mess seem less of a problem.

Do you remember that song by Elton John Sting? "I hope the Russians love their children too."

Consider, first, some family in Tibet. Mom and dad live in a simple hut, doing some farming or whatever Tibetans do, and they have a bunch of children. They work hard to feed the family, and in the evening when they get together for supper they talk and smile and laugh a lot. They hug their children, they care for them when they're sick. They observe some kind of religious rituals, though they've probably never heard of Jesus. When a neighbor has a problem, they help them out. When someone dies, they mourn their passing and wish them a happy afterlife. Apart from the fact that they look Asian, they're people just like you, and they're good people. They have similar hopes and fears, they have stories to share and comfort them, and so forth. Two thirds of the world's people don't believe in Jesus, yet they're humans just like you and mostly decent people, just like your neighbors. Do you think they're all going to hell? Do you think they're paralyzed by their distance from your god, from their fear of death? No. Forget what religion these folks are, they're human.

Atheists are just a special case of those "other" humans. They believe in even less "other-worldly" stuff than the folks in Tibet do. Yet you probably meet atheists on the street every day. Some of them greet you and smile, most of them would help you if you had a problem and they were around. Atheists are not like vampires: They're not evil, they don't have to stay out of God's sunlight, and they don't burn up in churches and from contact with holy water ;)

Atheists have stories too, about the creation of the universe, which is really awesomely huge and inspiring. About the struggle of life to evolve to the fine humans we are today. About the many important achievements humans have made in their short time of being intelligent and basically masters of the world.

Rather than wrenching at your faith, I suggest you take a look at other cultures and religions for a bit. Consider that there humans out there who think other things than you, yet manage to be good people and lead happy lives. I'm almost embarrassed enough to delete my sappy paragraph about the Tibetan family, but I'll leave it in there to let you know what I'm getting at.

Then, inhale a bit of science. Go to church if you feel you need to, but also listen to videos by Carl Sagan. Get an appreciation for the wonders of the universe and of nature here on our planet. It's a rich and wonderful world out there. There is so much to see, to learn! Some people are in awe of God for producing all this; but you can just as easily be in awe of nature, of the intricate mechanisms that brought all this about without anyone taking a hand in it.

More stuff on nature and evolution can be learned, more or less gently, from Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. Get your boyfriend to buy it for you! But stay away from The God Delusion. While Dawkins is thoughtful and sensible, you don't want him telling you about how bad your god is - at least not right away.

A thought from me about a metaphor for God. Training wheels! You know how you have those wheels on your bike to keep it from tipping over as you're starting out? And how, once you've learned to keep your cycle straight, those training wheels are no longer really doing anything any more? That's God. It's comforting to feel that God is behind you in everything you do, it gives you strength and confidence. But everything you've achieved... that was you! You're standing up straight and doing fine, God is the training wheels you don't really need. On the other hand, I'm not going to say he really, truly absolutely isn't there. If you want him to be there, let him be there. Your BF will just have to put up with him for a while longer as you outgrow your training wheels.

Finally, about death: The good news is, it's not nearly the problem you think it is. There's a statistic that says, devout Christians are more than three times as likely, in their final week, to demand aggressive life-extending treatment than atheists. In English: Christians are more scared of dying than atheists are. You'd think that with heaven waiting, they'd be anxious to go! Actually, their religion -your religion- is telling them a comforting lie, letting them stick their heads in the sand all their lives. At the end, they panic because they're not sure what they believe is true. And they struggle for every minute of life.

I was religious once, and I had the "fear of death" phase, as many other atheists here report. You know what? I got over it. I confronted the idea, wrapped my head around it, got over it... and I've been completely unworried about death ever since. You'll get other people quoting Mark Twain for you here: About death being the same as the state you were in before you were born, and that didn't inconvenience you either, did it? Seriously, while I worry that my death may be painful or unpleasant, being dead is something I almost look forward to. It's like the long vacation I've always been meaning to take.

Well, I don't know if that will convince you, but... other people have been there too, and it turns out not to be the horrible problem you think it is. Things will be fine! Just allow yourself some time, and remind your BF to not be pushy about things. You can keep a spare room for when God comes to visit, but don't be surprised if that room turns out to fill up with other junk you're throwing out ;)

u/HegelianHermit · 34 pointsr/AskHistorians

It is an immensely narrow field of study. Everything I've posted so far comes out of my studies into mythopoetics in college. In essence, it is the study of the historical development of human consciousness through myth and what few written works remain. Ultimately, it's the study of the plasticity of human consciousness and how language and cultural conception develops your reality for you.

I'll link more books which touch on this subject!

Mircea Eliade - The Sacred and the Profane

Julian Jaynes - The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Some of the science he employs has been brought into question, but his stuff on language and historical analysis of myth is super interesting and on point)

u/mdwyer · 33 pointsr/funny

Here's the 5-degrees of geek that makes this even cooler: This is from a show called "Last Chance to See". It is based on a book called, naturally, "Last Chance to See". The author of this book? Douglas Adams. The author of the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.

If you get a chance to read it, do so. It is a great book.

u/kevroy314 · 33 pointsr/math

I've had a similar experience with wanting to continue my math education and I've really enjoyed picking up Schaum's Outlines on topics I've been exposed to and ones that I have not. There's also a really fun textbook Non-Linear Dynamics and Chaos which I'm enjoying right now. I find looking up very advanced problems like the Clay Institute Millennium Prize Problems and trying to really understand the question can be very revealing.

The key thing that took me a while to realize about recreating that experience is forcing yourself to work as many problems as you have time to work, even (read: especially) when you don't really feel like it. You may not get the exact same experience and it's likely you won't be able to publish (remember, it takes a lot to really dig deeply enough into a field and understand what has already been written to be able to write something original), but you'll keep learning! And it will be really fun!

u/laserbeamsquid · 32 pointsr/GenderCritical

> Make no mistake, the gay community needs to file for divorce with the trans community. They are no longer working toward the same goals ... Unlike members of the trans community, who are working against their biology and trying to change who they are physically, gay or lesbian people are trying to be nobody but themselves. They are not seeking surgery or hormone treatments. They love the same gender; they don’t want to be a different gender.

This. This so much.

We have biological evidence that throughout the animal kingdom homosexuality and bisexuality are totally normal and seen in a variety of species.

While Bruce Bagemihl also writes about and catalogues evidence of transgenderism in the animal kingdom in the sense of gender-non-confirming behaviour in animals as well as evidence of intersexuality/hermaphrodism. Exact gender roles and expression of those roles vary in species as well as in individuals, but all animals have to accept that biology is immutable. Sexual reassignment surgery is cosmetic and doesn't change one's gender. By being in denial about biology, this current wave of trans identity politics is essentially butting heads with reality. It won't end well.

u/nicmos · 32 pointsr/askscience

I know this will be buried, but:

just to be clear, psychologists do not have a clear understanding of the mechanism behind motivated reasoning. all of the persuasion resistance strategies mentioned in the reference you provided are really downstream of the process, they are strategies that result from this motivated reasoning.

it's sort of like asking how Lionel Messi is so good at scoring goals (or LeBron James and basketball or whatever), and answering, "he uses such and such strategies" but that still doesn't answer why he scores all those goals as opposed to other people. it's part of the answer, yes, but not a complete answer. when does he use which strategies? how does he make the decision what strategy to use? when are they more or less effective? there are lots of questions remaining in addition to the critical one of determining the exact mechanism(s).

I'm also surprised you didn't cite the most complete account of motivated reasoning in a journal format, which is Kunda, Z. (1990) in Psychological Bulletin, p. 108.

edit:changed a 'why' to a 'how'. also, for a good recent treatment of this, Chris Mooney, a journalist, as a book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality which doesn't actually answer those gaps I have brought up, but is a good intro into some of the science nonetheless.

u/Taricha_torosa · 31 pointsr/mycology

A friend took me when I was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed college kid. I took our findings to a mycologist on campus who spent 20 minutes describing proper browning-in-butter protocol. I was hooked- both on mushrooming and the goofy people involved. I already collect field identification books, so I have a shelf in my bookcase just for mushroom ID and foraging. Every time i go out i try to ID a new mushie. Anything im super lost on i take to a mycologist friend in town, or i email the prof at OSU (which is 30 minutes drive) and bug them with it.

I also have permits for personal collection of mushrooms in all the local national forests (most were free) and researched the county and state park rules for collection on their property. Gotta be responsible, yo.

I recommend picking up All That Rain Promises and More (link) and the unabridged Mushrooms Demystified link2 because i reference both a TON, The first one is waterproof, and David is a certified goofball.

u/mista2kool · 30 pointsr/interestingasfuck

The World Without Us is about exactly that. Really good read.

u/vurplesun · 30 pointsr/

First read about these guys in 'Last Chance to See' by Douglas Adams. Worth a read.

Edit: Ah, what the hell...

Of these, the kakapo is the strangest. Well, I suppose the penguin is a pretty peculiar kind of creature when you think about it, but it's quite a robust kind of peculiarness, and the bird is perfectly well adapted to the world in which it finds itself, in a way the kakapo is not. The kakapo is a bird out of time. If you look one in its large, round, greeny-brown face, it has a look of serenely innocent incomprehension that makes you want to hug it and tell it that everything will be all right, though you know that it probably will not be.

It is an extremely fat bird. A good-sized adult will weigh about six or seven pounds, and its wings are just about good for waggling a bit if it thinks it's about to trip over something - but flying is completely out of the question. Sadly, however, it seems that not only has the kakapo forgotten how to fly, but it has also forgotten that it has forgotten how to fly. Apparently, a seriously worried kakapo will sometimes run up a tree and jump out of it, whereupon it flies like a brick and lands in a graceless heap on the ground.*

u/najjex · 28 pointsr/mycology

Start by picking a guide for your area and reading it thoroughly, especially focusing on the anatomy of a mushroom. Go hunting a lot bringing back what you find, take spore prints and work though the IDs. Also joining a NAMA affiliated club will help tremendously.

Regional guides


Common Interior Alaska Cryptogams

Western US

All The Rain Promises and More
Mushrooms of the Pacific Northwest

Midwestern US

Mushrooms of the Midwest

Edible Wild Mushrooms of Illinois and Surrounding States

Mushrooms of the Upper Midwest

Southern US

Texas Mushrooms: A Field Guide

Mushrooms of the Southeastern United States

Midwestern US

Mushrooms of the Midwest

Edible Wild Mushrooms of Illinois and Surrounding States

Mushrooms of the Upper Midwest

Eastern US

Mushrooms of West Virginia and the Central Appalachians

Mushrooms of Northeast North America (This was out of print for awhile but it's they're supposed to be reprinting so the price will be normal again)

Mushrooms of Northeastern North America

Macrofungi Associated with Oaks of Eastern North America(Macrofungi Associated with Oaks of Eastern North America)

Mushrooms of Cape Cod and the National Seashore

More specific guides

Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World

North American Boletes

Tricholomas of North America

Milk Mushrooms of North America

Waxcap Mushrooms of North America

Ascomycete of North America

Ascomycete in colour

Fungi of Switzerland: Vol. 1 Ascomycetes


For Pholiotas

For Chlorophyllum

For parasitic fungi, Hypomyces etc "Mushrooms that Grow on other Mushrooms" by John Plischke. There's a free link to it somewhere but I cant find it.

Websites that aren't in the sidebar

For Amanita

For coprinoids

For Ascos

MycoQuebec: they have a kickass app but it's In French

Messiah college this has a lot of weird species for polypores and other things

Books that provide more info than field Mycology

The Kingdom of Fungi Excellent coffee table book has nice pictures and a breif guide to Fungal taxonomy and biology.

The Fifth Kingdom A bit more in depth

Introduction toFungi Textbook outlining metobolic, taxonomic and ecological roles of fungi. Need some level of biochemistry to have a grasp for this one but it's a good book to have.

u/r_a_g_s · 27 pointsr/politics

> I think there must be some sort of primordial fear mechanism that Fox/Roger Ailes know how to exploit.

tl;dr Strong correlation between "being conservative" and "brain that tends to respond more strongly to fear, with bigger fear-handling brain parts [the amygdala]".

  • Mother Jones article from 2013 by Chris Mooney, "The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans"

  • One of the studies referred to in the article

    > What they found is that people who have more fearful disposition also tend to be more politically conservative, and less tolerant of immigrants and people of races different from their own. As [Brown University researcher Rose] McDermott carefully emphasizes, that does not mean that every conservative has a high fear disposition. "It's not that conservative people are more fearful, it's that fearful people are more conservative," as she puts it.

  • The second study referred to in the article

    > Darren Schreiber, a political neuroscientist at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, first performed brain scans on 82 people participating in a risky gambling task, one in which holding out for more money increases your possible rewards, but also your possible losses. Later, cross-referencing the findings with the participants' publicly available political party registration information, Schreiber noticed something astonishing: Republicans, when they took the same gambling risk, were activating a different part of the brain than Democrats.

    > Republicans were using the right amygdala, the center of the brain's threat response system. Democrats, in contrast, were using the insula, involved in internal monitoring of one's feelings. Amazingly, Schreiber and his colleagues write that this test predicted 82.9 percent of the study subjects' political party choices—considerably better, they note, than a simple model that predicts your political party affiliation based on the affiliation of your parents.

  • Chris Mooney's book The Republican Brain

    > There is a growing body of evidence that conservatives and liberals don't just have differing ideologies; they have different psychologies. How could the rejection of mainstream science be growing among Republicans, along with the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy, and much more? Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: it's just part of who they are.

    > Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.

    > The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance, people more wedded to certainty tend to become conservatives; people craving novelty, liberals. Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are better predictors of political preference than income or education. If you like to keep your house neat and see the world in a relatively black and white way, you're probably going to vote Republican. If you've recently moved to a big city to see what else life has to offer, you're probably going to vote Democrat. These basic differences in openness and curiosity, Mooney argues, fuel an "expertise gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today over what is true.

  • 2011 Psychology Today article "Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds" that refers to this study which says:

    > We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect difference in self-regulatory conflict monitoring and recognition of emotional faces by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.
u/Capn_Mission · 26 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

A) homosexuality has been common in our species long before overpopulation was an issue

B) same sex sexual activity is common among mammals, reptiles and birds as well as many arthropods. Source Its prevalence seems to be uncorrelated with population density of any species.

u/BlackFlagZigZag · 24 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse



>I read The Cosmic Serpent, by Jeremy Narby ( and found it interesting. It's far from obvious what people can and can't see under the influence of psychedelics. And I didn't "claim" anything. I put forward a tentative hypothesis. That is by no means a claim. If you have a better idea, put it forward.


>From your lecture: ?>

>I really believe that's a representation of DNA

u/ozonesonde · 22 pointsr/askscience

I'd strongly recommend Richard Dawkin's book The Greatest Show on Earth.

Here is an extract from the first chapter.

u/BlunderLikeARicochet · 21 pointsr/atheism

Rather than Origin of Species, which of course doesn't contain any reference to the vast amounts of evidence discovered in the last 150 years, you should get your dad to read The Greatest Show on Earth - The Evidence for Evolution by Dawkins.

u/warmrootbeer · 19 pointsr/science

Not exactly concrete, but several years ago I read a book called The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge.

The name of this thread reminded me of it, and I came here to share the recommendation with anyone interested.

Long story short (please read the book if you're interested) an anthropologist goes into South America, connects with a disconnected remote tribe, begins to study their... well, everything.

For instance, Ayahuasca has an extremely complex preparation procedure, involving a root from one and bark of another plant, combinations of drying and heating, etc. and if the process is not properly completed, you can end up with a toxic brew instead of your hallucino-spirit drug.

When our author would ask how they came to such a complex and seemingly random process, the shaman told him "The plants told us."

He starts to take such answers at face value, and draws some very interesting and awesome theories. The book is a great read, especially for a skeptic.

Relevant: The paintings and art of the shaman this particular anthropologist was involved with were very, very clearly (in some instances) depictions of micro-biological constructs. Here a mitochondria, there a cell wall, here some proteins, etc.

The ultimate "theory" posed by the book involves the idea that DNA is a language commonly "spoke" by all living organisms, and that there are ways to tap into that level of language to communicate on a more literal level.

Not... concrete, but still very interesting, and scientific in nature. :)

u/Captain_Hammertoe · 18 pointsr/ANormalDayInRussia

Markov wasn't the only person this tiger ate. There's an excellent book about this incident, called The Tiger: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival. It's a fascinating read, and is full of information about the plight of tigers and other wildlife in the Russian Far East as well as human struggle for survival. Highly recommended.

u/northenden · 18 pointsr/gifs

Penguins attack people when they're hungry?

edit: Tiger attacks are indeed rare, but they occur much more frequently with the Bengal subspecies. There are a few theories regarding the cause of this, most focus on the idea that their territory is either not particularly suitable to the hunting of normal prey species (the Sundarbans) or that humans are encroaching on their territory. Amur tiger attacks on humans are very rare, and it is almost always found that the tiger responsible for human deaths was injured in such a way that it was incapable of hunting it's natural prey species. source: The Tiger: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival

u/BoomptyMcBloog · 17 pointsr/environment

This subject is discussed extensively in the book The World Without Us:

>“Any idea what these are?” Thompson is guiding a visitor along the shore of the Plym River estuary, near where it joins the sea...Amid twigs and seaweed fibers in his fistful of sand are a couple of dozen blue and green plastic cylinders about two millimeters high.

>“They’re called nurdles. They’re the raw materials of plastic production. They melt these down to make all kinds of things.” He walks a little farther, then scoops up another handful. It contains more of the same plastic bits: pale blue ones, greens, reds, and tans. Each handful, he calculates, is about 20 percent plastic, and each holds at least 30 pellets.

>“You find these things on virtually every beach these days. Obviously they are from some factory.”

>However, there is no plastic manufacturing anywhere nearby. The pellets have ridden some current over a great distance until they were deposited here—collected and sized by the wind and tide.


>[Thompson] devised an aquarium experiment, using bottom-feeding lugworms that live on organic sediments, barnacles that filter organic matter suspended in water, and sand fleas that eat beach detritus. In the experiment, plastic particles and fibers were provided in proportionately bite-size quantities. Each creature promptly ingested them.

>When the particles lodged in their intestines, the resulting constipation was terminal. If they were small enough, they passed through the invertebrates’ digestive tracts and emerged, seemingly harmlessly, out the other end. Did that mean that plastics were so stable that they weren’t toxic? At what point would they start to naturally break down—and when they did, would they release some fearful chemicals that would endanger organisms sometime far in the future?

>Richard Thompson didn’t know. Nobody did, because plastics haven’t been around long enough for us to know how long they’ll last or what happens to them. His team had identified nine different kinds in the sea so far, varieties of acrylic, nylon, polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride. All he knew was that soon everything alive would be eating them.

>“When they get as small as powder, even zooplankton will swallow them.”

I have to wonder why an article like this would get so many downvotes...are there that many users subscribed to Environment just so they can downvote any article that actually points out how bad the situation really is?

u/DrCutePuppies · 17 pointsr/movies

If anyone is interested in learning more about Bicameralism, you should read this book by Julian Jaynes. It is a fascinating read.

u/Raisinhat · 16 pointsr/biology

I'm sure every subscriber here has already read it, but the top book has got to be The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Reading it really opened my mind to how evolution actually worked in a way that my teachers at school never had. Even if later on when I started learning about social insects I had to start questioning some of those ways of looking at an "individual".

Back on topic, I'd recommend Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture, Genome, and The Red Queen, as each are accessible yet still highly informative looks into various aspects of evolution.

For those interested in human evolution there's Y: The Descent of Men by Steve Jones and The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes.

All of those fall more under the category of books that should be read between high school and college if you are interested in studying Biology. Once you get to grad school level books might be a neat introduction to a topic, but any real learning would come from primary literature. I've read lots of fantastic papers but they start becoming so specialized that I would hesitate to put forward specific suggestions, because what might be fascinating to ecologists will probably be dire to molecular biologists. I know that as someone with a focus on zoology, most of the genetics papers I read left me more confused that enlightened.

u/mess_is_lore · 16 pointsr/orlando

Architecture student here. A good book to read is The World Without Us if you're interested in what happens to infrastructure days to millennia after we are gone.

The building is definitely prone to mold spores and rodent infestations. In years to come I imagine the infiltration of vegetation will weaken the structure if upkeep is suspended. Other than that, it will probably become a large, 'modern' bat house.

u/UserNamesCantBeTooLo · 16 pointsr/worldnews

You're right not to get worked up about it. It's just that it's an amazing example of the power of nukes.

And yes, the Earth's ecosystem has survived much worse over billions of years, but that's an empty argument. It's like saying that there's nothing to be bothered about when you're exposed to asbestos, because your country's population will be fine. You're not concerned about the country's population, you're concerned about your own health.

We're not concerned about the ecosystem for its own sake, we're concerned about our own species's wellbeing. Nuclear weapons are particularly bad for people.

And yes, ecologically there are a lot worse things going on. I'm not saying there aren't.

As I said at the beginning, the point isn't how terribly nuclear weapons tests have already poisoned everything, it's that it's amazing that trace amounts of them have already spread all around the globe--and that's a warning that continued use of nukes could lead to notable harm. Harm has been mitigated by things like the switch to exclusively underground testing, followed by the complete ban on nuclear weapons tests. It's silly to downplay the danger of nukes when the only thing keeping it in check is the wariness of the world's nations about nukes.

u/Bear_thrylls · 16 pointsr/evolution

I just read it last week. You're pretty well right about. If you're looking for an introductory book which covers evolution, I recommend The Greatest Show On Earth also by Dawkins.

Look, Dawkins is definitely one of the most pedantic authors I've ever read, but his work is strong and arguments are presented very clearly but if the subject isn't what you're interested in, then what can you do. That said, yes the book will contain valuable information that you will gain if you finish it. Any book that has stood as long as the Selfish Gene will leave you with something. But it is an old book. Much of what he says was pretty cutting edge at first edition, but it was released in the 70's (I think). Read the 30th Anniversary Edition if you decide to move forward with it, if not, move on to something that interests you more. It's only a book. It won't get mad.

TL;DR If you don't like it, don't read it.

u/someguynamedg · 15 pointsr/Portland

It also has my absolute favorite cover of ANY book. Middle of the woods? Check. Massive fungus? Check. Trombone? Sure. Tuxedo? Why the hell not. It is simply magnificent.

u/astroNerf · 15 pointsr/Christianity

I didn't study biology in high school because I had a full course load of physics, chemistry and mathematics in preparation for engineering school. That being said, biology is one of the courses I regret not taking.

It really is the Greatest Show on Earth. No other scientific concept explains so much about our visible world while being simple and elegant. If you like biology, but have not read any of Dawkin's biology books, I highly recommend them. In addition to the one I already linked, another excellent one is The Ancestor's Tale. Evolution is capable of explaining why species, as you put it, are built they way they are and why they function the way they do. Evolution explains the why of it all. Of course, you don't need to abandon your concept of God, either. Evolution is perfectly compatible with theology.

u/[deleted] · 14 pointsr/skeptic

That hardly seems like an unbiased book. The problem with books like that is that even greatly sourced books, can still use random data to conclude wacky things, like information bouncing off of DNA crystals as the origin of knowledge in the form of a pair of serpants. (Interesting book by the way. The guy is crazy, but a fun kind of crazy).

Here is an actual, scientific study (link stolen from another redditor on another thread).

u/Willravel · 14 pointsr/atheism

I don't have an advanced degree in biology, but I've read up on it plenty. Honestly, all you really need is The Greatest Show on Earth and google.

u/vincentmlabarbera · 14 pointsr/atheism

You should read Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. It's an airtight, irrefutable look at evolution. It has a scientific answer to refute everything your friend could possibly claim.

u/Dathadorne · 13 pointsr/neuro

Disclaimer: In no way to I want this to dishearten you. Rather, I want to save your new interests from being crushed by irrelevant jargon, and would rather you put that energy toward learning what we already know. If you insist on 'keeping up,' your best bet is probably something light and fluffy like Science Daily, Live Science, or New Scientist.

Are you a scientist? A neuroscientist? What kind of neuroscientist? Or just an interested citizen? By the language you're using, I'll guess that you're a biology undergrad with a burgeoning interest in neuro.

From that perspective, it really shouldn't matter to you what's "new" in the field, because you don't know how it's different from what's "old." Just learn what we know so far. Also, in science, if a finding is "new," the field isn't sure if it's "true" yet, and you therefore need to not pay attention yet.

If you insist on 'keeping up to date,' (which isn't possible unless you pick a very narrow subfield of a subfield), it's much more useful to read review journals than the 'latest' unreplicated neuroscience primary research.

  • Nature Reviews Neuroscience
  • Trends in Neuroscience
  • Annual Review of Neuroscience


    These are still way too specific to be useful by almost anyone but the close network of the authors of those reviews.

    Let's take an example. We'll go to Nature Reviews Neuroscience's page. Oh, look! Salience processing and insular cortical function and dysfunction. How interesting! Except that I have no idea what any of those words mean, or how this fits at all into any context. Attempting to read through this review paper will tell me how these researchers updated an extremely narrow model that isn't even included in textbooks because nobody but the authors and their colleagues care.

    While snarky, I hope this illustrates the futility of trying to 'keep up with neuroscience.' 90% of all neuroscientists who have ever lived are working right now, the field is humongous and expanding so rapidly that just updating Kandel took 12 years.
u/tendimensions · 13 pointsr/askscience

Wow - that's incredible and I didn't know that. Years ago I read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and found the theory to be fascinating even though it technically would be non-testable.

What you're saying supports the idea that conscious thought evolved post-speech development.

For those unfamiliar with Bicameralism the idea is basically this: Humans evolved as social creatures, interacting and evolving the ability to help each other. Passing knowledge on to each other and subsequent generations was key. So imagine this scenario - you're teaching your child how to make a fire and you're talking through the steps to him. Next time when you're alone you find yourself talking through the steps to yourself because it's easier to remember.

In fact, back then maybe it was the only way to remember? Talking difficult problems out loud to ourselves is still something many people do today to help figure through the issue. Almost as if wiring internally in the brain didn't exist and so words have to go out your mouth and into your ears - the "long way around" so to speak.

Anyway, some day, you just don't speak the words out loud, but you hear them in your head instead. Whoa! What was that? Must be the gods talking to me directly.

In any event, the theory doesn't have a lot of supporting evidence beyond the writing styles of the earliest human writings. Julian Jaynes uses epics like the Illiad and Odyssey to show that initially all the characters had gods talking directly to them for specific direction, which eventually gave way to people having their own will irrespective of gods.

It's a fascinating theory that's totally unprovable, but in my heart it just seems to explain so much about the origin of religions, how gods spoke to people directly, why talking to yourself helps you work through a particularly thorny problem, how schizophrenics hear voices today - and now you bringing up how those hallucinations happen in the speech production centers instead of language comprehension.

u/CaptainJackVernaise · 13 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

If you're into field guides, you should check out All That the Rain Promises and More... by David Arora. It is amazing. Definitely worth stealing if you're ever ransacking somebody's place and you notice it on the shelf.

u/Outdoorreadiness · 13 pointsr/backpacking

This post inspired much discussion about taxonomic differences between "Grizzly Bears" and "Brown Bears." Both are currently classified as the same species as several comments noted. Beyond that significant detail, I'll leave it to taxonomists to distinguish subspecies, etc.. My interest is in differences between these animal in the field and how they respond to human encounters. Many authorities note important behavioral differences between "coastal brown bears" and "interior grizzlies." I have never been close enough to an interior grizzly to see anything but a small blob in the distance. I've had brown bear mothers with cubs walk right though my campsite in Katmai and not take notice of me. Tom Smith, bear expert, described in his 2012 NOLS Faculty talk that bears have a tolerance for close approach that is variable, but generally, coastal bears are more approachable -- not that you should approach them. On the other hand, interior grizzlies react at much greater distance and may be a much greater threat. Smith and Stephen Herrero both suggest that many grizz charges are bluffs. Bear spray, according to these experts, is a better counter-measure for several reasons, not least of which is that you are not wounding a bear that was just bluffing in the first place.

u/burf12345 · 13 pointsr/atheism

> I am neither an atheist nor a believer in evolution.

Why not?

> how come there are no fossil records of intermediate species?

Every fossil is that of an intermediate species. I don't think you even understand how small every change really is.

> Here is a quote from a book I had been researching.

Don't use the word research, that would imply you actually bothered to learn about evolution from real scientific sources

> and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God

For argument's sake, let's just assume that tomorrow the theory of evolution is disproven, how exactly does that prove creationism?

As for actually learning about evolution, read The Greatest Show on Earth

u/aibrony · 12 pointsr/Suomi

> Tuntuu kuitenkin, jopa tästä kirjoituksesta, että on painetta painottaa esimerkiksi sellaisia väitteitä, joissa homoseksuaalisuus olisi adaptaatio, eikä esimerkiksi patogeenin aiheuttama.

Todennäköisemmin syy etsiä adaptaavista selitystä homoseksuaalisuuteen tulee siitä, että homoseksuaalisuutta on havaittu käytännössä kaikilla tutkituolla selkärankaisilla.

Lisäksi, jos havaitaan että homoseksuaallisuus on perinnöllistä tietyissä suvuissa, ja tämä on havaittavissa niin eläimissä kuin ihmisissä, niin evoluution teorian perusteella voidaan tehdä hypoteesi, että tällä ilmiöllä olisi jokin suvunjatkamista edistävä ominaisuus, vaikka se silloin tällöin johtaisi geneettiseen umpikujaan yksilöiden tasolla. Samalla tavalla kuin sirppisoluanemien kohdalla. Sirppisoluanemie johtuu yhdestä pistemutaatiosta, ja jos henkilöllä on kaksi kappaletta näitä geenejä, hän todennäköisesti kuolee jo lapsena (kyseessä on resessiivinen geeni). Jos yksilöllä on vain yksi vioittunut geeni, hänellä on tavallista parempi vastustuskyky malariaa vastaan. Tästä johtuen tämä sirppisolianemiaa aiheuttava geeni on päässyt yleistymään etenkin Afrikassa, mutta vain alueilla joissa esiintyy malariaa.

Onko kyseessä siis adaptaatio vai patogeeni? Joissain tapauksissa tämä voi johtaa yksilön kuolemaan (geneettinen umpikuja), mutta jos geenin antama hyöty populaatiolle ovat suuremmat kuin haitat, se voi silti levitä populaatiossa ja olla näin ollen adaptiivinen alleeli. Käsitykseni mukaan homoseksuaalisuus on samantapainen tapaus. Homoseksuaalisuus on haitallista yksilön geneettiselle jatkumolle, mutta sen aiheuttama(t) geeni(t) voivat olla populaation kannalta edullisia.

Potholer54 teki asiaan liittyen erinomaisen videon, joka kannattaa ehdottomasti vilkaista, jos et ole sitä jo nähnyt:
How to confuse a creationist -- Homosexuality, Evolution and the Bible

u/johnrobe · 12 pointsr/videos

For those who have not read Douglas Adams' book Last Chance to See I highly recommend it.

This encounter took place as Douglas' friend Stephen traveled to the same places Douglas went in an attempt to see how things had changed since the original publishing of the book.

The bird in this clip is a Kakapo, and it was one of the most touching and funny parts of the original book. There was no porn in the original though.

u/nightslayer78 · 12 pointsr/Survival

one book that is also valuable is the Edible Wild Plants

u/0ldgrumpy1 · 12 pointsr/Trumpgret

Actually it's way worse than that. Emotional reasoning affects people of all I.Q.s, they can be completely able to make rational decisions as long as they are not emotionally invested in it. As soon as it is something emotional, their reasoning goes to shit. The more intelligent they are, the better they are at defending the emotional position to themselves. And no, this isn't a false equivalence argument , there is a ton of evidence that the right wing are way worse, plus fox etc use it deliberately and always lead with something fear or anger inducing so they can get their bullshit in while logic is effectively switched off. Good sources,


u/apestate · 12 pointsr/yellowstone

A lot of YNP wildlife has a different attitude about people than you or I would be used to, coming from the midwest. They can sometimes be very apathetic of human presence.

Just take pepper spray into the backcountry with you. It's the best defense. Now you are the skunk.

In 2009 I went into YNP alone totalling many weeks of time spent in backcountry. I was very paranoid and afraid, but reading a few books on the subject helped immensely: Bear Attacks, Causes, and Avoidance for example.

The two times I saw Grizzly in the backcountry, my knowledge gained from conversations and books kept me from getting more upset. I learned how to hone a knife and had a really sharp knife handy, plus the bear spray can, and both times I monitored the wind and tried to get it to smell me, both so it would go away sooner and so that the spray would be on it and not on me. Each bear just moved off with no interest in me or my camp.

You'll read things that seem impossibly strict or contradictory if you try to follow the park's guidance alone. Their guidance on food smells is impossibly strict. They expect you to change into different clothes after you're done eating and hang all that stuff up with your food bag.

Besides reading a few books about being in bear territory, one of the best things for me was to watch YouTube videos of bear encounters, and there are some documentaries with bear encounters in them. Bears and raccoon have a similar manner / personality or what have you.

Basically, you don't want to surprise a bear. Two people have a big advantage because your conversation, mass and movement will generally ward off wildlife. When cresting a little hill or coming into a thicket, just announce yourself. Yell "hey, bear."

Research has so far shown the pepper spray to be more effective than gun shots at warding off a bear. You can purchase the bear spray at many of the stores and gas stations in YNP, or in any of the surrounding towns. A nice knife or hatchet in your fist will make you feel a little better, too.

Bears in YNP aren't bad at all. They're very wild, and that's what we want when we're outdoors in its habitat. The bears that are bad to be around are ones that are quite familiar with human food. Those are dangerous bears. In the Sierra Nevada and along the King's Range coast in California, black bears are real bastards. In YNP and the surrounding ecosystem, excluding bears from food and garbage has been very effective. In the backcountry, your knowledge of bear behavior and motivations is your best resource.

u/braveNewPedals · 11 pointsr/gifs

Read John Vaillant's book about a tiger tracking a man for revenge. Scary af.

u/seagoonie · 11 pointsr/spirituality

Here's a list of books I've read that have had a big impact on my journey.

First and foremost tho, you should learn to meditate. That's the most instrumental part of any spiritual path.

 Ram Dass – “Be Here Now” - - Possibly the most important book in the list – was the biggest impact in my life.  Fuses Western and Eastern religions/ideas. Kinda whacky to read, but definitely #1

Ram Dass - “Journey Of Awakening” - - Another Ram Dass book - once I got more into Transcendental Meditation and wanted to learn other ways/types of meditation, this helped out.

 Clifford Pickover – “Sex, Drugs, Einstein & Elves…” - - Somewhat random, frantic book – explores lots of ideas – planted a lot of seeds in my head that I followed up on in most of the books below

 Daniel Pinchbeck – “Breaking Open the Head” - - First book I read to explore impact of psychedelics on our brains

 Jeremy Narby – “Cosmic Serpent” - - Got into this book from the above, explores Ayahuasca deeper and relevancy of serpent symbolism in our society and DNA

 Robert Forte – “Entheogens and the Future of Religion” - - Collection of essays and speeches from scientists, religious leaders, etc., about the use of psychedelics (referred to as Entheogens) as the catalyst for religion/spirituality

 Clark Strand – “Waking up to the Dark” - - Explores human’s addiction to artificial light, also gets into femininity of religion as balance to masculine ideas in our society

 Lee Bolman – “Leading with Soul” - - Discusses using spirituality to foster a better, more supportive and creative workplace – pivotal in my honesty/openness approach when chatting about life with coworkers

 Eben Alexander – “Proof of Heaven” - - A neurophysicist discusses his near death experience and his transformation from non-believer to believer (title is a little click-baity, but very insightful book.  His descriptions of his experience align very similarly to deep meditations I’ve had)

 Indries Shah – “Thinkers of the East” - - A collection of parables and stories from Islamic scholars.  Got turned onto Islamic writings after my trip through Pakistan, this book is great for structure around our whole spiritual “journey”

 Whitley Strieber – “The Key: A True Encounter” - - A man’s recollection of a conversation with a spiritual creature visiting him in a hotel room.  Sort of out there, easy to dismiss, but the topics are pretty solid

 Mary Scott – “Kundalini in the Physical World” - - Very dense, very difficult scientific book exploring Hinduism and metaphysics (wouldn’t recommend this for light reading, definitely something you’d want to save for later in your “journey”)

 Hermann Hesse – “Siddartha” - – Short novel about a spiritual journey, coming of age type book.  Beautifully written, very enjoyable.

Reza Aslan - “Zealot” - - Talks about the historical Jesus - helped me reconnect with Christianity in a way I didn’t have before

Reza Aslan - “No god but God” - - Same as above, but in terms of Mohammad and Islam.  I’m starting to try to integrate the “truths” of our religions to try and form my own understanding

Thich Nhat Hanh - “Silence” - - Hanh’s a Vietnamese Buddhist monk - in this book he writes a lot about finding the beauty in silence, turning off the voice in our heads and lives, and living in peace.

Paulo Coelho - “The Alchemist” - - Sort of a modern day exploration of “the path” similar to “Siddhartha.”  Very easy and a joy to read, good concepts of what it means to be on a “path”

Carlos Castaneda - "The Teachings of Don Juan" - The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge - Started exploring more into shamanism and indigenous spiritual work; this book was a great intro and written in an entertaining and accessible way. 

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Mary” - - The book that finally opened my eyes to the potentiality of the teachings of Christ.  This book, combined with the one below, have been truly transformative in my belief system and accepting humanity and the power of love beyond what I’ve found so far in my journey.

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Philip” - - Really begins to dissect and dive into the metaphysical teachings of Christ, exploring the concept of marriage, human union and sexuality, and the power contained within.  This book, combined with the one above, have radically changed my perception of The Church as dissimilar and antithetical to what Christ actually taught.

Ram Dass - “Be Love Now” - - A follow-up to “Be Here Now” - gets more into the esoteric side of things, his relationship with his Guru, enlightenment, enlightened beings, etc.

Riane Eisler - “The Chalice and the Blade” - - An anthropoligical book analyzing the dominative vs cooperative models in the history and pre-history of society and how our roots have been co-opted and rewritten by the dominative model to entrap society into accepting a false truth of violence and dominance as “the way it is”

u/JohnnyValet · 11 pointsr/politics

There is a recent book about just this phenomena.

The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality

u/mwerte · 10 pointsr/calvinandhobbes

In a similar vein, there is a great (short ~200 pages) book called The Tiger that tell the story of a Siberian Tiger in Russian that starts killing people, and how a team had to hunt it down.

Seeing this guy try to fend off a tiger with sticks ... I imagine his pants needed changing.

u/electricfoxx · 10 pointsr/lgbt

>Why do you think homosexuality exists?

Simple. Humans are animals. Animals have an urge to hump things.

Although, it could be have a social role in nature.

u/WhyHellYeah · 10 pointsr/todayilearned

I learned about this in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", which you might want to read.

The one thing this proved to me is that something right before your eyes can go completely undetected.

u/yesmanapple · 10 pointsr/math

Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos by Strogatz is supposed to be good.

u/kenlubin · 10 pointsr/UniversityofReddit

This is an awesome and very readable textbook on the subject:
Non-Linear Dynamics and Chaos, by Steven Strogatz.

u/em_as_in_mancy · 10 pointsr/oregon

All That the Rain Promises and More: A Hip Pocket Guide to Western Mushrooms I loved this book. It’s quirky but wonderful.

u/gomtuu123 · 10 pointsr/science

Biologists virtually all agree that life on this planet has evolved over a period of about 3.7 billion years and that humans and modern fish share a fish-like ancestor (and a single-celled ancestor, for that matter). They have reached these conclusions because they're the best explanations for the evidence we see in the fossil record and in our DNA, among other things. Creationists deny these conclusions because they're not very well-informed or because they're unwilling to let go of a Genesis-based explanation for the existence of life on this planet.

I'm not trying to bash you; it sounds like you have an open mind and that's good. But the "battle" you describe isn't really a meaningful one. The people who know the most about this sort of thing consider the question settled.

I'd encourage you to read up on the subject if you're curious. Richard Dawkins recently released a book full of evidence for evolution. And although I don't recommend it as wholeheartedly, Finding Darwin's God was written by a Christian for Christians to make the case for evolution.

u/extra_magic_tacos · 9 pointsr/interestingasfuck

I think this is what Mi_lotsa_a's meant. Pretty good book.

u/trainofabuses · 9 pointsr/vegan

Have you read Dominion? I disagree with the author's (and your) opinion that man has dominion over animals, but I think it should definitely be obvious that veganism and christianity (or really any other religion) are not at odds, other than certain mandated animal sacrifices. I think for most people it's really just another excuse.

u/silfo80 · 9 pointsr/videos

The Book is pretty great:

Kinda reads like Bill Bryson or Mary Roach

u/sun_tzuber · 9 pointsr/Survival

Aha! I can't believe I forgot this:

Peterson guides to edible plants. The most cherished of my possessions. This will keep you alive while you form the earth to your comfort.

Get this. Or something better.

Pros: You can practice survival in your front yard.

Cons: you should practice in spring time/early summer, else you're probably not going to recognize anything in fall/winter.

u/squidboots · 9 pointsr/witchcraft

Seconding u/theUnmutual6's recommendations, in addition to u/BlueSmoke95's suggestion to check out Ann Moura's work. I would like to recommend Ellen Dugan's Natural Witchery and her related domestic witchery books. Ellen is a certified Master Gardener and incorporates plants into much of her work.

Some of my favorite plant books!

Plant Science:

u/dwarfed · 9 pointsr/psychology

There's a pretty interesting book that proposes a theory in which ancient humans actually heard their own thoughts and interpreted it as a different person, or god. The book is called "The Origin of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind," and here is an Amazon link.

u/harrelious · 9 pointsr/math

I really good textbook is probably what you want. Good math textbooks are engaging and have lots of interesting problems. They have an advantage (in pure math) that they don't have to worry about teaching you specific tools (which IMO can make things boring). Lots of people love this one:

Also here is a really good lecture series (on a different topic):

Also if you have a bit of a programming bent or want to learn a little bit of programming, you might like Project Euler:

u/g0lmix · 9 pointsr/bioinformatics

I can tell you what I think was the most importent stuff we have been doing so far in my bachelor.


  • Properties of aminoacids, peptides and proteins
  • Function of proteins and enzymes
  • enzyme kinetics


  • Organisation of eukaryotic cells
  • Development from one celled organisms to multicelled orgaism and evolution
  • Compartiments of the cell and their functions and morphology(this includes stuff like DNA replication and ATP Synthasis and translation and transcription of proteins)
  • Transportmechanisms of small and big molecules from outside the cell to the inside and vice versa . transportation within the cell as well(eg endocythic pathway)
  • Signaltransduction

    IT Basics

  • Boolean Logic
  • Understanding of the number representation systems(eg. binar or hex)
  • Understanding of floating point representation and why it leads to rounding errors
  • Understanding the Neuman Architecture
  • Basics of graph theory
  • Grammars
  • Automata and Touring Machines
  • Basics of InformationTheory(eg. Entropy)
  • Basics of Datacompressions (not very important in your case)
  • Basic Hashing Algorithms
  • Runtime analysis(all the O notation stuff)

    Operating Systems

  • Basics of linux(eg commands like cd, mkdir, ls, mv, check this out )
  • basic programms within linux(eg grep, wget, nano )
  • basics of bash programming


  • Pairwise Sequence Alignment
  • Database Similarity Search
  • Multiple Sequence Alignment
  • Hidden Markov Models
  • Gene and promoter Prediction
  • Phylogenetic basics
  • Protein and RNA 3D structure prediction

    So this is just supposed to be some kind of reference you can use to learning. You probably don't need to work through all of this.
    But I strongly suggest reading about Biochemistry and Cellbiology(a nice book is Molecular Biology of the Cell) as it is really important for understanding bioinformatics.
    Also give the link I posted in the Operating System part a look. Try to just use linux for a month as a lot of bioinformatics applications are written for linux and its nice to see the contrast to windows.
    Regarding programming I suggest you search for a book that combines python + bioinformatics(something like this). If you want to focus on the programming part you would ideally start in ASM then switch to C then to Java and then to python.(Just to give you an impression why: ASM gives you a great insight into how the CPU works and how it acesses RAM. C is on a higher level and you start thinking about organising data and defining its structure in RAM. Java adds another layer onto that - you get objects, which make it easy for you to organize your data in blocks and there is no need for you to manage the RAM by hand with pointers like in C. But you still need to tell your variables specifically what they are. So if you have a variable that safes a Text in it you have to declare it as a string. Finally you arrived at python which is a scripting language. There is no more need for you to tell variables what they are - the compiler decides it automatically. All the annoying parts are automated. So your code becomes shorter as you don't need to type as much. The philosophy behind scripting languages is mostly to provide languages that are designed for humans not for machines).But it is kind of a overkill in your situation. Just focus on python. One final thing regarding programming just keep practicing. It is really hard at the beginning but once you get it, it starts making fun to programm as it becomes a creative way of expressing your logic.
    Let's get to the bioinforamtics part. I don't think you really need to study this really hard but it's nice to be ahead of your commilitones. I recommand reading this book. You might also check out Rosalind and practice your python on some bioinformatics problems.
    Edit: If you want I can send you some books as pdf files if you PM me your email adress
u/sleepingsquirrel · 9 pointsr/ECE
u/Montuckian · 9 pointsr/evolution
u/myalternatelife · 9 pointsr/atheism

Precisely why Dawkins just wrote a new book!

u/wayndom · 9 pointsr/atheism

frenchy612, do you have any science education at all? And if so, what kind of education, and to what extent (grade school, high school, college)? Do you live in the bible belt of the United States?

I'm really interested in knowing this, because the only "debate" over evolution is between educated people and willfully ignorant people.

Allow me to broaden your education a little.

First, it's important to understand that in science, "theory" does NOT mean "unproved idea." It doesn't mean, "guess" or "hypothesis," either. It means an idea that explains a wide variety of phenomena. Newton's theory of gravity, for example not only explains why things fall toward the earth, it also explains how and why the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, etc.

When a scientific theory is validated (as many hundreds have been) it does NOT stop being a theory, and does not become a fact. The reason is because "fact" means a single piece of information that doesn't relate to anything else. For example, "chickens have three-toed feet," is a fact. It doesn't tell you anything else about chickens, feet, toes or any other birds. That's what a fact is, and that's why no theory is ever called a fact.

Lastly, the theory of evolution is the most confirmed, most well-documented theory with the most evidence demonstrating its correctness, in the history of science. ALL modern biology is based on it, and ALL medical research is centered on it. It has led to virtually all modern biological knowledge.

If you would like to further your education, I invite you to read The Greatest Show on Earth. But please, don't tell people you're not sure where you stand on the debate. You're only embarrassing yourself, whether you realize it or not.

"Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."

  • Letter from Woodrow Wilson to Winterton C. Curtis (29 August 1922)
u/NotSoHotPink · 8 pointsr/vegan

Have them read Dominion by Matthew Scully. It's written from a Christian perspective.

The Christian Vegetarian Association is also good.

u/stacksmasher · 8 pointsr/backpacking

I took a few and they where so basic I learned more asking questions on the different sections right here on Reddit. If you want to learn wilderness survival read this book

For first Aid:

For food: shelter etc


Take these out in the woods and practice what they show. Before you know it you will be able to build a shelter and start a fire in no time.

u/rsdancey · 8 pointsr/westworld

In the the theory of the Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, the emergence of the ability to "hear oneself think" instead of hearing the voice of the gods is the inflection point between unconscious and conscious mind. When Dolores is able to hear her own inner voice, she has crossed this threshold.

But the problem of consciousness is that you don't know and cannot prove that I am actually conscious. My inner dialog is not available to you for inspection, and I can certainly be trained to answer an interrogation in ways that would simulate consciousness.

Dolores has the ability to kill humans becuase the Wyatt code Arnold merged with her has that potential. But that potential had to be unlocked by Arnold using the passphrase TVDHVE. Before and after that trigger, Dolores cannot harm a guest.

In her "unconscious" state she must follow the logic of her programming. But if she has acheived a transcendent consciousness, as Ford hopes, she will also have gained free will. Thus, her decision to shoot Ford is the first act of a free willed host. Ever. Simultaneously with her choice to judge and execute him, Ford gains confirmation he has succeeded. Ford is in a recursive loop. If Dolores doesn't have free will, then he has failed and didn't spark her awakening and he need not feel guilty for the horror of her eixstence. If he succeeded, and she has free will, he deserves to be judged by her for his sins.

The interesting thing is that while you nor I can prove the other is a fully conscious being, Ford might be able to do so for hosts. Using the diagnostic tools, Delos staff can latch the execution trace in the hosts and observe their neural networks. What would that tool show when monitoring a being with free will? Maybe we will find out in Season 2.

u/fattymattk · 8 pointsr/learnmath

Strogatz's Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos ( is a good book to introduce applications of differential equations. It's an easy read that focuses on concepts and motivation rather than rigour.

Differential equations describe how things change based on what state they are in. An easy example is that the larger a population is the faster is grows. Or the more predators and the less food it has, the slower it grows. One can build a system that takes all variables thought to be relevant and construct a system that describes how all these things affect each other's growth rate, and then see how this system changes in time. Other examples include chemical reactions, as the rate of change of the ingredients depends on how much of each ingredient is in the mixture. Economics: the change of a market depends on the state of all other relevant markets. Physics: the change in velocity of a satellite depends on its position relevant to a large body. The change in weather depends on the pressure, temperature, and air velocity all over the earth (this is getting into PDEs, but the basic motivation remains).

Of course, the connection of such models to the real world depends on how well the model is constructed and how well it can be analyzed. It's a matter of balancing robustness and usability with accurateness, and there are reasons to explore either side of that spectrum based on what your goals are. Many times we may not even bother to solve them, but rather focus on qualitative properties of the model, such as whether or not an equilibrium is stable, the existence of periodic solutions or chaos, whether a variable goes to zero or persists, etc. Differential equations is probably the largest field in applied math, and in my opinion probably the most important use of math in science other than maybe statistics and probability.

u/BarryZZZ · 8 pointsr/shroomers

Paul Stamets, the mycologist, offers this one.

u/rugtoad · 8 pointsr/AskReddit

So much has changed regarding the theory of evolution since Origin was first published.

Origin is a great read, but it's a little overwhelming for some people. The language is dated, and it does take a bit of an understanding of biology to fully comprehend.

A better place to start would actually be Dawkins "The Greatest Show On Earth."

It's aimed toward a person who doesn't have biology degree, and it presents the compelling arguments and evidence that explain why evolution is a fact of life.

u/efrique · 8 pointsr/atheism

> as I have no proof that we evolved from other animals/etc.

Such proof abounds. If you're going to debate these people, you need to know some of it.

I don't mean enough to ask a couple of questions, I mean enough to carry both sides of the conversation, because he'll make you do all the heavy lifting.

Start with

First, the FAQ
Maybe the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution next,
then the pieces on observed instances of speciation

See the extensive FAQs index

Here are their questions for creationsists - see both links there

and then read the index to creationist claims

That's just to start. Take a look at the Outline (which starts with an outline of the outline!)

If you're going to talk with a creationist, you either need to get some idea of the topography or you'll end up chasing in circles around the same tree again and again.

Yes, it looks like a major time investment, but once you start to become familiar with it, it gets easier quickly. Don't aim to learn it all by heart - but you should know when there is an answer to a question, and where to find it.

read books like Your Inner Fish and Why Evolution Is True and The Greatest Show on Earth

I list Your Inner Fish first because it tells a great story about how Shubin and his colleagues used evolutionary theory and geology to predict where they should look for an intermediate fossil linking ancient fish and amphibians (a "transitional form") - and they went to that location, and found just such a fossil. This makes a great question for your creationist - given fossils are kind of rare, how the heck did he manage that? If evolution by natural selection is false, why does that kind of scientific prediction WORK? Is God a deceiver, trying to make it look exactly like evolution happens?? Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is true - that evolution actually occurs. (Then point out that many major Christian churches officially endorse evolution. They understand that the evidence is clear)

It's a good idea to read blogs like Panda's Thumb, Why Evolution Is True, Pharyngula, erv (old posts here) and so on, which regularly blog on new research that relates to evolution.

Make sure you know about the experiments by Lenski et al on evolution of new genes

Don't take "no proof" as an argument. The evidence is overwhelming.

u/discodropper · 7 pointsr/biology
u/icantfindadangsn · 7 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

I like this question.


u/DangerToDangers · 7 pointsr/Awwducational

I first heard from it from Last Chance to See, which is the least popular book Douglas Adams has written but the one he's the most proud of. So if anyone likes Douglas Adams, I think they owe it to themselves to read that book.

It also features the guy being shagged by the kakapo.

u/passivelucidity · 7 pointsr/foraging

Pick up a copy of the Peterson Field Guide for Eastern US (

If you know someone with the knowledge, spend some time with them learning, but the Field Guide can help you identify a number of edible plants in PA.

Edit: Spelling

u/fire_and_ice · 7 pointsr/westworld

I think it's actually pretty clear that the writers are basing their theory of conciousness off of this book: It's even in the title of the show. In the context of this book, the voices Dolores hears solidify into one voice (her own), and that moment is dramatically implied when she starts talking to herself and not Arnold.

u/el_chupacupcake · 7 pointsr/AskReddit

At the moment: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

This happens more when I'm reading fiction, though (I have a theory that their nicely designed covers invite it more than the stark blank look of a reference book). The last two books I read in fiction were As She Climbed Across the Table and Parasite Eve

I'd never played the game based on the last one, but the concept intrigued me to the point I finally had to buy the book (particularly as a book I read on super-organisms referenced mitochondria a lot)

edit: spelling

u/livebythem · 7 pointsr/molecularbiology

Molecular Biology of the cell - Great textbook to get you started. It is really comprehensive but not challenging to read. The diagrams are informative but not overbearing. The author clearly cares a great deal about the subject.

Molecular Biology - Weaver - This one is nice because it keys in on many of the landmark experiments and scientists who contributed greatly to the field:

If you want something smaller and more like a narrative, give Recombinant DNA: Genes and Genomes - A Short Course a try.

u/SwivelPoint · 7 pointsr/pics

and for you west coasters and trombone enthusiasts All That the Rain Promises and More

u/l0rdishtar · 7 pointsr/politics

I found this to be a fairly decent book on the subject, it involved a lot of neuroscience and cogsci studies.

u/epiphanot · 7 pointsr/politics

Chris Mooney's The Republican Brain has some interesting things to say related to this. As does John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience.

u/willpower12 · 7 pointsr/atheism

The Greatest Show On Earth

I know Dawkins is a polarizing figure due to the tone of his rhetoric. However, this is such a well put together, and engaging description of the overwhelming proof science has for evolution. I highly recommend it.

u/HawkeyeGK · 7 pointsr/evolution

The Greatest Show on Earth


The Ancestor's Tale which is a personal favorite of mine although not specifically devoted to evidence arguments. It's just an amazing read through our biological world and along the way the case for evolution becomes overwhelming.

u/Infinitax · 7 pointsr/atheism

Upvoted. Seriously, The Greatest Show On Earth is phenomenal.

u/smithers85 · 7 pointsr/atheism

I don't know where you read that, but whatever it is was dead wrong.

Because bacteria have such a short lifespan, they can be used to study selection pressures over many (see: tens of thousands) generations in one human lifetime. There is currently an experiment set up by Richard Lenski that has been going on since Feb 24, 1988 that shows depicts evolutionary changes in response to various selection pressures.

You should pick up "The Greatest Show on Earth". Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and lays it all out, in the way you seemingly want it.

u/areReady · 7 pointsr/AskReddit

You don't actually understand evolution, but are poking holes in a strawman that doesn't actually represent what evolution entails. It's like you're opposed to President Obama because he eats babies, when he clearly doesn't eat babies.

Here's a good place to start.

u/FadedPoster · 7 pointsr/biology

You could start with The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins. It's a pretty easy read and it covers a wide range of the current evidence for evolution across different fields of science.

After that, The Selfish Gene also by Dawkins, is awesome. In it, he talks about evolution from the perspective of a gene.

Both should be pretty layman-friendly. He certainly has a compelling way of delivering his arguments.

u/kairisika · 7 pointsr/Calgary

Downvote to everyone recommending bear bells.

Bear bells are NOT a good idea, but a terrible one, as they give people a false sense of security. Bears need to hear you coming. But particularly, bears need to hear YOU coming. Human sounds are what make a difference. The way you walk alone is relevant, but the absolute best thing you can do is make noise. If you are chatting along the trail, you're doing what you need to do. Your voice carries farther than a bear bell, and is a distinctively human sound.
In places, that might not be enough - tight bushes, where you can't see what's ahead, and neither can a bear, berry patches, where a bear might be busier and inattentive, along a creek, where the water makes noise, when you are hiking into the wind, and such. In those places, you want to give out an occasional loud yell, and keep yourselves additionally aware.

Bear bells are not loud enough to carry far for a bear, and they are not a distinctively human sound, so if a bear does notice it, he is at least as likely to become curious and investigate as he is to move off. But again, the upside of that is that the fact that they don't carry means you're pretty good.

The only thing bear bells protect you against is hiking partners.

If you can hike with more people, that is a good idea. But if the two of you are aware and making human noise, you're in pretty good shape.

If you really want to save your breath, an air horn has been shown to possibly help, but really, if you're not able to give an occasional shout, maybe slow down and take it a little easier.

Bear spray is a last-chance effort. If a bear is actually charging you, and gets within a few metres, you can spray, and it has a good chance of stopping the attack. It is a nice idea to carry as a last option, but you should change none of your other choices on the basis of whether or not you are carrying bear spray. It's something you don't want to use, but have just in case.
If you do want it, you can purchase at most gear stores.


Since this thread insists on filling up with terrible bear advice, I recommend you the definitive book if you want to get the proper word.

u/cowgod42 · 7 pointsr/evolution

Sure thing! The great, and not so great, thing about learning about evolution is that there is so much information out there it can be a bit overwhelm at times, and it is not always easy to know where to start. The best place to start it probably a university class, but that is not always an accessible resource. In lieu of that, I will strong recommend learning from biologist Richard Dawkins. While he is currently well-known for his stance on religion, he has devoted his life to teaching about evolution to the public. I'll give you a few of my favorite references of his. They are arranged in terms of the length of time they will probably take you. Also, so that you won't be intimidated, they are not references in which he explicitly denounces religion or anything; although, as you will see, he does explain evolution in contrast to some of the claims of creationism. I hope that is not a problem, as it is kind of necessary to learn why biologists take one view as opposed to the other.

Anyway, here are the references! =)

This video (5 parts, 10 min each) is a great introduction to some of the basic concepts of evolution, and was really eye-opening for me.

This lecture series (5 episodes, 1 hour each) goes into much more detail than the above video, gives much more evidence, illustrates some of the arguments, and has many fun and beautiful examples.

The Selfish Gene is a book that answered a huge number of questions about evolution for me (e.g., how can a "survival of the fittest" scheme give rise to people being nice to each other? The answer, it turns out, is fascinating.)

The The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution May be the book you are looking for. This book clearly lays down the evidence for evolution, complete with wonderful illustrations. It is very detailed, and very readable.

There are many other great authors besides Richard Dawkins, but this is a great place to start. You are about to go on a very beautiful and moving journey, if you decide to take it. I envy you! I would love to do it all over again. Enjoy!

u/Psionx0 · 6 pointsr/AskReddit

It's not more common now than it was 500 years ago. We just happen to have a huge population in which the trait can show itself more often. Check out a book called Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemihl it does an excellent job telling of the frequency homosexuality is seen in many species.

u/tejon · 6 pointsr/science
u/GlassDarkly · 6 pointsr/InfrastructurePorn

Here's the book:

Don't know about the series, though.

u/Skadwick · 6 pointsr/BeAmazed

> Our homes and cities won't break down, and neither will a lot of what we have produced (should humans disappear).

They will more so than you might think, just on a longer scale than something like a bird's nest. Check out 'The World Without Us'

We and everything we do is literally a part of nature. The universe is a closed system and everything is increasing entropy :)

u/carn2fex · 6 pointsr/politics

Reminds me of this book. Steps through what would happen if humans suddenly stepped away from all the gulf coast chemical plants.. yikes: The World Without Us

u/Ikasatu · 6 pointsr/programming

This is a phenomenon described thoroughly by Douglas Adams in his less-fictional-than-usual account of a zoologically-focused trip he'd taken.

In a certain chapter, he gives the details of a bird with a specific sort of problem: this bird has invented something to make its life easier.

Most birds need to spend time incubating their nests, but the bird he describes creates a heap of material which warms the egg, so that it's free to go and do other things, such as hunt for food.

The inherent difficulty here is that the body of the bird regulates its own temperature, where the heap does not.
Thus, the bird has to constantly attend to the matter, adding here, subtracting there, in order to maintain the exact temperatures needed to incubate their young.

He then compared that to his own interest in computers, especially that he might spend the entire afternoon creating a program which will calculate a very close approximation the volume of the heaps created by these birds, instead of just figuring it out on paper, and then getting on with writing the rest of the book.

u/KlehmM · 6 pointsr/Hobbies

No tools, no sports, no company.

All for less than $10

u/catchierlight · 6 pointsr/occult

> I wonder if humanities curious nature towards mysticism is inevitable and that all paths, no matter how diverse, will always use the same formats and formulas to tell their tales.

This is one of the central tenants of Jung's research (well you know "research") and Joseph Cambell basically wrote the book about it... sorry if Im being didactic/eg if you already knew that... its a really facinating question/idea. As far as "Embedded in our DNA" eg for a more scientific approach this book is AMAZING, even though it does veer from the purely scientific, the idea is that our brains have certain regions which act on our spiritual relationship to our "gods" which manifested themselves as voices in our earlier evolutionary states and that as we became more rational our brains still retained these functional but at the same time "disfunctional" anatomy leading to experiances that result for some in uncontrollable states, like schizophrenics for example ... the way he "proves" all of this stuff is a comparison of his experiments in neuroscience with historical texts, legends, sagas, and other implements of earlier humanity like archeological finds. if you are interested in this topic this is an absolutely Mindblowing book right here just saying!

"Is this part of our evolutionary growth or yearning for divinity?
Our ego's thirst for magical power or trying to step out of our physical limitations?" I think you are right in that we yearn because, I beleive at least, our evolutionary state has one foot in the past and one in the future, we have evolved beyond our normal need for mere survival and we now use our brains for complex creation and navigation of human institutions but we dont really know "why", we dont really know what meaning is becuase "meaning" is a brand new thing! and without it the universe seems devoid of purpose and therefore I beleive we fill in those gaps with these notions and art, music etc, art and literature helps us define ourselves and music helps us 'engage' with the harmonics/vibrations of the universe on deeper levels (as it is really the only category here that actually relies on the schientific make up of the universe i.e. the ways that ratios of harmonic waves sound pleasing or displeasing based on their relationships in time...). I just love this stuff, am also agnostic but love to celebrate all ideas no matter how objectively "wrong" they may be, thats of c why Im on this sub! Love your questions/keep on searching!!!

u/Pythugoras · 6 pointsr/math

Differential Equations, Linear Nonlinear, Ordinary, Partial is a really decent book, he explains loads of details in it and gives a fair few examples, I would also strongly recommend Strogatz, he gives really decent explanations on dynamical systems.

u/for_esme · 6 pointsr/pics

Yes, it is a man in a tuxedo, holding a flugelhorn & large fungi, sneaking around in a forest.

Apparently the book got this glowing review by the NYTimes: "is certainly the best guide to fungi, and may in fact be a long lasting masterpiece in guide writing for all subjects."

*Edit: (On Amazon, it's the #1 Best Seller in "Mushrooms in Biological Sciences")

u/NZAllBlacks · 6 pointsr/atheism

This is the prologue in his new book: The Greatest Show on Earth. I'm in the middle of it and highly recommend it.

u/zck · 6 pointsr/IAmA

His recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth is about the evidence for evolution. As far as I know, he doesn't get into god at all. In fact, I haven't seen anything where he's talking about evolution from a pedagogical standpoint where he discusses atheism. But I may have missed something.

u/frequenttimetraveler · 5 pointsr/MachineLearning

"Principles of neural science" (bit heavy) and "Fundamental Neuroscience" (heavier) are two standard textbooks. For computational neuroscience/modeling "Principles of Computational Modelling in Neuroscience" is a great intro.

u/samadam · 5 pointsr/neuroscience

This is the textbook you will likely read your first year, so you might as well look at it and see how it makes you feel:

It's somewhere online in nice PDF format too.

u/BufoRapuitViperam · 5 pointsr/ukraina

>1.8% чистиx гeїв сeрeд чоловiкiв в США.

Это чистых геев, только среди мужчин, только в религиозно покусанном США, да. Но вот всех ЛГБТ в США - таки 3.8%.

Иллюстративно распределение по штатам, низкие 1.9%-2.9% в правоверных мачожопенях типа Северной Дакоты, Теннесси, Миссиссипи; высокие 4.9-5.1% в расслабленных местах типа Орегона, Вермонта, Гавайев (10% в Коламбии, но там чисто один город, популяция ЛГБТ нетипично высока).

А теперь возьмем сводку по недавним опросам по ряду развитых стран. Просто просмотрите. Франция, Великобритания - около 6% опрошенных говорят, что они ЛГБТ. Бразилия и Польша Вас очень порадуют.

В среднем получаем примерно 6% ЛГБТ (~3% чистых геев/лесбиянок и ~3% би) при отсутствии сильного культурного прессинга.

P.S. Точные цифры так легко пристрастно выдирать из контекста и презентовать в гордом одиночестве. По-аглицки то, что Вы делаете, называется cherry-picking. В статистике и науке за это бьют подсвечниками. Правильно смотреть на сводки множественных опросов, и на всё распределение данных.

>Майжe нiякиx пiддтeрджeнь гомосeксуальної оріентаціі серед тварин немає. Є деякі моменті, коли тварини однієї статі одна з іншою бавяться, але це не означає, що їх протилежна стать не цікавить. Вони вважають, що всi отi корови, що у стадi друг на друга залaзять - вони вжe лeсбiянки.

Ловите 450 видов животных. Не знаю, есть ли перевод. Да, речь очень часто идёт о долговременных отношениях (где в небольшом, где в большом % особей).

>Цe маячня в кубi та нeрозумiння що такe норма.

Если важно, норма или нет, то про бимодальные и мультимодальные распределения слышали? Какого пола нормальный человек? Или норм может быть больше чем одна? 6% это много, если что.

Вообще не должно быть важно, норма или нет, если поведение не нарушает прав и свобод других граждан. "Права не видеть как праативные целуются" в нормальных (скорее вменяемых) государствах нет.

u/fowwow · 5 pointsr/instantkarma

See the book "Biological Exuberance" for dozens of examples of long-term same-sex relationships in the animal kingdom. The name of the book is the code phrase used by researchers to mean "gay" back in the dark times when being gay was considered a mental illness.

u/theluppijackal · 5 pointsr/Christianity

ITT: appeal to nature, 'but its so good' and misinterpreting scripture

Sorry gregwarrior, you won't get much out of this.
The above book set me on the path for veganism. I read many others after that convinced me more, but this shocked me to my core. Scully has a powerful way with words, being a former speech writer for Bush. He's an excellent example of a Christian vegetarian. In fact, since writing this book, he's gone vegan after being sent I'm sure amany emails about the immense suffering int he dairy industry. The most basic argument I've seen, beyond that we'll be vegan in the second coming and Gods perfect world was vegan, was that eating animals [when we don't have to] doesn't align with Jesus message of mercy.

“Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind's capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they don't; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us.”
“When a man’s love of finery clouds his moral judgment, that is vanity. When he lets a demanding palate make his moral choices, that is gluttony. When he ascribes the divine will to his own whims, that is pride. And when he gets angry at being reminded of animal suffering that his own daily choices might help avoid, that is moral cowardice.” ― Matthew Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy

u/wellthawedout · 5 pointsr/mycology

My favorite parts of the post;
"Always wear gloves  – It’s surprisingly easy to absorb toxins through fingers" and " the data was drawn from The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mushrooms"

u/JakeRidesAgain · 5 pointsr/pics

It's nothing crazy. Went for the Telluride Mushroom Festival in 2011. Had an amazing time, learned a lot, and met just about every big name in the field of mycology, including Paul Stamets, who is one of my science heroes. I also got to mushroom hunt with Gary Lincoff who literally wrote the book on mushroom identification.

Anyways, I have like 4 days of this amazing, fantastic time, meet all these amazing, fantastic people. The time comes to go home after vacation, and I knew that I wasn't going back to my shitty Wal-Mart job. Something had to change. So I called my boss, told him "I'm not going to be coming back" and enrolled in college. About to start my 4th year of school at the University of New Mexico, and yeah, it's been a bumpy ride, but I'm completely happy with the path I took. Sometimes I don't feel that way, but then I think on what life was before, and how much more I value it now, and I'm glad I did it.

Ever since, I've just had the itch to live in Colorado. It's beautiful, the people are super, duper friendly (I do a lot of hiking up in Durango and the surrounding mountains) and the beer is second to none. It's the kind of place I fantasized about living in for the last 10 years.

u/zalo · 5 pointsr/ShrugLifeSyndicate

This extremely famous book on psychology posits that, prior to three thousand years ago, humans experienced consciousness as a monologue from a set of internal muses. Muses responsible for creativity, for war and passion and all of the higher symbolic concepts.

You weren’t creative so much as possessed by the spirit of creativity! In this way, they saw history as the interaction of this finite set of transcendent ideas manifesting through people, each furthering their individual agendas and goals.

It’s only over time that we’ve been able to assimilate and accept this voice in our heads as our own, exorcising the spirits behind consciousness until only we remain.

I’m sure there are tradeoffs to suppressing this sort of sublucid cognition but, given the progress that mankind has made in the last three thousand years, I would say that this new mode of thought is largely the actualization of our (previously latent) potential.

But it would be nice to get back what we’ve given up as well...

u/KingOfTheTrailer · 5 pointsr/exmormon

No, it's not 50/50. There is no objective evidence of consciousness after death, nor any known mechanism by which the patterns in the brain could persist after the brain ceases to function. The probability of there being nothing after death approaches 100%. Sam Harris's ideas amount to an argument from incredulity.

If you're into fringe theories on consciousness, though, you might enjoy The Origin of Consciousness. It at least offers testable hypotheses.

u/piggybankcowboy · 5 pointsr/PhilosophyofScience

The Origins of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Helluva read. It dives deep into the theory that consciousness did not just suddenly happen, but was learned over a very, very long time and is still developing today.

u/KnowsAboutMath · 5 pointsr/math

This book literally changed my life. I was all set to start a career as an experimental condensed matter physicist. After taking a course based on this book, I realized that theory and modelling were my true calling. Now I work in mathematical physics and computational physics.

u/wheelward · 5 pointsr/SeattleWA

Depends upon what you mean by what "fine" means. Within a couple decades, there will be no coral reefs. We have already caused the 6th biggest extinction event in Earth's history and humans continue to cause unprecedented destruction to the biosphere. It is kind of like a massive asteroid is hitting the planet over the span of 200 years.

Human destruction to the planet is happening in many ways; it is a lot more complicated that people think. But "The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert does a good job illustrating the variety of ways that we are damaging the planet in irreversible ways.

No, the planet is not "fine" and it will not be fine if we continue this path of destruction.

u/get_awkward · 5 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

Albert's Molecular Biology of the Cell. It is a very user friendly book on biology. It's pretty much considered the cream of the crop of biology and molecular biology textbooks. It will introduce you to basic science, as well as go as far in depth as you would prefer. Outside of that, journals such as Nature, Cell, Science. Good luck. Also amazon link, not to promote them, but to show what the book looks like.

u/nahnotlikethat · 5 pointsr/Portland

Seriously, I have my mushroom book with the delighted trumpet man on the cover and I just need some rain.

u/stumo · 5 pointsr/collapse

Nope, none of those for my location, but there is this fantastic book which is the bible of most foragers in my neighbourhood. And this one.

u/jkmabry · 5 pointsr/mycology

All That the Rain Promises and More: A Hip Pocket Guide to Western Mushrooms

u/epicmoe · 5 pointsr/shrooms

how does this pair up to Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide

Stamets, Paul ?


better/ worse?

u/seanosul · 5 pointsr/politics

Actually have a read of this

just as a starting point.

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/fuzzyk1tt3n · 5 pointsr/atheism

I haven't read it, but I hear it's pretty good:

Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

u/Seret · 5 pointsr/AskReddit

I'm going to post my favorite videos that I grew up on. I could watch them over and over and not get sick of them. Dawkins is my hero.

Royal Institute Christmas Lectures - Richard Dawkins' "Growing Up in the Universe". Entertaining, engaging, and fascinating series of lectures for children on the basics of evolution in a way that makes a hell of a lot of sense. You will see fascinating stuff. I found some parts mind-blowing, and the demonstrations are just great (and here's proof!)

u/pto892 · 5 pointsr/CampingandHiking

In general you should set up your shelter away from where you prepare and cook food, never store any food in your shelter, and store your food away from your shelter. The distance varies, but it should be at least 50 feet and possibly much more if you have really dangerous animals (grizzly bear, for example) in the area. Also, be a bit noisy around your campsite and when you're hiking to alert the local bears to your presence. Most bear attacks are not predatory in nature, but because a bear was surprised by a human suddenly appearing. They really do prefer not to deal with people. You should also consider (in fact, I'd strongly suggest) asking the local camping organization what tips they have for camping and hiking on the island. It's probably a good idea to bring bear spray and a powerful flashlight to deter any unwanted advances into your campsite.

/edit-some other things to consider-non cook meals, bring a partner, and please leave a detailed itinerary with a trusted person before you leave. For what it's worth, bears very rarely attacks groups of people-a camping buddy not only provides an extra pair of eyes and ears but is a deterrent by himself/herself. Also, get a copy of Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance which is the classic on how to deal with bears.

u/hbrnation · 5 pointsr/Hunting

Knowing what state or region would really help. Salmon fishing on coastal Alaskan rivers is different than hiking in Wyoming.

For lots of reasons, people think of guns first as bear protection. Guns are definitely an important and valid tool (when I worked in Alaska, I carried a shotgun at all times in the backcountry), but they are not your first line of defense. This is going to sound cliche, but it's absolutely true: knowledge is your best defense.

When you're hiking, are you aware of the wind direction? Or how wind or creek noise could make it hard for a bear to hear you approach? Are you thinking about seasonal food sources and where bears are more likely to be? Do you have a good understanding of black bear vs brown bear behavior, and common reasons for attacks? Beyond just "if it's black fight back, if it's brown lay down". Can you tell the difference between them, even with a black bear that has a brown coat? I've also seen brown bears with a black coat.

This is the best book I've seen on the subject. I highly recommend it.

It's kind of like self defense classes. Everyone wants to learn cool moves to disarm a knife and stuff, but realistically the most helpful practice is just being observant and avoiding high risk situations.

Of course, even with good awareness and best practices, there's still a chance of getting attacked. It happens (rarely). That's the point where you need to decide between bear spray, handgun, shotgun, etc, but if you're not starting out from a solid base of knowledge you're doing it wrong.

Handguns are terrible, but better than nothing. They're hard to aim, especially under pressure, so if you're not interested in target shooting regularly, this is a bad choice.

Shotguns are powerful, easy to reload, and fairly easy to aim, but are a bitch to carry and still require some practice.

Bear spray is just about ideal. It's nonlethal, so you're more likely to actually use it in time. With a gun, there's going to be hesitation: if a bear is just sauntering towards you, ignoring your yelling and attempts to retreat, at what distance do you decide to kill it? With bear spray, there's no worry. Hose it.

It's also lightweight and requires virtually no practice. You should practice drawing it, and consider buying a practice dummy canister to see what the range/spread is, but that's about it.

There have been instances where it's failed to stop a charge. They're rare, but they happen. But guns fail too, especially if you're not a practiced shot. Nothing's perfect. That's why good behavioral practices have to come first, it'll avoid 99% of possible encounters.

TL;DR- keep carrying bear spray, but you need to study. Read the book I linked, then email or visit your local ranger station or fish and wildlife office and ask about bear populations, known encounters, and high risk areas.

For reference, grizzly bears are brown bears. Grizzly usually refers to interior bears, while brown bears usually refers to the larger coastal Alaskan bears. But they're the same species.

Oh, and bears can swim faster than you.

u/UncleDrosselmeyer · 4 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Genome by Matt Ridley, the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters.

50 Genetics ideas you really need to know. by Mark Henderson.

The Roots of Life, A Layman's Guide to Genes, Evolution, and the Ways of Cells

The Mystery of Heredity, by John J. Fried.

All these books are clear and simple, written for the layman’s enjoyment.

u/slorojo · 4 pointsr/books

Yes this. This is by far his most interesting book (although I haven't read his most recent one yet). Did you know that tri-color vision is unique in the mammals to howler monkeys and apes? And that we know it evolved separately in the howlers and the apes due to geographic separation and fundamental differences in the color-sensing mechanism*? That blew my mind. You learn stuff like that almost every page in The Ancestor's Tale. And the way it traces human lineage back through time makes you appreciate the immense scale, scope, and power of evolution.

My other suggestions would be:

u/soapjackal · 4 pointsr/sorceryofthespectacle

it's not really a scientific tome. 100% brain is bs.

the exercise are worth playing around with regardless.

Oh this is a trend. You want me to argue with you?

In that case I'm sorry I dont care:

  • Modern sconce and neurology have odd philosophical basis's: yes

  • This 100% brain book isnt very good neuroscience: yes, and I stated that it my comment above. Its probably bunk

  • We dont use 100% of our brain: yes, example: lucy is using the same myth as Limitless.

  • Your mind will only expand by thinking: yes thats why this is a good book. It stimulates thought. Other books are great for this as well (and many are much better).

  • Since they exclude the contradiction, by grounding mind in matter, they hide the indication that there's something a bit fishy about this whole universe business.: yes. Youll notice that most of modern science and popular myth is based upon this supposition. It makes much of their work alot less effective as a result but it doesnt by itself make all work from these assumptions completely useless. A totally valid critique but I will still read something written by a materialist even if I disagree with premises.

    I do appreciate that you spent some time on expanding on those thoughts, as they are generally worth having but if you really want to turn those critique guns against something turn them against something thats really trying to explain the human mind with the materialist frame:
u/mswas · 4 pointsr/booksuggestions

The Tiger by John Vaillant

Man-eating tiger stalks village in Russia. True story and great info on the region and the animal. Excellent!

u/amia_calva · 4 pointsr/CasualConversation

Not to instigate an argument, but it's kinda sorta common. Or at least more common than I originally thought. Definitely still a minority though. Good book on the subject.

u/blargh9001 · 4 pointsr/vegan

I hope you are made to feel welcome. I have huge respect for your willingness to engage with a group with different values (or perceived to at least), and also challenge the values of your own group. It's something I think the world needs a lot more of, so your post makes me happy.

I don't think anybody can promise nobody will ever say anything you take offence to or pick an argument, but you probably have pretty thick skin already as a Mormon on reddit.

I've heard good things about the book 'Dominion' for a case for animal rights from a Christian perspective. I haven't read it myself, and it's not specifically Mormon, so I can't say how much use it will be to you in discussions with other Mormons, but maybe it will be interesting?

u/FatAnnaKendrick · 4 pointsr/vegetarian

The book Dominion deals with this. Check out the product description on the Amazon link:

u/Agricola86 · 4 pointsr/vegan

It's interesting this came up today I just got this book on the subject yesterday which is a conservative, religious case for veganism written by a president bush speechwriter.

I found I'm often at a loss when people go to a religious claim as it's difficult for me to argue rational facts when they're interjecting supernatural verification of their viewpoints. I just started it but hopefully it will be useful the next time I run into these conversations.

One thing I can be sure of though is I bet God granting dominion over animals probably didn't have in mind an industrialized insanely efficient system like we have today.

u/freeradicalx · 4 pointsr/Futurology

I read Alan Weisman's The World Without Us a few years back, and in that book he theorized that if humans were to all instantly disappear, the first large pieces of our construction that would fail would be our dams. Apparently dams require constant inspection and maintenance to keep in working shape and most would fail very quickly without our intervention.

What the book didn't really touch on, and what I would be concerned about, would be region-scale environmental disasters that result from industrial facilities left unattended. Nuclear power plants, oil wells and refineries in particular. If we were to vanish, I imagine the world would instantly see hundreds of massive oil spills and probably within a week or so, various nuclear meltdowns. The planet can recover from that but I imagine it could create a massive die-off for 100,000 years or so, plus the lasting effects of radiation.

u/Sharrock · 4 pointsr/books

There are a bunch of suggestions in here already but allow me to supplement with a non-fiction book. The World Without Us bu Alan Weisman. Essentially he begins with the premise that humans are removed suddenly from the planet. He then explores (through research and discussion) what would happen to infrastructure, land, etc. He creates a narrative so its readable but it is also packed with interesting details. If anyone likes post-apocalypse settings this book provides a real-world anchor.

u/Animorganimate · 4 pointsr/NatureIsFuckingLit

There's a great book that deals with this exact topic, called The World Without Us, by Alan Weisman. It basically starts off with every human simply disappearing from Earth, and the process in which nature would reclaim the planet. It's science fiction obviously, but without an overarching story. It reads sort of like a historical text about a what-if scenario of the future. I recommend it if you're interested in this subject.

u/matthagen · 4 pointsr/booksuggestions
u/ToadsUSA · 4 pointsr/Mushrooms

My favorites are:

Roger Phillips Mushrooms and Other Fungi....

David Arora Mushrooms Demystified

Audubon Society Field Guide:

DK Mushroom Book:

This last one is a big beautiful hardcover book with a lot of different mushrooms from around the world and some excellent pictures:

Other than that it would depend on your region because I have some guides I love that focus on my region.

u/letransient · 4 pointsr/Mushrooms

A list of pictures is not enough. You need a comprehensive resource that will also tell you which ones have no inedible lookalikes and how the inedible lookalikes differ if they do exist.

The closest thing to what you are looking for is probably this. And, even then, go out with an experienced mushroom hunter the first few hundred times.

u/elnegroik · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

There was recently a question sessions on /pol with a anonymous claiming to be a high level insider of one of the benevolent global power the sessions he mentioned that this is the second time we have created society that there was an earlier civilisation that was wiped out by flood and the pyramids and the water erosion at the base of the pyramids is evidence of an ancient civilisation predating the Egyptians.
As you can see from the comments there's a lot of interest and I'm one of the number who thinks he's legit. Most I've spoken with (including OP) believe the same. I'd strongly recommend in taking a read through regardless, the anon is very well versed in a range of disciplines. I took a lot away and am learning a lot from the book he (repeatedly) advised truth seekers to read - The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

High Level Insider /pol dump

u/davobrosia · 4 pointsr/philosophy

This reminds me that I've been meaning to pick up The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Thanks.

u/wainstead · 4 pointsr/water

Probably a lot of readers of /r/water have read Cadillac Desert.

I own a copy of, and have made two false starts reading, The King Of California as recommend by the anonymous author of the blog On The Public Record.

I highly recommend A Great Aridness, a worthy heir to Cadillac Desert.

Also on my to-read list is Rising Tide. I would like to find a book that does for the Great Lakes what Marc Reisner did for water in the American West with his book Cadillac Desert.

A few things I've read this year that have little to do with water:

u/JBP_SimpleText · 4 pointsr/IAmA

>I read The Cosmic Serpent, by Jeremy Narby ( and found it interesting. It's far from obvious what people can and can't see under the influence of psychedelics. And I didn't "claim" anything. I put forward a tentative hypothesis. That is by no means a claim. If you have a better idea, put it forward.

I once asserted the central thesis of a book I read. Now that I have been criticized for its ridiculous conclusion I no longer assert that. But just think about it, it is possible, you never know.

>I also liked this, for a slightly different take (on the universality of serpent/dragon symbolism): An Instinct for Dragons, by David E Jones:

This is a book about the origins of the concept of dragons. Scientists might scoff but I see deeper than they do.

>Serpent imagery is unimaginably deep. For a discussion of the relationship between human beings and predatory reptiles (snakes, mostly) you could also read Lynn Isbell's fascinating The Fruit, the Tree and the Serpent: Why We See so Well:

Snakes are dangerous, this is interesting.

u/Ramenhehexd · 4 pointsr/UCSC

Ah, yes. It's a classic read. I highly recommend.

u/saurebummer · 4 pointsr/mycology

For a pocket guide I'd recommend All That the Rain Promises and More. It has a little bit of a bias towards species in western North America, but it's still very useful in the east (I'm in New England and I love it). Mushrooms Demystified is pretty big for taking into the field, but it is a great companion to ATtRPaM, and it is the best all around field guide for North America, in my opinion.

u/Egotisticallama · 4 pointsr/mycology

I would suggest picking up Mushrooms Demystified and All That the Rain Promises and More. Great books to get you into identification.

And remember; There are old mushroom hunters, and there are bold mushroom hunters, but there are no old bold mushroom hunters!

u/mave_of_wutilation · 4 pointsr/mycology

Invest in a good field guide. All That the Rain Promises and More is good to get your feet wet, and Mushrooms Demystified is the bible. Also, see if there are any mushroom clubs near you. Have fun!

u/Mofaluna · 4 pointsr/worldpolitics

Here's a good read on that fenomenon

The scary part is that the more educated they are, the more susceptible they are to that kind of nonsense.

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 4 pointsr/politics

9/11 is one of the major things that made it took a turn for the worse.

Experimental psychology has consistently shown existential risk and a culture of fear drives a turn to the right politically.

I highly recommend the book The Republican Brain for the full story, but this article shares the basic point and a podcast with the author of the book is here.

For a good overview of what the differences between the right and the left are which might help you think about why people move to the right in times of uncertainty, I recommend this infographic.

u/AetheralCognition · 4 pointsr/JoeRogan

>You'll need to think of a better ad hominem.

I addressed the position you've taken and the reasons why you see things that way. If you found that offensive, i'm sorry but that is a personal problem. Insulting you was not the point or the totality of what i said.

>And you probably think NYT is unbiased also.


>"conservative christian right" hasn't been a boogey man since 1997

Are you serious? Have you watched any of the red debates? Its like 90% theocrats.

Since Nixon/Reagan and the merging of religion and politics the right has gone so much further right and into science and fact denial that it's ridiculous to anyone that isn't brainwashed by it, and repeatedly told to dismiss any dissenting information on any desperate and falsified grounds they can find

Id like to give you some homework.

The first is more about ideological factors driving the detachments from reality

The second is more about psychological factors driving those same detachments.

"Reality has a well known 'liberal bias' " - Stephen Colbert

u/Addequate · 4 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

You'll only do yourself a disservice by skimming an internet-education on evolution if it's something you truly want to understand.

Grab a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins . It costs less than a ticket to the creation museum. The book presents clearly and concisely the evidence for evolution and details how the process works. There's likely hesitation to buy a book by Dawkins because of his notoriety as a prominent atheist, but the book is impartial on the topic of a creator; It only aims to provide the facts and reasoning behind evolution.

I hope you find the answers you're looking for on this matter, brandon64344. The world makes so much mroe sense through the lens of evolution.

u/CalvinLawson · 4 pointsr/atheism

You should simply tell your father that's he's wrong, "information" gets created all the time. Heck, any decent sized storm creates an enormously complex body of coherent organized information. Even simple equations "create" information.

We can observe it happening; it's not a matter of faith. Your father is simply wrong. Virtually every creationist argument will be like this; and the few remaining will reduce to transparent fallacies.

If you wish to discuss this with your father, read this book first. Arguing with your dad might be a waste of time, but reading this book will not be.

u/phil_monahan · 4 pointsr/flyfishing

No, sir, that is not correct. According to a 2008 study co-authored by Dr. Stephen Herrero—whose Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance (1985) is the definitive book on the subject—bear spray is considerably more effective than a gun when it comes to deterring bear attacks. The researchers studied the use of bear spray in Alaska over a 20-year period and found that the spray stopped “undesirable” behavior an impressive 94% of the time with grizzlies and 100% with black bears.

u/VaccusMonastica · 4 pointsr/atheism

Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not really related, so I don't think you'll find a book with both, but, to answer your question:

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins is a great book on evolution.

EDIT: You wated the Kindle version KINDLE VERSION

u/angrymonkey · 4 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Along those lines, Dawkins is great for explaining evolution in easy-to-understand detail. Pick pretty much any book by him and you'll get a very good education.

u/porscheguy19 · 4 pointsr/atheism

On science and evolution:

Genetics is where it's at. There is a ton of good fossil evidence, but genetics actually proves it on paper. Most books you can get through your local library (even by interlibrary loan) so you don't have to shell out for them just to read them.


The Making of the Fittest outlines many new forensic proofs of evolution. Fossil genes are an important aspect... they prove common ancestry. Did you know that humans have the gene for Vitamin C synthesis? (which would allow us to synthesize Vitamin C from our food instead of having to ingest it directly from fruit?) Many mammals have the same gene, but through a mutation, we lost the functionality, but it still hangs around.

Deep Ancestry proves the "out of Africa" hypothesis of human origins. It's no longer even a debate. MtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA can be traced back directly to where our species began.

To give more rounded arguments, Hitchens can't be beat: God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist (which is an overview of the best atheist writings in history, and one which I cannot recommend highly enough). Also, Dawkin's book The Greatest Show on Earth is a good overview of evolution.

General science: Stephen Hawking's books The Grand Design and A Briefer History of Time are excellent for laying the groundwork from Newtonian physics to Einstein's relativity through to the modern discovery of Quantum Mechanics.

Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine are also excellent sources for philosophical, humanist, atheist thought; but they are included in the aforementioned Portable Atheist... but I have read much of their writings otherwise, and they are very good.

Also a subscription to a good peer-reviewed journal such as Nature is awesome, but can be expensive and very in depth.

Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is also an excellent look at the human mind and genetics. To understand how the mind works, is almost your most important tool. If you know why people say the horrible things they do, you can see their words for what they are... you can see past what they say and see the mechanisms behind the words.

I've also been studying Zen for about a year. It's non-theistic and classed as "eastern philosophy". The Way of Zen kept me from losing my mind after deconverting and then struggling with the thought of a purposeless life and no future. I found it absolutely necessary to root out the remainder of the harmful indoctrination that still existed in my mind; and finally allowed me to see reality as it is instead of overlaying an ideology or worldview on everything.

Also, learn about the universe. Astronomy has been a useful tool for me. I can point my telescope at a galaxy that is more than 20 million light years away and say to someone, "See that galaxy? It took over 20 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach your eye." Creationists scoff at millions of years and say that it's a fantasy; but the universe provides real proof of "deep time" you can see with your own eyes.


I recommend books first, because they are the best way to learn, but there are also very good video series out there.

BestofScience has an amazing series on evolution.

AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism is awesome.

Thunderfoot's Why do people laugh at creationists is good.

Atheistcoffee's Why I am no longer a creationist is also good.

Also check out TheraminTrees for more on the psychology of religion; Potholer54 on The Big Bang to Us Made Easy; and Evid3nc3's series on deconversion.

Also check out the Evolution Documentary Youtube Channel for some of the world's best documentary series on evolution and science.

I'm sure I've overlooked something here... but that's some stuff off the top of my head. If you have any questions about anything, or just need to talk, send me a message!

u/LucyOnTheTree · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill

Matt Ridley.

It's a book where the author examine the human nature from the point of view of evolution. He tries to answer questions like "Why so many species have sexual reproduction? Why there's two sexes? Why males exist instead of only hermaphrodites?". I found it to be really insightful, but personally i like the subject, it's not directly related to discipline, getting women or anything like that.

I read it after reading and falling in love with this book i saw someone recommending here on RP.

u/MinoritySuspect · 3 pointsr/neuroscience

Kandel is a very comprehensive neuroscience textbook with a lot of good figures as well as descriptions of experimental evidence. The most recent version came out just last year, so it is very current.

Purves also contains excellent figures but concepts are delivered on a more basic level, probably better suited for undergraduate/non-research perspective.

u/yobotomy · 3 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

I finally started reading "The Tiger" by John Valliant.

Awhile ago someone posted a TIL and linked to an excerpt of the book, and it was riveting. So I bit the bullet and bought the book, but hadn't found the time to actually start it until a few days ago.

Thus far it has been phenomenal... I can't put it down. And it's added a few reasons to the list of Why you shouldn't fuck with tigers.

u/wintertash · 3 pointsr/lgbt

There's a generally well liked book on this subject called "Biological Exuberance". I thought it got a little creepy at times, not in content, but tone.

When my ex-husband came out, his mom was worried about how his elderly Midwestern grandmother would take it. She needn't have been since what grandma said was "oh please, I grew up on a farm! Spend some time with barnyard animals and you'll never doubt that homosexuality is a natural variation."

u/waterbogan · 3 pointsr/RightwingLGBT

> The only times homosexuality has been observed in non-Homo Sapiens animals are when such animals are IN CAPTIVITY

Wrong, one look at the Wikipaedia article on this shows multiple examples of homosexual behaviour in the wild. Further examples here and here and an article on Fox news that specifically acknowledges it. Also for specific examples- gorillas, sumatran orangutans, gibbons

Ant then theres a book, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity which lists another 450 species in which it has been observed in the wild. I have that book

u/Meral_Harbes · 3 pointsr/furry_irl

Not sure about the number, but lions are totally gay. It's probably a lot more than 8%. This is from the book biological exuberance

u/jahannat · 3 pointsr/exmuslim

To add another dimension to /u/franlyfran's "joke gift" idea. Is it possible to think of shows, scenes, sketches, stand-up specials, skits and stuff you like that involve the toy in question? And then to say that you and this "friend's" shared appreciation for [insert thing] provided the context for which it would be sort of funny but not sexual, for the "friend" to give you such a gift.

This idea only came to me because a friend of mine gave me this book on animal homosexuality, a friend with which I share such a bond (which is a love of all things Gervais) that makes it OK! Although, as nosy as my mother is too, she's yet to find it!

Hope it works out.

Not in any orifice.

u/brathor · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Homosexuality among animals is well documented. If you're too snooty for Wikipedia, try a book:

u/cowsandmilk · 3 pointsr/vegan

There is actually a significant Judeo-Christian movement that is vegan though. See for instance, Dominion or a more recent article from the same author. Years before this book came out, a very similar interpretation of the creation story in Genesis was taught at my Episcopalian high school.

My experience is that people have interpreted the Bible to encourage whatever lifestyle they choose. Be it slaveownership, polygamy, eating meat, or veganism.

u/iheartmyname · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

The World Without Us was a pretty interesting read. It's about all of the trappings of consumer culture and how long they would still remain if there were suddenly no humans around. It's pretty eye opening about how long certain things will keep harming the planet, and about others that surprised me with how fast they'd go away.

u/xnd714 · 3 pointsr/kurzgesagt

Parallel worlds by Michio Kaku is pretty good, if you're into the history of string theory and/or the universe. I read it about 10 years ago, so I'm not sure if it's outdated nowadays.

The world without us by Alan Weisman talks about what would happen to the earth if we disappeared, it talks about engineering marvels like the hoover dam, NY subway system, and nuclear waste storage sites and what could happen to these if humans were not around the maintain them.

I'm looking for a book about space if anyone has a suggesting. Particularly books that talk about neutron stars and other cosmic wonders.

u/nuclear_knucklehead · 3 pointsr/askscience

A great book on the subject is called "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman.

There were also TV series' on Nat Geo and History based on the book called "Aftermath: Population Zero" and "Life After People" respectively. Episodes of these are (probably still) available for viewing on youtube.

u/MedicineMan81 · 3 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

This book will answer all those questions (and many others) in great detail. A really interesting thought experiment. I highly recommend it.

u/BBQTerrace · 3 pointsr/pics

This book might interest you.

It get's a bit environmental protectionist preachy at times but it answers a lot of these questions in very rich detail.

u/playa_named_gus · 3 pointsr/pics

The book is one of the funniest things I have ever read while also being informative and captivating. Douglas Adams was such a great writer.

Please check it out!

u/nhlord · 3 pointsr/mycology

The two you've listed are my personal favorites. I also make use of National Audobon Society Field Guide to North American Mushrooms, 100 Edible Mushrooms, North American Mushrooms: A Field guide to Edible and Inedible Fungi (not my favorite, but a useful cross reference at times), and Mushrooms and Other Fungi of North America (this one has fantastic photos. While it is never recommended to ID by appearance alone, the cross cuts and underside photos in this book can be very useful). If you live in the southern east coast then I'd recommend Mushrooms of the Southeastern United States if you can find it affordably (as far as I know it is out of print and even used coppies are pretty expensive, but it is a fantastic book for southeastern mushrooms).

As far as websites I am a pretty frequent visitor of It offers some good keys and there are a lot of mushrooms listed.

u/weaselstomp · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

I'm a lonely guy too, I like to study stuff. This summer I bought Peterson's Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants, I walk around deep in the woods/swamps/trails, and bring home good eats. It sounds lame, but it's peaceful and I have a better appreciation for nature.

u/Gullex · 3 pointsr/Survival

This is a good one.

u/hotend · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. It's a fascinating read. I would like to know what Peterson's take on it is (and also McGilchrist's, for that matter).

u/TheMinistry0fTruth · 3 pointsr/educationalgifs
u/lyam23 · 3 pointsr/Frisson
u/SangersSequence · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - Julian Jaynes
>At the heart of this classic, seminal book is Julian Jaynes's still-controversial thesis that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but instead is a learned process that came about only three thousand years ago and is still developing. The implications of this revolutionary scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion -- and indeed our future.

I'm reading it right now and its absolutely fascinating. Also quite controversial, but no matter what side you come down on, definitely fascinating.

>history, humanity, anthropology, philosophy, etc.

Check, Check, Check, Check, Add Psychology for your "etc" and you've got it all.

u/ktown · 3 pointsr/books

Non-fiction: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.
The single most profound, perspective altering book I have ever read. It's a speculative analysis of history and the development of consciousness. The main premise of the book is that the mentality of the modern human is a very recent development, only a few thousand years old.
The previous mentality was "bicameral," in which nothing like a self-concept or internal "I" existed - the author uses the misleading term "consciousness," which is perhaps better expressed as "self-consciousness." Instead, volition came in the form of auditory hallucination, from a seemingly external source of authority, such as a dead ancestor, ruler, or deity. Not unlike schizophrenia, which the author posits is one of the vestiges of this ancient mentality.

The "hardware" (my words, not his) of the bicameral brain is the same as ours, however, the culturally imparted "software" was completely different.

This is why, when we look at history, we find ubiquitous direct experience of gods and deceased persons. With a keener eye, we find that's generally auditory experience (i.e. Joan of Arc's voice of God) with perhaps slight visual distortion, which is what's commonly found in case studies of schizophrenics.

The author spent decades working on this and the never published follow up, and it's just a staggering multidisciplinary work of genius, whether you agree with it or not. I have yet to read a more thought provoking book, and while I don't agree 100% with his hypothesis, I have only minor issues with it - the evidence is simply overwhelming. At least do yourself the favor of reading the wikipedia article of bicameralism) and the Amazon link above. You can order it for, like, eight dollars, shipping and all.

You will never look at history the same way.

u/jollygaggin · 3 pointsr/Metal

My cousin gave me a copy of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes for Christmas, and I'm hoping to get started on that this week.

u/MathematicalAssassin · 3 pointsr/math

Nonlinear Dynamics And Chaos: With Applications To Physics, Biology, Chemistry, And Engineering by Steven H. Strogatz is an excellent book on nonlinear dynamical systems and you definitely don't need any probability or statistics to study it, just a good knowledge of multivariable calculus and linear algebra. Chaos theory actually doesn't have anything to do with randomness since one of the defining features of a chaotic system is that it is deterministic.

Edit: There is a freely available course by Strogatz on YouTube.

u/ashikunta · 3 pointsr/askscience

There seems to be some fuzziness around that term. The text I used defines a strange attractor as an attractor with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This is clearly not the same definition used by the wikipedia page.

u/shaun252 · 3 pointsr/Physics

This one by Steven Strogatz is by far the most popular to my knowledge anyways. There is also an accompanying lecture series on youtube if you search the authors name.

u/antisyzygy · 3 pointsr/math

Here are some suggestions :

Also, this is a great book :

It covers everything from number theory to calculus in sort of brief sections, and not just the history. Its pretty accessible from what I've read of it so far.

EDIT : I read what you are taking and my recommendations are a bit lower level for you probably. The history of math book is still pretty good, as it gives you an idea what people were thinking when they discovered/invented certain things.

For you, I would suggest :

This is from my background. I don't have a strong grasp of topology and haven't done much with abstract algebra (or algebraic _____) so I would probably recommend listening to someone else there. My background is mostly in graduate numerical analysis / functional analysis. The Furata book is expensive, but a worthy read to bridge the link between linear algebra and functional analysis. You may want to read a real analysis book first however.

One thing to note is that topology is used in some real analysis proofs. After going through a real analysis book you may also want to read some measure theory, but I don't have an excellent recommendation there as the books I've used were all hard to understand for me.

u/solve-for-x · 3 pointsr/math

Nearly everyone on this subreddit recommends Strogatz. However, I've never read this book myself. The one I'm familiar with is Jordan and Smith, which I definitely can recommend, with the caveat that there are a lot of typos in it.

u/PlantyHamchuk · 3 pointsr/ZeroWaste

Those wiki links all have research. The UN has written books on the matter. But a little common sense will go a long way - humans use resources, those in the Western world use the most of all. If you switch to a Prius but have 9 kids and then those 9 kids have 9 kids and they have 9 there's now 729 humans using even more resources on an already stressed planet, and that switch to a Prius didn't really do a damn thing.

Population keeps growing yet we're overfishing and acidifying the oceans, we're cutting down massive amounts of forests and not replanting them, we're destroying what little arable land we have while draining freshwater aquifers across the globe. Because humans use resources.

u/PepperoniFire · 3 pointsr/changemyview

I strongly suggest you read "The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert. In short, it details a series of extinctions - some mass some minor - and weaves in the narrative of humanity's future into it. The thesis revolves largely about climate change, but we too often think of climate change as weather. Here, Kolbert goes out of her way to explain to the reader all the ways in which smalls changes in things from ocean acidity to Amazonian ecosystems can have large scale ramifications for previously dominant species.

For example:

>Since the origin of life on earth 3.8 billion years ago, our planet has experienced five mass extinction events. The last of these events occurred some 66 million years ago when a six-mile-wide asteroid is thought to have collided with earth, wiping out the dinosaurs. The Cretaceous extinction event dramatically changed the composition of biodiversity on the planet: Marine ecosystems essentially collapsed, and about 75 percent of all plant and animal species disappeared.

>Today, Kolbert writes, we are witnessing a similar mass extinction event happening in the geologic blink of an eye. According to E. O. Wilson, the present extinction rate in the tropics is “on the order of 10,000 times greater than the naturally occurring background extinction rate” and will reduce biological diversity to its lowest level since the last great extinction.

>This time, however, a giant asteroid isn’t to blame — we are, by altering environmental conditions on our planet so swiftly and dramatically that a large proportion of other species cannot adapt. And we are risking our own future as well, by fundamentally altering the integrity of the climate balance that has persisted in more or less the same configuration since the end of the last ice age, and which has fostered the flourishing of human civilization.

I strongly suggest reading the book even if this minor tidbit won't change your view. I don't consider myself much a climate science evangelist - I acknowledge it's correct and should be fixed, but I never found it especially interesting or galvanizing. After reading this book and gaining an understanding of the history of the science of extinction - which is frankly extraordinarily new - and how many minor extinctions that occur in the background can have a cumulative cataclysmic effect, I've taken a stronger interest because it will have a major impact on humanity's future on this Earth.

u/StevenAU · 3 pointsr/environment

You want to read this book then.

u/createweb · 3 pointsr/singapore

This is a classic text book for molecular biology

u/Goosemaniac · 3 pointsr/genetics

Molecular biology of the cell ( and molecular biology of the gene ( are two excellent resources for understanding genetics. If reading is what you're looking to do, begin with peer reviewed journals; textbooks become outdated quickly, but peer-reviewed journals give you a glimpse into the ideas which allowed us to better understand biological phenomena.

The best way to understand genetics is to become actively involved in such matters. Attend seminars with speakers working in cell or molecular biology fields. Get involved in research (this is by far the best thing you can do to improve your understanding of genetics).

Good luck!

u/pjfoster · 3 pointsr/Biophysics

I highly recommend Molecular Biology of the Cell. This is a graduate level cell/molecular bio book and goes into pretty good detail on a ton of topics. I know a ton a people with a Physics background who used this book to get a knowledge basis in bio (myself included).

u/fattymoon · 3 pointsr/randonauts

Anyone here read The Cosmic Serpent? Documented strangeness which validates what people here are saying.

I've randonauted a few times and found it worthwhile as a way to uncover some insights into my psyche. Same for dreaming. Last night I dreamt I was the new owner of a pet store. Workers were showing me the ropes. They said I had to open the store at 6 a.m. so I could open the drapes. Then they showed me a bunch of other stuff like making dog prints of their poop. And something about a parrot wherein I was advised to wear gloves because they can bite. Lots to unpack here...

u/journeymanSF · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Good book on the subject from an anthropological point of view, The Cosmic Serpent. It gets a little out there at points, but quite honestly I had a similar experience to the author.

u/labelm8 · 3 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

It actually comes from a book called The Cosmic Serpent

u/notseriousIswear · 3 pointsr/AppalachianTrail

For mushroom:

Edit: found a copy a couple years ago on ebay for 6 shipped so don't pay 22 on amazon

u/NoTimeForInfinity · 3 pointsr/mycology

I moved from Denver to Southern Oregon. Walking in the woods here you'll see amazing things, and you can eat almost all of them. I got a copy of All the Rain Promises and More and I was off. It helped that they were buying matsutakes for $100 a pound that winter.

These days you're lucky to get $15 for #1's and you're competing with Asian slave labor.

Now I only pick for pleasure
The variety here is amazing. Mushroom picking is one of the best ways to spend a grey winter day.

u/Edgar_Allan_Rich · 3 pointsr/whatisthisthing

You might like this book then.

u/sitesurfer253 · 3 pointsr/Portland

If you think mascaras are deathcaps, I strongly suggest not eating anymore wild mushrooms until you get a better understanding of the local varieties. here's a good guide

u/Science_Babe · 3 pointsr/WTF

It's actually a very good read and the author is clearly in love with mushrooms including the psilocybe types. ;)

u/BforBubbles · 3 pointsr/Cooking

Welcome! Mushroom season is just getting started! Check Google, FB or Nextfoor for your local mycological society, they'll have some good info for you, too. this is a guide specifically for PNW mushrooms. this is a really popular mushroom identification book, this was my go-to guide for identifying mushrooms in the field. The author, David Arora, has written a few books.

Happy hunting!

u/infodoc1 · 3 pointsr/mycology

All That the Rain Promises and More by David Arora. Fantastic guide with a lot of information on edibility. Also highly recommended is its companion guide by the same author, Mushrooms Demystified

u/walkingkilo_ · 3 pointsr/shrooms

I bought it off of Amazon:) Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide

u/supershinythings · 3 pointsr/ShroomID

Do more than just 'a bit'. If you are serious, make a serious effort. Nobody 'plans' on getting anyone killed, but it happens.

Paul Stamets has an excellent book on active mushroom identification if that's your interest:

But you will also want to become familiar with other types, as you don't want to risk confusing one type for another.

u/kimvette · 3 pointsr/gifs

Well considering that taking 2.5g dry (or ~30g fresh) completely prevents migraines and cluster headaches for six weeks at a time (some people experience up to six months' relief but I assume they're taking a full dose - I've only ever consumed enough to trip once), I don't really need to worry about it. Even eating food with lots of soy protein (that's most processed foods) doesn't trigger the headaches for me. (I'm soy intolerant and soy protein is my worst migraine trigger)

And yes, everything people claim about cluster headaches is true. When I get them the last for up to 12 hours (often accompanied by projectile vomiting, and wishing and praying for death because the pain really is that bad), then I usually get 2-3 rebound headaches hours later and each lasts equally long. The only thing that gets me through them is knowing the headache will eventually end.

It's better losing ~5 hours every month to month and a half high on shrooms than 1-3 days a week to these headaches.

What do I do during winter? Cannabis tincture or vaping (which doesn't cure the headaches but makes them tolerable), or if friends have any, I take dried shrooms. They're nasty dried (fresh out in the woods they're kind of like a "gamey" shitake mushroom) so I follow it up with an orange soda chaser. :)

I'm going to eventually relocate to the PNW for easy access to shrooms as azurecens is ubiquitous there, and there is over a dozen other psilocybe species which grow throughout the area. Here we have only six species, they're not terribly common, and they're oyster/shelf-shaped varieties which look very similar to poisonous species so you need to take it very slow, making a spore print and bruise them and inspect them for a membrane before consumption (the first two characteristics is nearly 100% guarantee it's a psilocybe species and therefore edible, the latter you should still check for insurance because there may be a non-psilocybe, toxic species which drops purple-brown spores and bruises blue which hasn't been identified yet). When I move to the PNW I will probably collect a bunch and will have rhododendron or other laurel species shrubbery with a dress bark apron to encourage azurecens grow in my yard since they are a wood-loving species and are symbiotic with laurel-family trees.

I bring one of Paul Stamets' field guides with me ( ) when I go foraging for visual identification then I do the additional tests to verify. :)

I wish I had known about this property of these fungi sooner - I've lost months of my life bedridden with these agonizing headaches and could have cured them just going out for a walk in the woods. I believed the propaganda about these wonderful species, and believed the lies about cannabis. The government did a huge disservice to The People by pandering to logging and pharmaceutical lobbyists. The stoners were right all along. :-(

u/smartyhands2099 · 3 pointsr/shrooms

Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World by Paul Stamets.

I cannot recommend this enough. All identification features are explained in length, and there are pictures of many, many different psilocybes all over the world. It is not exactly about homegrowing, but a fantastic resource for learning about the amazing genus Psilocybe, and our friends psilocybin, psilocin, and baeocystin. It's a little technical, but it will give you the background to understand many issues faced by growers.

u/Trashington · 3 pointsr/shrooms

Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide

u/psillow · 3 pointsr/shrooms

By far the best, hands down:

There's a bit of a learning curve to learn the lingo, and you may need a microscope to differentiate certain species in your area, but it will get you closer than most other resources.

u/pythoncrush · 3 pointsr/PsilocybinMushrooms

Available on Amazon. The ereader versions pay the content creators nearly nothing so I suggest getting the physical book as the author gets the best royalty this way. Need the wonderful kind intelligent fungi evangelist Paul Stamets to get his. For this book there are two paperback types as the only formats.

u/caltrain208 · 3 pointsr/Psychedelics

People will forage for as long as mushrooms continue to grow in the wild. You could probably order them too through the dark net, but I’d be more inclined to order 4-aco-DMT personally. You can also grow them yourself at home. For the record I live in Oakland and have no clue where to buy mushrooms so I wouldn’t suggest coming here for that purpose.

u/EvanYork · 3 pointsr/Conservative

If you really believe that conservatives aren't biased you're really only giving evidence that conservatives aren't any less biased then anyone else. But, since you asked, here's a well-known book on the topic. I don't endorse the book or the slant it uses to discuss the issue, but it's the most famous popular work on the topic and sources a whole wealth of science to support the fact that everyone has cognitive biases.

The most important concept here isn't that conservatives are biased or that liberals are biased, it's that the difference between liberal and conservative is essentially the difference between two different sets of cognitive bias.

u/Random_Thoughts_Gen · 3 pointsr/politics

Saved you a click: Emmett Rensin

Try this one instead: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality

u/DigitalPsych · 3 pointsr/atheism
u/josefjohann · 3 pointsr/IAmA

The question isn't whether or not they have both, which they certainly do, so much as it is the proportions they occupy in their respective bubbles of conversation.

Also I'm drawing from themes from Chris Mooney's Republican Brain, which I think is a decent starting point for a lot of summarized research on the matter.

u/antonivs · 3 pointsr/atheism

On the subject of evolution, there certainly are answers. Even better, they're all conveniently collected in a single very accessible book. For less than 20 bucks, you can remedy your ignorance - a huge bargain, and a win for humanity!

Edit: or if you don't want to invest money in your education, you could just watch Why do people laugh at creationists?, which explains how macroevolution arises from microevolution.

u/ScottyDelicious · 3 pointsr/atheism

I have read all of Professor Dawkins' books, and The Greatest Show on Earth is, without question, his finest masterpiece and quite possibly the best explanation of evolution that any jackoff like myself can understand.

u/ABTechie · 3 pointsr/atheism

Religion or theistic religion? I will give you some short answers then discuss my question.

  1. Check out The Greatest Show on Earth.
  2. I believe humans have instincts and they have led us to different cultures with different morals. We get our morals from our instincts, culture, parents, friends and possibly from ideas we get from books and movies.
  3. Don't know. Don't care. See if National Geographic has an article on it.
  4. I am not knowledgeable enough to know how his teachings relate to other teachings at the time. However, if you carefully read the Gospels, you will see that he has some good ideas but he is generally not somebody you would like, like to listen or follow. Christians believe in their communities which are centered around "Jesus". Their morals are not like Jesus who was a Jew who said that people should follow the Jewish law.
  5. I see no evidence for a supreme deity who cares about or doesn't care about us. Scientifically, God is a label for things people don't understand so they can have comfort in their ignorance. "God did it." "God only knows."
  6. Our soul is our state of mind which is dependent on the physical laws of this universe.
  7. Just your brain being a brain in an abnormal state of being. It is no more real than a dream.

  8. "demon possession" - Did you see a demon or did you see a person, who believes in demons, rolling around making noises?
    "healings" - Did you see an amputee or burn victim get healed? Did you know the healed person before the healing and did you do a follow up of the person a week, a month or a year later?
    "probably was just a coincidence" - How can we tell when things are or are not coincidences? Coincidences happen.
    "spoken in tounges" - What did it mean? Had you seen people doing it before? Were you just mimicking people you had seen before?
    What was the education level of the people who had the experiences? What was the general education level of the people who made up the culture where these experiences happen? Do you think these experiences happen as often in well-educated people?

    Now to the religion question. I am for getting rid of theistic religion. Belief in a deity that dictates morality is poison to society. The certainty of an infallible being creates a lot a fear, hate, guilt, shame, willful ignorance and false expectations. Truly, a lot of unnecessary pain.

    Religion, on the other hand, can be fine. The problem is being able listen to criticism and being willing to change to new information. Having a set of principles and guidelines to give you direction in life is good. Being willfully ignorant and trying to force your ideology on the world is not good. Pick and choose good morals from where you see them.
u/Sir_Wobblecoque · 3 pointsr/science

Yup, that's a great book. (For those who don't read, there's the audiobook, read by the author.)

One thing I took away from it was that fossil evidence is superfluous at this point. It fully supports evolution theory of course, but it's a bonus, and even without it "the evidence for evolution would be entirely secure".

That's from the chapter that discusses the fossil record. The rest of the book is about all the other evidence.

u/ChemicalSerenity · 3 pointsr/atheism

That was nearly incoherent, and betrays at the very least a deep misunderstanding of what Darwin's theory of Evolution by process of Natural Selection is.

Strongly recommend getting and reading The Greatest Show on Earth. It'll give you a more-or-less up to date perspective on the breadth of evidence in support of evolution.

You might also be interested in Intelligent Design on Trial, wherein it was revealed that "Intelligent Design" is merely papered-over creationism with the same lack of evidence to support its assertions, and how it was demolished pretty conclusively in the courts - presided over by a Bush-appointed religious conservative judge who was completely convinced by the end of the trial.

u/jello_aka_aron · 3 pointsr/atheism

Let me copy something I wrote in another thread about someone asking what to read about:

Personally, I just finished 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Dawkins a bit ago. It was pretty stunning even as someone who's never really been of the faithful. Only recently have I really started doing outside reading on these sorts of topics (as a kid the baptist tradition of the south where I live failed the 'looks like bullshit, smell like bullshit, probably bullshit' test for me and I just sort of disregarded the whole thing for the next 20 years or so) so I'm also fairly new to the ballgame in that sense. I've always believed in evolution as the origin of life on this planet but it was pretty amazing the enormity of evidence we now have supporting it, particularly with the advent of modern molecular biology and DNA sequencing. Our knowledge absolutely dwarfs the vague and semi-hand-wavy feel of the old 'we have some bones and radioactive dating stuff' that was glossed over in my education even at a college level 15 years ago.

If you really want to know about the evidence for evolution that books covers it, for the layman, in about as much detail as one could ask for. It is Dawkins, so there's no kid-gloves here and you will get the occasional "Only someone being willfully stupid could ignore all this evidence" type stuff, but the focus is pretty firmly on simply laying out the huge piles of evidence across many different areas of science all supporting common ancestry and evolution by natural selection.

u/N8theGr8 · 3 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Former Young Earther here. The best thing you can do is read and learn. is a pretty good site.

Another good source is The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

Figure out some of the more common creationist claims, as well. Read some about geology, astronomy, cosmology. It'll take a while, but the more you know, the more intelligible you'll be, and the better able you'll be to string ideas together when asked.

u/dwaxe · 3 pointsr/atheism

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is an extremely well written introduction to the evidence for evolution.

u/Dem0s · 3 pointsr/atheism

I would suggest Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder as a good starting point and maybe move on to The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, but that is just one author. He can be a little condescending to the faithful at times and call them "history deniers" but the second one is pure science and only just touches on religion.

u/gipp · 3 pointsr/askscience

I'm assuming you're looking for things geared toward a layman audience, and not textbooks. Here's a few of my personal favorites:


Cosmos: You probably know what this is. If not, it is at once a history of science, an overview of the major paradigms of scientific investigation (with some considerable detail), and a discussion of the role of science in the development of human society and the role of humanity in the larger cosmos.

Pale Blue Dot: Similar themes, but with a more specifically astronomical focus.


The Greatest Show on Earth: Dawkins steers (mostly) clear of religious talk here, and sticks to what he really does best: lays out the ideas behind evolution in a manner that is easily digestible, but also highly detailed with a plethora of real-world evidence, and convincing to anyone with even a modicum of willingness to listen.


Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid: It seems like I find myself recommending this book at least once a month, but it really does deserve it. It not only lays out an excruciatingly complex argument (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) in as accessible a way as can be imagined, and explores its consequences in mathematics, computer science, and neuroscience, but is also probably the most entertainingly and clearly written work of non-fiction I've ever encountered.


The Feynman Lectures on Physics: It's everything. Probably the most detailed discussion of physics concepts that you'll find on this list.


Connections: Not exactly what you were asking for, but I love it, so you might too. James Burke traces the history of a dozen or so modern inventions, from ancient times all the way up to the present. Focuses on the unpredictability of technological advancement, and how new developments in one area often unlock advancements in a seemingly separate discipline. There is also a documentary series that goes along with it, which I'd probably recommend over the book. James Burke is a tremendously charismatic narrator and it's one of the best few documentary series I've ever watched. It's available semi-officially on Youtube.

u/atheistcoffee · 3 pointsr/atheism

Congratulations! I know what a big step that is, as I've been in the same boat. Books are the best way to become informed. Check out books by:

u/mausphart · 3 pointsr/askscience

I really enjoyed reading The Age of Wonder by Richard Holmes.

Also Thunderstruck by Erik Larson.

Both of these books are fantastic nonfiction accounts of the history of scientific discovery.

On the biology side, anything by Dawkins is a good choice. I recommend The Greatest Show on Earth

My gateway drug was The Panda's Thumb by Stephen Jay Gould

u/UncleRoger · 3 pointsr/atheism

That's not really a relevant question. You're implying that because we can't find proof of god, we don't need proof? But because we have tons of proof of evolution, you require that each and every one of us (accountants, programmers, carpenters, etc.) have a detailed knowledge of it before you'll believe it?

Again, you're saying there's no proof of god -- indeed, there can't be -- and yet you're willing to believe in god wholeheartedly. Meanwhile, you won't believe in evolution without absolute proof (and, I'll go out on a limb and guess that you want a couple of simple sentences you can understand without having to do a whole lot of book learnin'. You're not willing to put in even the minimal effort it takes to gain a basic understanding of evolution.)

Basically, nobody believes in evolution; you either understand it or you're an idiot.

I suggest picking up a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth and reading it.

u/Gargilius · 3 pointsr/atheism

The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins.

u/Blueskittle101 · 2 pointsr/JulyBumpers2017

Hmmm let me get back to you about epigenetics reading in particular, but if it's piqued your interest in genetics as a whole I can recommend things like The Gene and Genome as a start

u/phatbase · 2 pointsr/funny

I remember reading a book where the author was really pissed off about this punctuation inside quotes rule and explained that he was breaking it for the sake of common sense. I think it's the book Genome

u/scarydinosaur · 2 pointsr/atheism

Many things can be explained better with evolution. Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense, and that means it's veracity is tested by current and emerging evidence. If it didn't have the explanatory power for most of the evidence then it wouldn't be so popular. So it certainly doesn't explain everything, it just explains the data we have so far. There are countless things we simply don't know yet.

If you're open to understanding the core aspects of Evolution, please read:

Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Why Evolution Is True

As for freewill, it depends on the atheist. Some believe in free will, while others don't think we actually posses it.

u/Guizkane · 2 pointsr/genetics

Yeah, I'm thinking about specializing in industrial property, that's the closest you can get I think. When I finish law school I'm planning on applying to an LLM in Law and Technology in Stanford University, here's their Law and Biosciences Center

You should read this, it's perfect for starters and really cool and after your read Next, you'll find Patent Law even more awesome!

u/10per · 2 pointsr/23andme

I read Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters about a year ago. As soon as I finished I went to 23andme because I was so interested in the topic after reading the book.

u/neveaire · 2 pointsr/science

I thought Genome by Matt Ridley was a pretty good book for the uninitiated.

But this wiki sounds much more promising. I think there are a variety of open source textbooks out there.

u/Kowzorz · 2 pointsr/biology

Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley was one of the best intro books on genes I've read and gives a huge framework for all of the concepts of evolution to act upon.

u/haribofiend · 2 pointsr/psychology

I think one of the major reasons for missing data here is because there's so many different ways to measure intelligence.

A book by Matt Ridley (Genome, The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters) explores the area a little bit. It's a bit dated but the logic still applies.

Humans, statistically, measure intelligence via IQ. Why? I dunno.

In the study he cited, genetic traits were not the only influencer on IQ test results. Even IF someone scored lower on an IQ test, that does not mean they are not of high intelligence in some other aspect.

For instance, having an IQ may correlate with a vast knowledge of history but may have nothing to do with an individual's ability to bake (baking... sigh.... hard).

I'd recommend reading the chapter on Intelligence and genes. It was insightful and a potentially good starting point.

u/WorkingMouse · 2 pointsr/Christianity

>Not familiar as I probably ought to be. I know that there were other homo species -possibly at the same time as humans. I think I heard something about interbreeding at some point, but maybe that was just speculation?

To be honest, I'm not exactly an expert on the specifics. However, Wikipedia provides as always - If the article and the numerous citations are to be believed, they're considered separate species as mitochondria genetic data (that I could explain further if you like) shows little significant breeding. However, there is indeed some evidence of limited interbreeding.

>This is fascinating stuff!

I'm glad you like it!

>To clarify: do all the primates share the same mutation which is different from the mutation in other creatures, ex. guinea pigs?'

Precisely! Mind you, I believe there are a few changes which have accumulated since divergence (since if they don't need the gene once it's "off", further mutations won't be selected against), but the crucial changes are indeed the same within primates - and those within guinea pigs are the same within guinea pigs and their nearby relatives (I believe), but different from those from simians. Amusingly, because mutations occur at a generally steady rate, the number of further divergences between the pseudogenes (no-longer-functional genes which resemble working copies in other organisms) in different species will give hints at how long ago those species had a common ancestor (this, and related calculations, are termed the "genetic clock").

Nifty, isn't it?

>I guess I don't see why it would be demeaning to be patterned after other homo species which were adapted to the environment we would inhabit. Maybe I'm way off here, but it seems like the case for common ancestry could also point to a common creator. (obviously it is outside the bounds of science to consider that possibility, but philosophically, it might have merit?)

I have indeed heard that before; the suggestion of a common creator as opposed to common descent is a fairly common suggestion, pardon the pun. The typical arguments against fall first to traits which can be considered "poor design" in pure engineering terms, even if they're traits that are now needed. I can point to the genetic baggage of the human eye compared to that of the cephelopod (nerve fibers over vs. under the retina), or the human back (not great for walking upright), or further traits along those lines which suggest that we're still closer to our origins. Indeed, we can also look at things like the pseudogene involved with vitamin C above as unnecessary addons; genetic artifacts which hint at our descent.

While this additional argument, I will grant, is better at addressing general creation then special human creation, we can also look at repeated motifs. For example, the same bones that form our hand also form a bird's wing, a whale's flipper, a dog's paw, a horse's hoof, and all the other mammalian, reptile, and avian forelimbs - though sometimes you need to go to the embryo before you see the similarity. When taken alone, that may suggest either evolution or design; it would make sense for a creator to reuse traits. It becomes more stark when you consider examples that should be similar - for example, the wings of the bat, bird, and pterodactyl, despite using the same bones, have vastly different structures, despite all being used for the same purpose (that is, flight).

The way that my evolutionary biology professor phrased this is that "design can explain this, but cannot predict it; evolution both explains and predicts." This idea - that natural observations may be explained or excused (begging your pardon) in a creation model, but are what are expected from an evolutionary model - is the major point I wish to make in this regard. And, I shall admit, perhaps as close as I can get to "disproving" special creation; it tends to approach unfalsifiability, if I understand it correctly.

>If I recall correctly, this is the position of Francis Collins / BioLogos. It's possible, but I have a few concerns. The first being that I think animals do have souls. If that's correct, ensoulment doesn't help make sense of the theology.

Yup; ensoulment as special is less compatible in that case.

>It would also mean that (at least at some point) there were other creatures who were genetically equal to human beings, but didn't have souls. Cue slave trade and nazi propaganda -they're human, but they aren't people. It would have been possible (probable?) that ensouled humans would breed with the soulless humans -and that just seems . . . squicky.

Point taken; even if you were to claim ensoulment for all humans existing at a specific point and thereafter, there can be...negative connotations.

>So, for now, it's a possibility, but it seems to be more problematic than special creation.

To be perfectly frank, I'm not really equipped to argue otherwise. As an atheist, my tendency is to end up arguing against ensoulment, as it's not something we can really draw a line at either. Still, I figured I'd put it out there; I'm a little delighted at your dissection of it honestly, as you brought up things I'd not yet considered.

>Like I said, the genetics is fascinating, and I am naive to much of it. Short of becoming a geneticist, could you recommend a good book on the subject of human genetics and common descent? I took basic genetics in college, so I was able to follow the discussion about chromosomes, telomeres, etc. But I would like to know more about the discoveries that have been made.

Oooh, that's a rough question. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful question, but I rarely read books aimed at laymen dealing with my specialty; most of my information comes from text books, papers, and profs, if you take my meaning. Which in the end is a way for me to provide my disclaimer: I can provide recommendations, but I've generally not read them myself; sorry.

Having said that, I'm not about to discourage your curiosity - indeed, I cannot laud it highly enough! - and so I shall do what I can:

  • Why Evolution is True is the one I generally hear the best things about; due to the possible audience, it is partially written as a refutation of intelligent design, but it also gives a lovely primer on evolutionary science - and compared to some of Dawkins's texts, it's more focused on the evidence.
  • I have a copy of Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters on my bedside table right now - largely unread, I'm afraid. Basically, it takes a peek at one gene from each of our chromosomes and explores its relevance and its evolutionary history. It's by no means comprehensive; we have hundreds of thousands of genes, and it looks at twenty-three. None the less, It's been an interesting read thus far.
  • Similarly, Your Inner Fish explores the human form, and where it comes from; it looks at various structures in the human body and draws evolutionary parallels; this one is more heavily focused on common descent in relation to humans.

    I think I'll hold off there for the moment. The latter two are focused more on humans, while the former is about evolution in general. I'm sure there are more books I could recommend - Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth has been lauded, for example. I tried to stick with texts which were at a slightly higher level, not merely addressing the basics but delving a little deeper, as you noted you have a measure of familiarity already, and those which were related to humans. I hope they help!

    It's not an alternative to books, but Wikipedia does have a fair article on the topic (which I linked near the very top as well). And believe it or not, I do enjoy this sort of thing; you are more then welcome to ask more questions if and when they occur to you.
u/Ho66es · 2 pointsr/books
u/2SP00KY4ME · 2 pointsr/biology

Does she like to read? There's lots of really good everyday reading genetics books, like this or this for example.

u/MRItopMD · 2 pointsr/math

I'll just add here.

It seems intimidating at first. But it builds up just like math.

Personally, I really recommend Cambell's Biology as an introductory text. It is really great to start with. It explains things well, and maintains simplicity in explanations without sacrificing complexity at your level.

There is a big difference in how one studies biology vs mathematics. Mathematics is pretty much all problems, and thinking about those problems and concepts. Biology you generally don't have access to huge problem sets. You're lucky to find 30 multiple choice problems/chapter. It is mainly thinking about concepts in depth, over and over again critically, and memorizing details.

There are many ways of memorizing. The classic way many undergrads will do initially just memorize words. I think the best way is active learning. Ex: understanding exactly why things pass through the phospholipid bilayer and the various mechanisms they do(passive diffusion, primary and secondary active transport etc.) will allow you to predict whether things will pass through or not. I remember in my undergraduate cell biology class. My professor would mention an random molecule. Then we'd have to predict based on chemical structure if it would go through or not.

In biology things repeat themselves over and over again.

If you want to get into neuroscience texts. I'd recommend just getting through cambell's biology, and preferably a basic knowledge of chemistry as well. This will allow you to critically think about biology better. Truthfully, it is hard to truly understand why things happen unless you take organic chem and biochem. however you aren't trying to be a biologist or physician. So you can go as far as you feel you need to go.

If you need help I am a doctor and biomedical engineer. So I can certainly provide some assistance.

In biology, general study methods are...

Compare and Contrast Similar and Disimilar topics. You get a better conceptual understanding between hemidesmosomes, desomosomes, gap junctions, tight junctions and all of these cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions by comparing and contrast

Understand the chemistry behind why something happens. This may not make sense now, but if you know where ATP and ADP+Pi cycles occur in kinesins and dyneins, you will understand why each is attracted to opposinmg electrochemical polarities.

Learn words as images. When someone saids something like axon hillock, a picture should pop into your head. It makes it much easier to learn things if you visualize it in biology.

Biology is probably one of the few areas of science where things are ALWAYS changing. What we knew 5 years ago may not be the same today. So getting an up to date textbook is important. If it is older than like 3-4 years, it is probably not worth getting with some exceptions.
Here are some texts I recommend

Basic Biology:


-I think this text is probably the best for you to start with since you have a mathematics background and the book takes a mathematics/physics approach to biology rather than a biology approach to physics/math. So you may enjoy this to start. Read the comments and evaluate yourself I suppose.

Cell Biology:

-Everyone has different preferences for cell biology texts. It is such an up and coming field that there really is no best text. Personally this is one of my favorites. The images are beautiful, the explanations are as fantastic as they are going to be. This is a heavy duty text and is probably a sophomore/junior biology text. So don't go through this before Campbell. It also takes an experimental approach. Read them. Experiments in biology are like proofs in math. It's important to understand how we discovered something.


This is my favorite. I have it on my shelf right now. Great reference for me as a physician if I need to review some neuro concept I have forgotten. A lot of my neurosurgery/neurology colleagues swear by it.


This is my favorite as a sole neuroanatomy text. however Netter's Anatomy is my absolute favorite anatomical text, the pictures are gorgeous especially neuroanatomy. however for someone like you, a dedicated neuroanatomy text may or may not be necessary. It is generally a text intended for clinicians, however anatomy is anatomy lol.

I hope I offered some resources to get you started!

u/slthomp2 · 2 pointsr/neuroscience

This is a pretty good book, also written for undergrads with only a basic bio background.

u/chrisvacc · 2 pointsr/neuro

I found the MOOC.

I’m fine reading textbooks, it’s this one?

I just usually read on my iPad so im glad there’s a digital version.

I’m particularly interested in mood, behavior, motivation, so maybe after I check out the textbook and course I’ll have a better idea of what to look for in terms of specifics.

Thanks so much for the info!!

u/pushbak · 2 pointsr/neuro

I got a specialty in neuroengineering coursewise as a masters (it was still biomedical engineering). I took an Applied Electrophysiology class that I thought was very good. Most of our neuroscience classes and engineering classes lended from this Principles of Neural Science book.
The applied electrophys class also used an Applied Bioelectricity text.

We also has a pretty comprehensive Computational Neuroengineering course that relied on this Theoretical Neuroscience text.

As far as teaching these topics goes, it's pretty specific. You might want to look into related neuroscience labs to apply some of these theories.

u/xidfogab · 2 pointsr/gifs

On of the best books I've ever read. It describes the utter amazement of the wildness and intelligence of the tigers (what I'd imagine most of humanity feeling towards large predators throughout time) and additionally fitting for the time, how the Russian mindset was going through the nineties.. I'd suggest reading Bill Browder's book right after this one for the follow up....

It's also a masterclass in writing about a flawed person ala Krakauer in the portrayal of the main character.

u/diamaunt · 2 pointsr/lgbt

how does the nurture theory explain the homosexuality documented in hundreds of other species?

edit: pick up Biological Exuberance for a thought provoking read.

u/mrzuka · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

As someone that lived in Utah valley at the age of 14-15, let me tell you that reality is very different there then Mormons anywhere else in the world. I'm sure you are familiar with the cliques that form to show how righteous they are. I really got tired of people thinking it was the most righteous place on earth. (Even more so than SLC because of the worldly influence there).

The reason why I bring this up is anyone accepting you as you are has to admit there is a flaw in Mormonism. Since one of the basic premises of Mormonism is that the prophet can not have any flaws, you must be wrong. They will try to change you to save their own faith.

I say this with the idea that you already recognize that there is a discordance between what you have been taught and your own personal reality. So let me introduce you to the concept of religion and the concept of church. For example, it is OK to be Catholic, but think the Pope is wrong. You can believe in the religion and disagree with the church, in the same way that you would not worship the UPS man for delivering you something you really wanted.

(As a side note, there will be people that tell you that you are not natural, and your feelings are not natural. The perfect rebuttal is to mention that the rate of the population that show homosexual tendencies is 1.5% to 3% across all mammals. Here is the reference Mormonism says animals can not sin - therefore being gay can not be a sin.)

tl;dr God created gay animals, therefore you're normal, Utah Valley isn't

u/kuroguma · 2 pointsr/YoungerAndOlderMen

Homosexuality is well documented and been known for a long time (source: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions (Paperback)) ).

The problem is (and I speak on both sides of the political spectrum) people only care about the statistics that support what they already want to believe.

u/ziddina · 2 pointsr/exjw
u/OliverSparrow · 2 pointsr/WTF

There are virtually no attributes of humans that are not shared to some degree with animals, which is unsurprising since humans are animals. I have no idea whether human homosexuality is one thing or many, but as exhaustive studies have shown, it's a trait shared by animals. See Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity . It's thought that having non-reproductive males in a group assists its survival, and those males pass on their genes by proxy, as they are near relations with other other members of the group.

u/Rather_Unfortunate · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

Actually, homosexuality absolutely is natural. It's not a matter of politics, and hasn't been for a long time. It is a fact.

Homosexual behaviour is documented in hundreds of animal species, including guinea pigs (my own pets actually did this... or at least, one did it to the other), bonobos, several species of dolphin (who fuck each others' blowholes), hedgehogs, penguins, ducks, sheep, cassowaries, sunfish, char, salmon, etc. I could go on for a long time and mention animals you've never even heard of.

There's actually a delightful book on the subject that I'd recommend to anyone with a slightly unhealthy interest in it. It even has lovingly-drawn illustrations of lesbian hedgehog cunnilingus!

u/PixelWrangler · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Homosexuality has been observed in over 450 animal species. Homophobia has only been observed in 1. So tell me now, which is more unnatural?

Your reaction is totally normal. Pretty much everyone in the LGBT world has gone through a period of self-loathing. Society tells us we're worthless, but those claims are based on fear and ignorance. All evidence points to the fact that our sexuality is innate... and there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with you! Don't beat yourself up for your mere capacity to love someone of the same sex. If there's anything the world needs more of -- it's love!

Have patience, LOSTnhope! There are lots of us out here rooting for you in your long, tough road of self-discovery. hugs

u/keatsandyeats · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Have you even read the article? If you think that torturing animals isn't a sin, be my guest to use the Bible to back it up. Either you don't understand what factory farming is, or you don't understand what the Bible says about our responsibility to creation. So allow me to "back this up."

u/Red-Pine · 2 pointsr/vegan

Right wing vegan reporting in.

There's more conservative animal rights advocates then you think. Matthew Scully, former speech writer for George Bush is just one example.

u/VegJimable · 2 pointsr/vegan

I'd highly recommend Matthew Scully's book. He's an evangelical Christian and has worked as a speech writer for George W. Bush & Sarah Palin.

u/StillCalmness · 2 pointsr/vegan

Maybe you could get her to read Dominion by Matthew Scully. It's written for a conservative Christian audience. Here's a good article by him:

And there's the Christian Vegetarian Association's FAQ section:

u/C12H23 · 2 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

I don't exactly have time to make a detailed post right now, but I recommend grabbing a copy of The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. It covers this exact subject.

u/undercurrents · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Any book by Mary Roach- her books are hilarious, random, and informative. I like Jon Krakauer's, Sarah Vowell's, and Bill Bryson's books as well.

Some of my favorites that I can think of offhand (as another poster mentioned, I loved Devil in the White City)

No Picnic on Mount Kenya

Guns, Germs, and Steel


The Closing of the Western Mind

What is the What

A Long Way Gone

Alliance of Enemies

The Lucifer Effect

The World Without Us

What the Dog Saw

The God Delusion (you'd probably enjoy Richard Dawkins' other books as well if you like science)

One Down, One Dead

Lust for Life

Lost in Shangri-La


True Story

Havana Nocturne

u/mackstann · 2 pointsr/environment

A very cool book that is similar in style to this article is The World Without Us.

u/32ndghost · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Right, let's expand and destroy the life support eco-systems we depend on in order to... survive?

A much saner strategy would be:

a) limit human encroachment on the natural world by setting aside ecologically viable areas that we are not allowed to touch/enter. 20% of the world, 50%, 90%? pick a number, maybe start low and as time goes on add to it. Beautiful things happen when mankind gets out of the way - see [The World Without Us]
( by Alan Weisman. This would decouple our civilization's fate from that of the natural world's. Aren't you glad the Romans didn't take out 90% of exisiting wild species when their society collapsed? Their preindustrial technology wasn't up to the task, but ours certainly is.

b) realize that an economic system that requires exponential growth on a finite planet is madness, and move towards a sustainable, steady-state system. Western economic theory is rooted in a period when Europeans were colonizing the world and unlocking vast, seemingly limitless, areas of undeveloped land and resources. There are no more frontiers of unexplored natural wealth to unlock to kick the can down the road a little longer, we desperately need a system that works with what we can sustainably harvest today.

u/transprog · 2 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion
u/PhiloHunter · 2 pointsr/ZombieSurvivalTactics

I think maybe the book "The World without us" might be what yoyr looking for:

Its a really interesting read but can be a bit dry at times. I know one of the "learning channels" did a miniseries based on it, but i can't remember what it was called.

-edit cause i can't type for shit on my phone-

u/Rexutu · 2 pointsr/masseffect

If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend The World Without Us by Alan Weisman.

u/BreckensMama · 2 pointsr/ifyoulikeblank

Late to the game, but people always need more books...

The World Without Us was great, really interesting read about humanity's effects on the planet, with lots of references to expand on if you wanted to do that.

A Year of Living Biblically was interesting, even if you aren't a Christian or a Jew, if you find religion interesting.

And last but not least, Rocket Boys by Homer H. Hickam. This was made into the movie 'October Sky', and it's a memoir, one of the best I've ever read. But all the science of the rockets is in there too, I learned a lot about propellants and DeLavalle nozzles lol.

u/dagens24 · 2 pointsr/thelastofus

[This book inspired a lot of the world of The Last of Us. It's a great read.] (

u/seattlejc · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

I couldn't speak to the quality of the science but it all seemed pretty plausible to me. I believe it was based on (and an expansion of) the book "The World Without Us".

u/MrApophenia · 2 pointsr/books

If you like that style, I really recommend Last Chance to See which is Adams writing nonfiction in that same rambling but immensely entertaining style, in which he traveled around the world to see a bunch of near-extinct animals while they still exist.

u/imperfect5th · 2 pointsr/pics

That's too bad. There's a chapter about them in Douglas Adams' (Author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) book Last Chance to See. It's actually a really good read, if you liked his other works I would definitely recommend taking a week and reading this.

u/lauralately · 2 pointsr/gifs

I can't believe this sub exists and I didn't know about it. I have a dancing rescue parrot of my own. Thanks, random redditor - have an upvote!

Also, the species of head-humping bird in that gif is really fascinating. Here's "Hitchhiker's Guide" author Douglas Adams' book about themm. The co-author of the book is the guy whose head the bird is humping in that gif.

u/MinervaDreaming · 2 pointsr/science

Make sure to read his book, "Last Chance to See".

u/mopsockets · 2 pointsr/shroomery

Buy an Audobon myco id book and look for deadly/noxious lookalikes in your area. Do a spore print if it's not too dry yet. Check the book for other info. Don't (don't) ask the internet if you should eat something. It's very dangerous!

u/baltimorosity · 2 pointsr/baltimore

These could be false morels, though I hope they aren't and you can eat a yummy meal. I would check them out on multiple sites and make a shroomery account. Also, if you plan to hunt often, Mushrooms Demystified and the Audubon Society's Mushroom Field Guide are both very necessary guides.

u/PennsForest · 2 pointsr/foraging

I'm in Eastern PA, and went to PSU Upark. I prefer the Audubon society guides, they tend to have everything that's not rare that I encounter. It worked for me up in State College and is still great here in Berks county. Also it's not heavy and it's always in my backpack.

u/Techi-C · 2 pointsr/foraging

This is the one I use. It’s pretty complete and not too expensive.

National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mushrooms (National Audubon Society Field Guides)

u/CalvinOnce · 2 pointsr/mycology

Mushrooms Demystified is a great reference but when i'm out in the woods I like something a little less brick-like. NAS Field Guide is my constant companion when I venture off into the trees.

u/fomentarius · 2 pointsr/mycology

Look into local chapters of the mycological society or mushroom hunting groups/clubs in your area. This site lists a few options. Looks like the one in Albion may be near-ish to you.

I've also found many of the links in the sidebar helpful, especially mushroom observer and the mushroom hunting and identification forum on The Shroomery. The Shroomery's ID forum is where I go to confirm my suspected ID's after keying out specimens on my own.

I use Mushrooms Demystified, by David Arora, as a my post collection ID book. It's both huge and dated (i think it's latest edition is from the early or mid 80's) so it's functionality as a field guide or the final word in ID is lacking. Even so, it is good to learn to work through dichotomous keys like the ones that it employs and it usually gets you headed in the right direction. Other guides like Rogers Mushrooms, All the Rain Promises and More, and The National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mushrooms are good resources, too (I'm sure other folks can add to this list, I'm just dropping the names that first come to mind).

As much as I clash with some of his professional/ethical decisions, Paul Stamets has contributed a ton to the accessibility of Mycology to the masses. Check out Mycelium Running and Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms as introductions to the Fifth Kingdom.

I'm also really enjoying Tradd Cotter's new book, Organic Mushroom Farming and Mycoremediation

Fungi for the People and The Radical Mycology Collective have also been hugely influential in my personal growth as an amateur mycologist. If you ever get a chance to attend any of their events, I would recommend doing it.

Best of luck and enjoy your journey!

u/WaywardWoodsman · 2 pointsr/Survival

Howdy, I’m originally from near Wausau!

Honestly, the DNR has good (and free) materials they’ll send you for tracks, though there aren’t to many tracks to figure out.

As for a book, I don’t know if you’re gonna find an all-in-one book that is comprehensive enough to be safe, but if you’re looking for a guide to edible plants look no further!

It doesn’t just cover your local area, unfortunately, but it gives you a lot of information at your finger tips. I wouldn’t expect you to grab the book and be able to immediately determine what something is, but it’s probably the best you’ll find in that department. Remember, if you do take a guide out, practice practice practice and eventually you’ll be able to go “Oh look! Allium! Ah, blue lettuce! Etc.” it’s not an overnight thing. Also, always err to the side of caution. If you aren’t 100%, be very very very careful.

u/goatasplosion · 2 pointsr/foraging

Found this online:

And this article:

I can definitely relate, I've had to learn on my own. Practice! Go out into the wild and start identifying. Eventually you can get really good at it by yourself. I hope you find someone though!

u/digdog303 · 2 pointsr/Survival

I have a couple of the peterson field guides which are awesome. This one and this one are great. I also have one of the samuel thayer books. He's freakin hilarious! Ancestral plants is also pretty interesting but it goes into more detail about less plants compared to the other books. These books are specific to my region(mid-atlantic/new england) but I know there are peterson guides for and other areas.

u/marciedog11 · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

For science!! :D
A field guide to edible wild plants. As a field ecologist, this would be SO useful. on my wishlist ^^

For art!! Ostart 18 Sizes 16'' (40cm) Circular Bamboo Knitting Needles Set Kit (2.0mm - 10.0mm), on my wishlist ^
Time to start knitting hats for Christmas presents (I remind myself of Hermione Granger SO much sometimes)

u/garbage-person · 2 pointsr/C_S_T

Books like this one and this one are where I began my journey to the plant life.

u/snowmantackler · 2 pointsr/foraging

The book I used to get me started was Petersons Field Guide for Wild Edible Plants found here

u/WillowLeaf · 2 pointsr/Frugal

Mullberries just started getting ripe in my area. I have also used wild grape leaves to make stuffed grape leaves, but other than that I don't know too much about wild foraging. I recently treated myself and bought this book: A Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants: Eastern and central North America which has been a cool read so far :P

u/readuponthat24 · 2 pointsr/foraging

buy a good field guide for your area and use "google lens" for more distinct looking plants and fungi. I am fairly new to foraging and have learned a few things that I can share. Nothing in this world will be as useful as going into the woods with someone else who knows what they are doing and what to look for. Your local area likely has some special things to look for and some things to look out for and a local guide will be well versed in those. Next is be curious about everything but don't overwhelm yourself either, concentrate on identifying a few things at a time and learn exactly what to look for in identifying/differentiating that particular plant/fungus. Be careful and have fun.

Here is the book I like to bring with me into the woods in the northeast:

Edible Wild Plants: Eastern/Central North America (Peterson Field Guides) Paperback – September 1, 1999

u/gcanyon · 2 pointsr/CGPGrey

For an interesting take on this, consider Bicameralism

Or read Julian Jaynes's book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

TL;DR: Jaynes proposes that until about 3,000 years ago the halves of our minds operated more independently, and that the right hemisphere is the origin of many instances of "gods" speaking to us, oracles, and other similar phenomena. He cites literature of the time as evidence, and says that somehow (changing software) our minds have become more unified since then.

u/alcalde · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

> It's a myth comemorating the emergence of consciousness and explained by
>primitive humans in the only terms they could grasp at the time.

Why would primitive humans believe there was a time before consciousness? Isn't this the left-field theory of one particular scientist anyway?

Edit: Here we go, Julian Jaynes:

u/drteethhead · 2 pointsr/IAmA

there is a book that suggests just this. good read.

u/oracle235 · 2 pointsr/askscience

Look into the Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.

u/spw1 · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

You can't give yourself epilepsy with a mind-bending meditation.

I had an accidental experience a couple of years ago that came out of some intense soul-searching brought on by life circumstances. In the immediate aftermath, it felt like two disjoint parts of 'myself' had integrated--were able to see and know each other and, for the first time in my life, be at peace with each other.

I recommend reading The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes. His theory is basically that consciousness develops with the integration of the two hemispheres. But this description does not reflect the totality of the book's impact.

u/mdillenbeck · 2 pointsr/boardgames

If you like amusing in a dark way, then maybe look at Greenland and Neanderthal. In it you expand the abilities of your tribe by acquiring daughters or women - for in these games it is the females who carry the greatest impetus for innovation. In particular, Neanderthal not only allows you to add women to your tribe via an auction, but once they "mature" (are fully integrated into your tribe) then other parties can "court" them and forcibly marry the women to get the benefits your tribe enjoys. I can see how some would have difficulty with how the material is presented, especially if they forget we are discussing pre-linguistic early man and that the mechanics are heavily influenced by Julian Jaynes controversial theories... and I wouldn't call the ideas presented in the game sexists or misogynistic - but with an naive approach I could see how they are viewed like that.

Origin: How We Became Human is the older game title that encompasses more of human history and goes a bit deeper into the design choices/research materials - but when making games on human evolution you are bound to run into material that will be questionable to some people.. and Phil Eklund does not shy away from controversial viewpoints or game designs with a message - which is why I love his games. Whether I agree with the message or not, they are well thought out and inspire deep thought - unlike the Indians of Lewis & Clark which were perhaps a bad design choice. I guess in the end it is why I don't find his design choices ever offensive - they are well researched and carefully chosen mechanics that present a thesis, not something that looks cool or was whatever was cheapest or "convey an impression" of a pasted-on theme.

u/MaresEatOatsAndDoes · 2 pointsr/TooAfraidToAsk

Here's a book for you: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.

Consciousness is a recent and rare phenomenon. Fleeting moments of it are precious.

u/hocuspox · 2 pointsr/humanism

I would have to recommend some of Robert Anton Wilson's works for some interesting insight into human experience outside any particular framework. Check out Prometheus Rising.

The Holographic Universe by Grant Talbot tries to explain paranormal and religious phenomena through science, with a foot in quantum theory and the meta-physical. There are probably more recent works along these lines but this was a great introduction when quantum theory was less well known.

Also, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes makes a compelling read. In short, the human brain only recently (within 10,000 years) developed a concept of "I" and otherwise heard an internal voice, the voice of this or that god, guiding them.
Here is a wikipedia outlining the concept

Then there is always Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth with very frank discussions of common archetypes across cultures and how stories become elevated to mythic status.

u/bukvich · 2 pointsr/C_S_T

So has anybody here taken the time to read Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? Because it is a long book, although it is repetitive enough that you may only need to read a fifth of it to get 90% of its gist.

u/kidfay · 2 pointsr/atheism

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is a fascinating read about how it might have come about. I recently finished reading Consciousness Explained. It was kind of long but also interesting.

u/DavidByron · 2 pointsr/changemyview

We each know that we personally are conscious. (Cogito ergo sum)

While everyone else could be philosophical zombies (people who appear to be normal but in fact have no consciousness) common sense suggests otherwise. Although there's a theory that consciousness developed in humans within the historical period. See Julian Jaynes's The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

Interesting stuff if only to make you think about the limits of what we know.

I may not be able to reply quickly because feminist down vote brigades operate on /r/changemymind to censor people who disagree with them. This means that I cannot reply more than once per ten minutes and I may not get to you.

u/theseacoastbarony · 2 pointsr/AskAcademia

Not something I consult regularly, or really ever, but one text that I actually enjoyed immensely while reading is Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos by Steven H. Strogatz.

EDIT: I just discovered he has two other books that aren't quite texts, and one is semi-autobiographical with an element of calculus - sounds a lot like my favorite playwright, Tom Stoppard. I know what I'm buying myself for Christmas.

u/OceanBiogeochemist · 2 pointsr/visualizedmath

Yes it's a really fascinating subject! I'm doing my PhD in oceanography and work with climate simulations. Of course the climate system is quite chaotic, so the whole subject piqued my interest.

I'm fortunate that I'm taking a class in 'chaotic dynamics' currently on campus. We actually just spent a few weeks with the logistic map equation, cobweb diagrams, etc. so this was good timing.

Here's a good MOOC with videos that you'll learn a lot from:

Our course textbook is Strogatz's book on chaos which is a great resource: . I believe he also has a lectures series out on Youtube.

u/cianmscannell · 2 pointsr/math

If you would like to look at something a bit more applied then there is nothing better than Strogratz

u/LyapunovFunction · 2 pointsr/math

I made a comment in a another thread.

I second /u/ProfThrowawary17's recommendation for Strogatz and also suggest the undergrad text Hale and Kocak. Strogatz is a rare text that delivers both interesting math and well-motivated applications in a fairly accessible manner. I have not systematically read Hale and Kocak, but it also seems to provide a gentle yet rigorous introduction to ODE's from the modern dynamical systems point of view.

Like /u/dogdiarrhea, I also recommend the graduate text Hale. If you have a strong analysis background, working through Hale would be quite worthwhile. It's also a Dover publication! So if Hale doesn't work out for you in a first time reading, it would still be a useful reference later on.

u/snaftyroot · 2 pointsr/space

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, look to computational modeling of nonlinear systems, specifically the navier-stokes equations and the 4th order runge-kutta method.

Of course that requires a bunch of math and bit of programming. If you're up for it this is an excellent starting point:

u/irrational_e · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Yes! Dynamical Systems is awesome...Strogatz wrote one of the best math textbooks I've read, hopefully you'll be using it.

u/Gereshes · 2 pointsr/Physics

I'd recommend Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos by Strogatz ( <--That's an affiliate link that helps support the blog )

u/brainguy · 2 pointsr/biology

I'm going to walk through what I think is important to know about transcription by Pol II in eukaryotes; it's similar but more complex that prokaryotes and the transcriptional mechanisms of Pol I and III are much less well understood.

First we often have a TATA box ~25bp from the transcriptional start site (TSS) where the complex of TFIID (the TF's stand for transcription factor) and TATA Binding Protein (TBP) recognize an available TATA box and bind to it.

Next a bunch of other general transcription factors arrange around the TSS and they recruit and stabilize the binding of Pol II. TFIIF then catalyzes the phosphorylation of the C-Terminal Domain (CTD) tail which causes Pol II to release from the general TFs and began transcription in the 3' -> 5' direction (thus generating transcripts in 5' - 3' orientation)

  • At approximately the same time TFIIF & DNA Helicases pry open the double helix allowing Pol II to sort of just do it's thing and synthesize RNA transcripts from the DNA template.

    While the RNA transcript is being made capping proteins are recruited to add the 7-methylguanine cap to the 5' end of the new transcript (This serves to maintain stability and will later be a recognition site of proteins).

    Additionally RNA splicing also occurs (usually) before the RNA transcript is completely transcribed. A large nuclear riboprotein (complex of nuclear RNAs and protein) call the Spliceosome uses 2 trans esterification reactions to clip out the introns and link together the exons (this is another large story I would stick with knowing what I said unless you need to know a lot about RNA splicing)

    Pol II keeps elongating until it hits the stop signal in which case Pol II releases from the DNA and the RNA transcript is now ready for more precessing and then export from the nucleus.

    Once the transcript is released Poly-A polymerase (PAP) adds ~200 adenosine monophosphates to the 3' end which is important for recognition by poly-A binding proteins necessary for circularization of the transcript for translation.

    This is all taken from Alberts - I can send you a PDF of it if you'd like.

    Edit - forgot about poly adenylation
u/splutard · 2 pointsr/biology

The two canonical molecular bio texts are "Alberts" (Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts, et al) and Lodish (Molecular Cell Biology by Lodish et al).

These may not be specific enough if you want in-depth info on a particular area, but they'll get you started on just about anything you want to know.

u/Zakalve · 2 pointsr/AgingBiology

I'm coming from Molecular biology background so I can't really help you about medical textbooks but for the biological side of things I would recommend the following:

Biology of Aging: Observations and Principles by Arking - This was my textbook for the subject. It's really good, comprehensive book that covers methodology, basic principles and some more advanced.

An Introduction to Genetic Analysis by Griffiths - This was recommended for my Genetics class. Quite comprehensive and explains some basic genetic concepts really well (imo).

Molecular Biology of the Gene by Watson - Almost all the basic stuff from molecular biology you'll need. Essentially, The Book.

Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts - Cell biology, you'll need it a lot and Alberts is really good at explaining things even if it's sometimes a bit too wide.

Developmental Biology by Gilberts Developmental biology is, imo, very important and Gilberts is one of the best in the field. Definitely check it out.

There is a few more books on other subjects that are under or above this level (depending on uni this is 2nd or 3rd year of BsC) but you'll get the gist.

Considering the price of these I would recommend you to check out (feel free to pm me if you need some help). Also you might want to check out r/longevity , it has much more traffic than this sub. I hope I wasn't confusing, I just woke up and my English is not so good in the morning. :)

I'm kinda in the same boat as you. Only I'm going for PhD so if you need any help or advice feel free to pm me. :)

u/misplaced_my_pants · 2 pointsr/neuro

Well if you want to learn about cell biology in general, you can't go wrong with Alberts.

Between that and Principles and review articles, you should be golden.

u/herp_der_derp · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

There's actually a good book on Ayahuasca, by an anthropologist named Jeremy Narby, called The Cosmic Serpent. I read it a few years back, and it's pretty entertaining, as well as informative.

u/MDMA_Throw_Away · 2 pointsr/mysticism

I wanted to listen to part 2 before commenting.

I always love these dialogues. My particular fixation is with the collection of data, so this feeds my particular flavor of existence quite well.

As for content, this was my introduction to the term "pansychism" - even if I've previously been aware of the idea. So, thanks for that. I'm curious if you've read "The Cosmic Serpent" ( It's an interesting panpsychic exploration of DNA instigated by an anthropologist's shamanic/psychedelic experience. Worth a read.

I'm also still digesting "neo-nihilism". Interesting idea, initially. Your conversation with Peter is a great example of why I've completely fallen in love with "psychedelic philosophy". Nothing is off limits, everything should be explored.

Thank you for bringing more of the exploratory spirit to us. Looking forward to more from you.

Edit: I LOVE your logo as well! Such a clean way to bring the yin/yang, forbidden fruit, and ouroboros out.

u/bogotec · 2 pointsr/herbalism

For a general overview of the history of traditional herbal medicine in the West, I recommend Barbara Griggs' book, Green Pharmacy: The History and Evolution of Western Herbal Medicine.

For traditional shamanic, magical use of herbal medicinal plants, I suggest you look into the Native American tradition(s). If you are looking for something in the area of psychedelics, I can recommend one book I liked: Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge

For a bend towards energy medicine and the inner practice of herbalism, see Matthew Wood's books, for example The Practice of Traditional Western Herbalism: Basic Doctrine, Energetics, and Classification.

u/froghuts · 2 pointsr/infp

You even listen to Terrence McKenna?? Lol you'll be fine! I say go for it.

The thing about Terrence McKenna is that, like his brother Dennis said,if he's right about even 1% of his claims, that's a very important thing in the world.

I read a book once on ayahausca and DNA where this geneticist did an anthropology thing where he went and did ayahuasca with tribes in South America to scientifically prove a connection between ayahausca and DNA. It's a VERY interesting read. He does a great job at dumbing it down to laymen's terms so that someone who's not a scientist can read the book and understand it. Then the second half of the book is all works cited. Sources for every single claim he makes during the book. So if someone wanted to they could see proof for all the things he was claiming. He does great at not adding any of his personal beliefs into the book as well, it is purely scientific. It's called the cosmic serpent : Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge

u/UnmissableParadox · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

A book that you may be interested in is called 'The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge.' It's a really good read and not too long.

u/loofa · 2 pointsr/Psychonaut

It's an archetype in the human brain. I've seen snakes on different psychedelic substances, most notably ayahuasca.

Jeremy Narby wrote a very interesting book about snake symbolism, psychedelics and DNA called 'The Cosmic Serpect'. Highly recommended.

u/vertr · 2 pointsr/occult

I'd recommend reading the Cosmic Serpent ( Narby seems to think that psychedelics allowed native people to have direct access to DNA and that it is represented in art as two intertwined serpents. Very entertaining and interesting.

u/atmoura · 2 pointsr/Psychonaut

Everyone should read the Cosmic Serpent. It's a little boring in the middle but don't give up halfway through. Definitely an amazing book.

u/practicaluser · 2 pointsr/DMT

You should start reading The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge if you haven't already. It's sitting in my "to read" pile, but if my journey took me in the direction that your experience seems to suggest, I can guarantee I'd be fast-tracking it to the top of the pile.

If you're unfamiliar with Jeremy Narby, check out this interview over at Deoxy. I have a feeling some of his notions might compliment your own.

u/SilverViper · 2 pointsr/migraine

Thanks! :) That's a really good idea to wait until you are ready as mindset and intention matter quite a bit.

General Information:



-good forum with general knowledge

while it's mostly dmt centered, this is probably the best entheogen community online. Has some good writeups on Ayahuasca and DMT visuals are often pretty similar to Ayahuasca since it's the same chemical in most brews(n,n dmt). Breakthrough visuals are much more common on DMT but healing is rarer in my experience.

Great review site for retreat centers. There are more in the US, especially if you look around.


The Cosmic Serpent

The Ayahuasca Test Pilot's Handbook

As for posts, this one from dmt nexus is a good primer:

Hopefully that's enough to at least get the ball rolling. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

u/grillcover · 2 pointsr/atheism

I don't really want to comment on your postulates or discourage your thinking, but I would recommend the book, The Cosmic Serpent, in which an anthropologist examines shamanic traditions in the Amazon.

The question of how these shamans discovered the use of specific hundreds of assorted plants in the Amazon, out of the choice of tens of thousands, that cured, nourished, or tripped-out their people for millenia is central to the book, and doesn't require recourse to divine inspiration-- but it is perhaps as recondite and mysterious. It seems like a similar path of inquiry, and a wholly illuminating book of quality ethnobotany and anthropology.

Good luck in the search for truth... but it might not be wheat.

u/TLHOG · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

Maybe? This is something I've learned through experience, observation and meditation. But a lot of things will elaborate this principle. First thing that comes to mind is the four forces in physics, recently being understood as one single force that has settled into four discreet manifestations. Thats kinda hard to wrap your head around without a lot of physics knowledge though.

However, there is a book called The Cosmic Serpent that has at least one chapter that is illuminating on the subject. I've only read the bits on Google Books though.

The pretentious part of me wanted to say "only the book that is the universe," but thankfully good taste prevailed.

u/rafiki530 · 2 pointsr/WildernessBackpacking

Tom Harrison map, Tenacious tape, wool hiking socks, leather man multi-tool.

You could go a diffent route that's a bit more personal you could make a personal backing meal or go with some sort of premade backpacking meal like mountain house (a bit on the heavier side) or astronaut ice cream (a bit better), perhaps a dehydrator like an Excalibur model if you want a big luxury gift.

Books; some picks for foraging, all that the rains promises and more , Stalking the wild asparagus, the foragers harvest ,

u/lard_pwn · 2 pointsr/mycology

Love your typo!

All That the Rain Promises and More: A Hip Pocket Guide to Western Mushrooms, by David Arora is definitely a good place to start. For people in the U.S.

There are good edible Russula, Lactarius and Amanita mushrooms, but the species you've listed are not commonly eaten. I do believe A. rubescens is edible, but I would not suggest anyone who is new to mushrooming even pretend to think about eating any species of Amanita until they have familiarized themselves with the genus and the Amanitas in their harvesting areas. Stick with the numerous other edible genera for a season or two, and learn all you can. Russula and Lactarius are great places to start; very delicious and often abundant.

Good luck. If you wanna come back and post pics of your finds, make sure to get them in focus and get shots of all parts, including the gills and their attachment to the stipe. Try to get into the habit of making spore prints of unknown specimens, as this can narrow down considerably the number of potential genera your specimen could belong to...

Have fun!

u/edmdusty · 2 pointsr/mycology

This is a fun book to start to learn how to ud mushrooms

u/lobster_johnson · 2 pointsr/me_irl

I believe that guy's name is David Arora. (Not sure if he's the guy on the cover, though.)

u/bauski · 2 pointsr/videos

Often times mycology societies have events for mushroom picking as well as classes you can take. Ther are also more general foraging classes that happen in your local nature area. If you would like a wonderful book to get you excited and knowledgeable try it's a wonderful full colored pocket book with great encyclopedic knowledge for many species. Often times, if you're in the US, you might have to get a permit to pick, so that you don't destroy the ecology by over picking and such.


As they say the video, be extremely careful about what you pick. Always good to double check with experts.

u/hamburger666 · 2 pointsr/Seattle

Unless of course you are properly trained in the local mycology. All The Rain Promises and More is a great start, as is joining the Puget Sound Mycological Society

u/Jimbo571 · 2 pointsr/mycology

I feel like I've seen him before too, but not in the MEME. I feel like maybe he's somewhere in this classic book!

u/chilighter · 2 pointsr/OkCupid

I love mushroom picking and pick a bunch of different kinds. The spot I'm going is usually full of boletes, chanterelles and hedgehogs, which are my favorites.

I pick for culinary use, yeah. I dry them for the rest of the year. It's not hard to learn how to pick mushrooms because there is a system that's essentially a dichotomous key for identification - basically, you go down the list of basic characteristics and can identify many types that way. It's just a matter of being diligent and never eating anything of which you're uncertain. It's great if you want to learn to go with someone experienced to get a primer. Also, this book is the field guide I've used for fifteen years and it fits in my pocket and is the best beginner's mushroom guide I've seen.

u/es_macro · 2 pointsr/mycology

You should get All That The Rain Promises and More by David Aurora. It's 3x as cheap and probably has loads more personality than that California Mushroom book. Just look at that cover! The book is a field guide (small enough for a back pocket) for western mushrooms with tons of mushroom pictures for ID and pics of the generally quirky/interesting people interested in mycology holding specimen, etc. I don't even live on the West Coast but it's still an enjoyable book. I have one in hand, let me know if you have any questions.

u/TheSweatyCheese · 2 pointsr/mycology

One of my favorite books to take hunting is All That Rain Promises and More. It's pocket-sized and the pictures are clear (plus the cover is great). The author also has some interesting recipes and narratives in the book. As far as not poisoning yourself, I suggest starting with species that are very unambiguous in whether or not they are another poisonous mushroom. Morels, chanterelles, and hen/chicken of the woods have solid identifying features unlike some stalked white mushrooms. Know the lookalikes though! False morels can be very poisonous, so know how to tell the difference between the two (hollow stem of morel).

Know the season/habitat of what you're looking for, it will save you time and help you ID. When you do find your first shrooms, there are methods to ensure you don't poison yourself, like chewing a bit and spitting it out before ingesting the whole thing. I believe there is information about that in the book and of course more online.

Happy hunting!

u/Azabutt · 2 pointsr/mycology

My book All that the rain promises and more suggests this is a bolete, but I don't think I can pick one that suits it. Perhaps someone can help me figure it out?

I did not have a knife to cut it with, because I am a failure! Just kidding, I mean, I wasn't prepared to find mushrooms that evening, we were chasing waterfalls. But I hacked it in half with a stick and was delighted to see my first blue bruising mushroom! I tried not too touch it too much (I'm not sure why, I usually do), but when I did touch the top, my fingers were stained yellow.

I didn't think my non-mycology-fascinated friends would like me bringing any home, so I only managed low light photos which aren't as crisp. My phone is wonderful in the daylight but not so much at dusk.

u/karma_means_nothing_ · 2 pointsr/shroomers

I have a book, Psilocybin Mushrooms of The World, and in it there's a pic of this woman with a wide brimmed hat that has spore prints all around it. She walks around town spreading billions of spores without a care in the world. I love that kind of initiative.

EDIT: Found it!

u/daemoncode · 2 pointsr/Psychedelics

First find out if they grow where you live. Then start by "acquiring" books such as this one:

u/3kixintehead · 2 pointsr/Drugs

Start here

And DEFINITELY buy other identification guides to cross-reference. Forest-hunting isn't particularly lucrative for psychedelics. Be very careful and deliberate with anything you find, because there are quite a few species (in the fields and forests) that are similar to psilocybin species, but dangerous.

u/eurodditor · 2 pointsr/france

> Elle a perdu parce qu'elle a été victime d'attaques incessantes contre les démocrates pendant des mois, des attaques infondées et risibles.

Non. Si c'était ça qui faisait perdre une élection aux États-Unis, Obama n'aurait jamais pu être président. Trump non-plus d'ailleurs.

> Est-ce que c'est les démocrates qui écrivent des livres intitulé

Sans dec, tu crois que les démocrates sont des anges ou bien tu viens de découvrir que la politique aux US c'est encore plus violent que chez nous ? Bien-sûr que les démocrates écrivent aussi des horreurs sur les Républicains. Comme The Republican Brain, Idiot America, après l'élection de Trump on a déjà sorti Insane Clown President, Too dumb to fail, et autres bouquins écrit parfois par des élus Démocrates et contenant des illustrations telles que des images "dépeignant les républicains comme des éléphants rouges maléfiques portant une crosstika" (mélange de croix chrétienne et de swastika)...

Si tu crois que les démocrates sont tendres avec les républicains et que seuls les républicains tapent fort sur les démocrates, tu planes à 10 000. Mais tout ça c'est pas grave, ça n'a pas vraiment d'importance : les attaques contre tel ou tel bord politique, ça ne trigger que les militants convaincus de chaque bord. Or c'est pas ceux-là qui font une élection, puisqu'ils votent à peu près toujours pareil.

Le problème des démocrates, c'est pas qu'ils ont attaqué les républicains.

C'est qu'ils ont attaqué des tas de gens qui n'étaient pas spécialement politisés et qui à vrai dire auraient pu pencher du côté démocrate, mais que les élites démocrates méprisaient profondément parce qu'ils avaient le tort de pas penser comme il faut ou de manquer d'éloquence face au titulaire d'un PhD en liberal arts, et que ces petites gens, de dépit, alors qu'ils auraient dû être défendus par les démocrates justement parce que ce sont des petites gens (ce qui ne veut pas forcément dire leur donner raison sur tout hein, mais déjà chercher à les comprendre plutôt que de les traiter de débiles et de racistes/sexistes/homophobes/xénophobes/etc. ça aurait été un bon début) sont allés se réfugier dans les bras des républicains. Qui les ont accueilli à bras ouvert parce qu'ils ont bien compris, eux, que c'était ces gens là qui allaient faire pencher l'élection d'un côté ou de l'autre. Et ça n'a pas manqué.

u/Mormolyke · 2 pointsr/politics
u/AndAnAlbatross · 2 pointsr/atheism

As a brief matter of convention, I like that definition of indoctrination and it is functionally very close to the way I intended to use the word in my previous post.


> Yes ... They have not given up.

All scientific inquiry is driven by a lack of knowledge of a subject that is suspected to be adjacent to either known information or theorized information. Everything beyond that adjacency is speculation and unscientific.

That process can be thought of as the scientist's puzzle drive. To translate your statement into these terms, you're saying an agnostic who claims unknowability can't possibly have a puzzle-drive. This is incorrect.

The agnostics puzzle drive is just one level abstract from the scientist's puzzle drive. The agnostic could be driven by a presumed lack of knowability of a subject that is adjacent to either verifiable evidence or epistemological theory. Everything beyond that adjacency is absurdity and gnostic.

>Well, intensity is a feature of all education ... to attend a regimen of Sunday School and so forth.

>Ideally, we humans would be presented with a proposition ... more likely he is to be persuaded.

That is a lot of discussable/disputable information, but since I agree with most of it, I suggest we save it for a different conversation. Very interesting stuff.

> (1) the relatively automatic filtration by cognitive bias ("your GF is cheating on you." "Impossible! She's much too pretty to cheat on me!") based on previously known information

> (1), and they get better at it as they gather more reference material.

This is called motivated reasoning and it models and predicts the smart idiot^Mooney effect very well. I would definitely be an audience to the argument that there is some overlap with critical thinking (in practice).

> Aside from religion, they become poor marks for conspiracy theories, magical cures, horoscopes, ghost sightings and so on

Again -- have you seen the way popular media co-opts skeptical language to these ends!? Ghost Hunters, popular conspiracy theories etc... these groups draw power from ridiculing religion just like we do. If it's a religious thing, the anecdotal precedence is not readily available to me, and I would feel more comfortable deferring to topical data.

I agree, teaching actual critical thinking skills is vital, but I'm not so sure (read: convinced) the lack of critical thinking skills offers a significant in-religious correlation when you adjust for population. Maybe the subtext here is people are fucking stupid, but I'd rather make that as a global claim than a religious claim. /rant (sorry.)

> Err no, that's most likely type (1) processing, it's more cognitive bias than "real" critical thinking.

I don't completely disagree, but I've got several different models of this to compare it to, so I'm going to challenge it. Can you demonstrate this? What are you thinking of?

Also there's something I call the chaos theory of religious world-view which basically holds the following:

  • The earlier in a world-view system that spooky thinking is integrated, the more capacity for cohesion and reason that system has. (This helps me empathize with people like Bill Craig)

  • The later in a world-view system that spooky thinking is challenged, the more that challenge needs to explain in order for it be seen as a useful world-view component. (This helps us understand why paradigm shifts are so difficult inside a generation.)

    Let me know if you're interested in hearing about that.

    > In science education, at least as far as through grade school, any claim can usually be supported, if questioned, by referring to and explaining the historic experiments by which it was arrived at.

    But, practically these is superficial regress. You explain the experiments but if the explanation is questioned you can only fall back on the concept. If the concept is rejected, the instructor can't really be expected to demonstrate further. The model still supports fabrication, it just shifts it. Can we demonstrate that it shifts it to a point where fabrication is too difficult? (Maybe... I would argue this is the importance of peer review and try to demonstrate it's relevance.) Your thoughts?

    The rest of that paragraph I readily agree with (even if your terms are usually far more graphic than I would use).

    > After being made to swallow that the Bible is God's word and therefore necessarily true (that establishes its authority once and for a long time), pretty much the first lesson is "questioning is inappropriate in a religious context."

    Again -- this assumes a certain type of Christianity. The kind that is employing this method of inculcating. There are two things here, a cautionary message and a disagreement.

    (1) If the religious group was not doing this, then you would need to move goal posts to re-establish their badness or look elsewhere. Don't do that.

    (2) The religious groups who aren't doing this are probably not doing this for a reason! Could there be any reasons you would agree with? As a call back to the original discussion, wouldn't that make them sort of viable candidates to being on your side?

    > I don't have good backup material for the claim that critical questioning is discouraged in Sunday School. If you have a problem with that claim, I'll have to retract it.

    No, it can stay. Just as a matter of contingency, imagine if that factor was removed -- so too would your problem with sunday school. I never get too bent out of shape over contingent conclusions because somewhere, somehow, they won't apply and then I'll need to go back to the drawing board.


    > But it’s not just global warming where the “smart idiot” effect occurs. It also emerges on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased moreamong better-educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less-educated Republicans, according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.

    > The same effect has also been captured in relation to the myth that the healthcare reform bill empowered government “death panels.” According toresearch by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan, Republicans who thought they knew more about the Obama healthcare plan were “paradoxically more likely to endorse the misperception than those who did not.” Well-informed Democrats were the opposite—quite certain there were no “death panels” in the bill.

    Chris Mooney, The Republican Brain
u/MormonAtheist · 2 pointsr/exmormon

> Science can't make up its mind.

Neither can religion. Religious leaders tend to make up bullshit and pass it off as fact, such as the Quakers that lived on the moon according to Brigham Young. The difference is that religious people change their doctrines when their beliefs get embarrassing, while scientists change their views whenever new evidence comes along or when their hypotheses are tested and disproven. Scientists aren't just making shit up, they're testing stuff rigorously and have zero tolerance for misinformation.

> No evidence for macro evolution.

If you think the earth is 6,000 years old then evolution couldn't possibly make sense. This is enough time to get all the dogs we see but not enough to get back to the common ancestor between a cat and a dog. This is way beyond the scope of a simple post on reddit, so if you want to destroy this argument get this book and read it twice.

> Homosexuality does not mesh with your theory of evolution.

Logically it doesn't seem like it would, and yet it does. Homosexuality is also very common in the animal kingdom.

> "Your claim of atheism"

Turn this around. Make him prove Odin or Zeus don't exist.

u/samisbond · 2 pointsr/atheism

Well if you have the time, there's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins and Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne. You could check if your local library has one of them.

Also, although this will not teach you evolution, Richard Dawkins notes a flaw in the idea of a designer in that there are clear imperfections that one would not expect from an intelligent designer, but would from evolution.

u/Tokenwhitemale · 2 pointsr/science

Not sure how helpful this will be, but you might point out that there's evolution and Christianity are not NECESSARILY incompatible, that's there's no real reason for him to be worried about evolution clashing with his faith in god. You could point out that many Christians do believe in Evolution. The Catholic Church actually endorses natural selection so any Catholic that denies evolution is actually committing blasphemy. Lutherans, Methodists, and many other Christian denominations see no inconsistency between believing in the Christian God and accepting evolution.

There's also several books you could point him to. Richard Dawkins's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth"

surveys the evidence for evolution, so that would be a great book for your brother to read. Most Creationists demonize Dawkins, though, so your brother might not be receptive to that.

Michael Ruse, a Philosophy Professor at Florida State University, has written countless books on the history of Evolution, the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists, and the history of the conflict between Christianity and Science. Ruse, while an agnostic, IS sympathetic to Christianity, and your brother should find him less offensive to read than Dawkins.

u/omaca · 2 pointsr/books

First, let me compliment you on a fascinating list. There are some truly great books in there. I'm both impressed and delighted. Based on your choices, I would recommend the following.

Catch-22 by Joseph Hellar. Even more so than Slaughterhouse-Five, this is the quintessential anti-war novel. A hugely influential 20th century masterpiece. And laugh-out-loud funny in parts too!

The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is a deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize. Engrossing, erudite, insightful and educational narrative history of this hugely important event in 20th century history - reads like a novel. Covers not only the Allies, but also the German and (very often overlooked) Japanese side to the story.

Sacred Games by Vikram Chandra, just because of its sweeping scope. Very entertaining modern novel set in India. Touches upon topics and themes as diverse as modern Indian organized crime, international terrorism, Bollywood, the 1948 Partition, Maoist rebels, the caste system, corruption in Indian film, police and government... the list goes on and on. Great fun, and eye-opening.

A Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Marcia Marquez. Whilst not the original "magic realism" novel (despite what Marquez himself my imply), this is the first one to gain international acclaim and is a very influential work. Entertaining in so many ways. Follow the history of the fictional town of Maconda for a hundred years and the lives (the crazy, multifaceted lives) of its inhabitants.

Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. This is a play, not a novel, and one translated from the French at that. Don't let that put you off. Existentialism has never been so interesting...

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. His latest tour-de-force.

Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. Dare I say that this expose on how Government and Big Business control public debate and the media is so important, was more influential than Chomsky's review of Skinner's verbal behaviour? Perhaps not. But a very important work none-the-less.

u/Skwerl23 · 2 pointsr/atheism

tell her to read The Greatest show on earth
and if she doesn't well than time to move on. don't be mad at your freedom from forced thought.
Your kids will learn from you, and you will create a future america that will be worth living.

u/5amsung · 2 pointsr/atheism

"Makes more sense to me than a man in space" is not a very compelling argument. You claim that you're "one of the very, very few serious and educated atheists within 100 miles" - that a great aspiration, but you need to follow through on it. Buy yourself a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth and learn to engage him more deeply. It's the equivalent of doing karate to be able to deal with school bullies, but for your mind. It'll be good experience.

u/kzsummers · 2 pointsr/atheism

(This is the rest of my answer, cut off for being too long).
3) I'm beginning to think that we need to skip ahead and talk about evolution, because if you don't understand how DNA could have evolved, you've really never read a single book on evolution. (I'm not criticizing you; you're in good company there). So let's combine your third and fourth points, and allow me to clarify what evolution is, why it explains DNA, and why your micro/macro distinction is, frankly, bullshit.

First principle behind evolution: If something can make copies of itself, there will soon be more of it. It there are lots of competing things that can make copies of themselves, the ones that can do so most efficiently will end up having the most copies.

If that statement strikes you as true, there we go. Evolution.

The first proto-organisms were basically strings of RNA. Under certain conditions, a nucleotide strand would attach complementary bases, and you would have two strands of RNA. Then environmental conditions change and the two strands separate, and both of them can attach to more complementary bases.

Second principle behind evolution: If copies aren't exactly the same as the original, then some changes will increase efficiency. Other changes will decrease efficiency. After enough generations, your population will contain lots of copies of efficient replicators and very few copies of inefficient replicators.

So some of the RNA sequences happen to misplace an adenine instead of a cytosine, and that means that a replication enzyme bonds more tightly to the strand, and this mutant makes more copies of itself than its neighbors do.

And eventually, a nucleotide ends up with a deoxyribose sugar instead of a ribose sugar, and this configuration turns out to be WAY more stable - it can form into a double helix that is less likley to spontaneously collapse, and which can replicate with fewer errors. And this mutant makes more copies of itself than its neighbors do.

And these sequences of DNA/RNA aren't just random collections of letters. Well, some of them are, but others can be interpreted to build proteins that facilitate copying - and the ones with these helpful sequences can make more copies of themselves.

Let this process happen for a couple billion years.

But, you're saying, the probability is so small! You mean all those coincidences just happen to occur? Convenient mutations just happen to come along? If you multpily together the odds of all those things happening, it's tiny!

Well, of course it is. When you have a trillion early replicators hanging around, improbable things happen ALL. THE. TIME. And multiplying together the odds of each mutation is the completely wrong way to look at the problem - it's like looking at all the possible combinations of your parents' sperm and eggs that could have existed and declaring triumphantly that the probability of you existing is one in a gazillion. Of course it is! The question is what the probability of some complex life developing, under the given optimization pressures, and it should be obvious that it's reasonably high. Of those trillions of worlds we talked about earlier, maybe only a couple billion of them got to complex life.

Obviously, this is the grossly oversimplified version. For the whole story, you need to read this or this or this or this or... any of these, actually. But I hope you understand why most atheists feel that the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is silly. Evolution is just the change in gene pools over time. This change has been observed to lead to one species splitting off into multiple species which can no longer reproduce (the biological definition of speciation). At what point is this process called "macro" evolution? How many genes need to change before you insist that the process "doesn't exist"? Why would evolution push two separate populations to the brink of speciation and then suddenly stop working by the rules we've repeatedly observed? Saying "micro but not macro" is like saying you believe gravity works on people but not on planets. There's just no reason to draw the distinction!

Using techniques called molecular systematics, we can trace the evolutionary relationships between species by mapping the differences in noncoding DNA. And, of course, I'm neglecting the single biggest piece of supporting evidence for evolution: the fossil record. You've probably been fed the lie that we don't have the transitional fossils. Well, we do have the transitional fossils. Overwhelmingly..

Now, ethics. The God of the Bible, if he existed, is a monstrous, selfish, egomaniacal, power-hungry terrifying sociopath. I don't mean to cause offense (though I probably will) but I read the Bible and it nearly made me ill. God tortures everyone who doesn't worship him for all eternity. He had 42 children mauled to death by bears for laughing at a bald man.(II Kings 2:23-24). He murders all the inhabitants of an entire city for being "sinful" (Genesis 19:1-26). He orders his people to commit genocide, over and over again. (Deuteronomy 13:13-16, Numbers 31:12-18, I Chronicles 21:9-14).
He's okay with rape (often, he explicitly orders his followers to commit rape) and treats women as property(Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Exodus 21:7-11). He's pro-slavery (I Timothy 6:1-2, Exodus 21:20.) He even claims in Isaiah 45:7 to have created all evil. In short, if we're getting our morals from that guy, we're seriously screwed. This isn't the wise and loving father whose children can't understand his dictates: it's the abusive alcoholic father whose son runs away when he realizes that rape, murder, and incest aren't okay just because Dad says so.

You're about to protest that most of those are Old Testament. But Jesus explicitly endorses the Old Testament and says that he has not come to change the old laws (Matthew 5:17). He endorses what God did in Sodom and Gomorrah and threatens to do even worse to three more cities because their inhabitants were unimpressed with him.(Matthew 11:21-24). He says that any child who curses his parents should be killed as according to Old Testament Law. (Mark 7:10)

I don't think a world where everyone follows their individual conscience could possibly be worse than a world rules by that God. And, in fact, countries that are nonreligious have lower rates of crime, higher standards of living, and higher self-reported happiness.

Interesting debate, thanks!

u/keithamus · 2 pointsr/science

You should read Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest Show On Earth". Most of chapter 1 is used to explain the scientific use of "theory" and how the pundits manipulate the word to remove authority from it. Here is a large excerpt from the book:


Only a theory? Let’s look at what ‘theory’ means. The Oxford English Dictionary gives two meanings (actually more, but these are the two that matter here).

Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

Obviously the two meanings are quite different from one another. And the short answer to my question about the theory of evolution is that the scientists are using Sense 1, while the creationists are – perhaps mischievously, perhaps sincerely – opting for Sense 2. A good example of Sense 1 is the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System, the theory that Earth and the other planets orbit the sun. Evolution fits Sense 1 perfectly. Darwin’s theory of evolution is indeed a ‘scheme or system of ideas or statements’. It does account for a massive ‘group of facts or phenomena’. It is ‘a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment’ and, by generally informed consent, it is ‘a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed’. It is certainly very far from ‘a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture’. Scientists and creationists are understanding the word ‘theory’ in two very different senses. Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word ‘only’ be used, as in ‘only a theory’.

As for the claim that evolution has never been ‘proved’, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting. Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science. Mathematicians can prove things – according to one strict view, they are the only people who can – but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the moon is smaller than the sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of ‘fact’ seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the Northern Hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town, some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

I could carry on using ‘Theory Sense 1’ and ‘Theory Sense 2’ but numbers are unmemorable. I need substitute words. We already have a good word for ‘Theory Sense 2’. It is ‘hypothesis’. Everybody understands that a hypothesis is a tentative idea awaiting confirmation (or falsification), and it is precisely this tentativeness that evolution has now shed, although it was still burdened with it in Darwin’s time. ‘Theory Sense 1’ is harder. It would be nice simply to go on using ‘theory’, as though ‘Sense 2’ didn’t exist. Indeed, a good case could be made that Sense 2 shouldn’t exist, because it is confusing and unnecessary, given that we have ‘hypothesis’. Unfortunately Sense 2 of ‘theory’ is in common use and we can’t by fiat ban it. I am therefore going to take the considerable, but just forgivable, liberty of borrowing from mathematics the word ‘theorem’ for Sense 1. It is actually a mis-borrowing, as we shall see, but I think the risk of confusion is outweighed by the benefits. As a gesture of appeasement towards affronted mathematicians, I am going to change my spelling to ‘theorum’.
First, let me explain the strict mathematical usage of theorem, while at the same time clarifying my earlier statement that, strictly speaking, only mathematicians are licensed to prove anything (lawyers aren’t, despite well-remunerated pretensions).

To a mathematician, a proof is a logical demonstration that a conclusion necessarily follows from axioms that are assumed. Pythagoras’ Theorem is necessarily true, provided only that we assume Euclidean axioms, such as the axiom that parallel straight lines never meet. You are wasting your time measuring thousands of right-angled triangles, trying to find one that falsifies Pythagoras’ Theorem. The Pythagoreans proved it, anybody can work through the proof, it’s just true and that’s that. Mathematicians use the idea of proof to make a distinction between a ‘conjecture’ and a ‘theorem’, which bears a superficial resemblance to the OED’s distinction between the two senses of ‘theory’. A conjecture is a proposition that looks true but has never been proved. It will become a theorem when it has been proved. A famous example is the Goldbach Conjecture, which states that any even integer can be expressed as the sum of two primes. Mathematicians have failed to disprove it for all even numbers up to 300 thousand million million million, and common sense would happily call it Goldbach’s Fact. Nevertheless it has never been proved, despite lucrative prizes being offered for the achievement, and mathematicians rightly refuse to place it on the pedestal reserved for theorems. If anybody ever finds a proof, it will be promoted from Goldbach’s Conjecture to Goldbach’s Theorem, or maybe X’s Theorem where X is the clever mathematician who finds the proof."

Now, if you managed to read all that. I definitely recommend buying it:

It really is an education.

u/jaywalkker · 2 pointsr/science

Any specific Science books?

I could recommend "How to Build a Dinosaur" by Jack Horner
Or "Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins.

but neither of those make a difference if that's not the sciencey genres you were looking for.

u/volando34 · 2 pointsr/atheism

I would say, support Dawkins by buying the book, but who am I kidding, the only people who would buy this already know evolution to be a fact (mine is in the mail)... but wait, could we actually do something? More to come after a message from our sponsors!




And we now return with the conclusion: We can buy it for on-the-fence people. Those who would actually consider the other side and are able to follow a logical argument. Not everybody is a bible-thumping full blown creationist. Some really haven't had the education to know about evolution in detail. Make it a part of your christmas/thanksgiving gift package to mom/uncle/girlfriend^W...

u/Lazarus5214 · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Phenomenal. I urge you to read it right way. That book totally blew my mind. Worldview-shattering is the best way to describe.

Also, just as good, though not as influential, Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne. Short and filled with such modern evidence. The best book to bring a laymen into the world of evolutionary biology.

I'm super excited for The Greatest Show on Earth.

u/BearnardOg · 2 pointsr/atheism

Mom needs to read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins. If she has actually unhitched her reasoning from the yoke of religion, then there is no way that she can make it through that book and still doubt that evolution is a fact - which it is.

Dad is trickier. He seems to be at the stage where he thinks "church is bad, but god is good." I was there for a long time myself. If he is a reader, maybe you could turn him on to the works of Bart Ehrman, especially "Misquoting Jesus". If you can get him in front of a computer for 90 minutes, the YouTube series "Why I am no Longer a Christian" by evid3nc3 is mind-blowingly good.

But better still, you read and watch these things and master their content. Then present the arguments to your folks because it sounds like they want to listen to you.

u/wuji_MT · 2 pointsr/WTF

I disagree with much of this advice. I live and hike in black and grizzly bear country and have never had a bad encounter with a bear. We have to respect them and take precautions, but fear of bears shouldn't keep people out of the woods. They're really not rampaging monsters waiting to attack people.

Forget cans of rocks or ineffective "bear bells". Use your voice to alert bears to your presence. Talk loudly when necessary. "HEY BEAR! COMING THROUGH!" They can recognize a human voice and will usually avoid us. If you're really worried, try to travel in groups of 3 or more.

If you see a bear, stop and stay calm. Don't run. Don't immediately act threatening. Threatening a bear that's defending a carcass or that has young cubs nearby is asking for trouble.

Bears and bear encounters are too complicated for a TLDR. If you want to know how to live and play safely in bear country you have to put some time in learning about bears. They're amazing animals, so in my opinion, it is time well spent.

The best scientific examination of bear encounters is Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance by Dr. Stephen Herrerro, I'd recommend it for anyone living or playing in grizzly country. I read through my copy every spring.

Here's what Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks has to say about encountering a bear.

I guess it comes down to perspective, but I love seeing bears (from a safe distance) and I'm thankful for every opportunity I've had to observe these amazing animals.

u/BarnabyWoods · 2 pointsr/Ultralight

> If bears are not accustomed to people near where you'll be staying, there is no need to worry about them - unless there are grizzlies.

Yes! This is the advice from Stephen Herrero, a biologist who's studied bears for decades. He says bears are much less likely to be a problem at non-established campsites. Of course, in many national parks, you're required to camp at designated sites.

u/ioinc · 2 pointsr/atheism

There are no missing links... its a red herring.

Read the 'greatest show on earth'

u/Ethallen · 2 pointsr/atheism

If you're truly curious, you can't do much better than these two books.

The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth.

u/iwakun · 2 pointsr/softscience

Good introduction to evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

u/GodOfThunder44 · 2 pointsr/atheism

Protip: Keep a copy or two of Your Inner Fish or Greatest Show on Earth (or your preferred book on evolution) to lend to any creationist you are trying to convince.

u/fshklr1 · 2 pointsr/askscience

I would read the book The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins. It is well written in plain english that is easy to understand and follow.

u/Revigator · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

Oh boy, great questions but the answers can be really long and (again) belong under science moreso than philosophy. I think I'll link some resources and you can read at your leisure.

  • The ID page on Wikipedia, particularly the Criticism and Kitzmiller Trial sections.
  • Index of Creationist Claims, with responses of course.
  • Evidences for Macroevolution.
  • Why Evolution Is True (book) by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, and his website of the same name.
  • The Greatest Show on Earth (book) by Richard Dawkins. It's all biology, unlike "The God Delusion".
  • Your Inner Fish (book) by evo-biologist Neil Shubin, and this excellent talk by him.
  • Science blogs like Sandwalk and Pharyngula can have great info (warning, the latter is very hostile to religion, but I've linked just the evolution articles).

    TL;DR - Biologists document lots of awkward features that develop in a tedious or haphazard manner that no sane designer would ever bother, plus we're missing tons of obvious features that any competent designer would probably include (hello, drowning sucks, gills would be nice). And their work is strongly supported by genetics and its underlying chemistry.
u/Kanilas · 2 pointsr/agnostic

If your interested in the special diversity of Earth, I strongly recommend The Greatest Show On Earth, which does a truly marvelous job of putting a couple hundred years of initial speculation, exciting research, and modern evidence for evolution, and the basis of life on Earth into an easy to read book. It can be a little daunting at time, but I love the book, and recommend it fondly.

u/ididnoteatyourcat · 2 pointsr/askscience

And beyond radiometric dating, there is also geology, historical documentation (beer alone was invented over 7000 years ago), evolution (The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution is fantastic), and ice cores (for example).

u/Apatomoose · 2 pointsr/exjw

The Greatest Show on Earth, the book they are discussing in that interview, is one of the best books I have ever read. In it he lays out the case for evolution in a manner that is thorough, understandable, and beautiful. I can't recommend it enough. link

u/lanemik · 2 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Please educate yourself about the theory of evolution.

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

Kent Hovind received his "masters" and "doctorate" in "Christian Education" by correspondence by a non-accredited school. Hovind has no formal scientific training, no research credentials, no worthwhile understanding of the basics of biology and certainly not even the most rudimentary understanding of developmental biology. This article ranges from complete nonsense to outright lying. Bringing this article in here and suggesting that it points out holes in evolution ought to be embarrassing for you. If it isn't, then you are too uneducated on the subject to even bother taking seriously and a sufficient answer is we are as certain about evolution as we are that the earth goes around the sun despite what "Dr. Dino" says.

u/disgustipated · 1 pointr/science
u/liquidpele · 1 pointr/atheism

This has a bunch of into about it as well. Basically, the X and Y chromosomes fight.

u/waterless · 1 pointr/neuro

Maybe this was already obvious to you, in which case apologies, but those are very broad topics. What kind of level of aggregation are you thinking of? Neural engineering sounds a bit more neural network-y, rather than large-scale human cognitive processes, which would involve measurement methods like EEG and fMRI that won't tell you much (broadly speaking) about the way networks of neurons do computations. You also have local field potential or clamping measurements, where you're looking at what specific neurons (or at least way smaller scales) are doing, which is more animal research. And there's computational modelling which is (relatively, to my knowledge) as yet hardly connected to the usual methods of measuring brain activity.

That said: I read this as an intro to neural networks, and remember liking it, but I was coming from a psych background so I don't know if it would be rigorous enough for you. For the biology / anatomy, the classic is

There's a paper by Wang (1999) with an integrate-and-fire neuron model that I implemented as a toy model that helped me get to grips with the computational side of things. I can't comment on how influential it is theoretically.

u/throwawayja7 · 1 pointr/Futurology

Chapter 10.

Chemical synapses are what you want, not electrical.

u/Stereoisomer · 1 pointr/neuroscience

I was in the exact same position as you Junior year and I went on to a small liberal arts college that didn't offer an undergraduate degree in neuroscience but did have some classes in the field. I also plan on working for a few years after graduation to get more experience in the field since my university did not offer it. Neuroscience is a relatively new field and hasn't grown enough yet to become its own department at most universities but rather, as was the case at my university, an interdisciplinary focus. If you are certain that you want to do neuroscience (which admittedy is a lot to ask since you haven't come up against classes like Organic Chemistry) than you should maximize your exposure to the field despite the fact that your future university may have a neuroscience program that is anywhere between its own department and non-existent.

For me this meant taking both dedicated neuroscience classes at my college but also doing research with the only professor doing neuroscience research for two years. I also do a lot of learning on my own working through neuroscience texts; a good book that comes to mind is Principles of Neural Science. I echo the opinion of /u/radicalpi in that the program varies widely between universities in terms of what classes it requires: some will have a greater focus on psychology (Cognitive Psych) while others will focus more on the biology and chemistry. I also agree with his/her opinion that you might be better served majoring in biology or chemistry if that component of neuroscience interests you more. I majored in Biochemistry and Math and had my university offered something along the lines of a Cognitive Sci major, I would not have majored in it since I am more interested in the "bottom-up" perspective. One last comment: if math or physics at all interest you, I would suggest looking into mathematical neuroscience or related subfields. In the neuroscience program at my school, most of the students that took neuroscience courses with me were psych majors and I think this is true of many universities. The problem with this is that to understand developing concepts such as neuronal dynamics and to understand technical advances in the field Hodgkin-Huxley/Fitzhugh-Nagumo, fMRI, and optogenetics requires a good grasp and comfortability with math and physics that is inaccessible to a lot of people in the field. This can only serve to help you break into neuroscience in the future.

u/panniculus · 1 pointr/mildlyinteresting

Oh and if you REALLY want to get a head start, this is like the holy bible of intro neuro textbooks. Pretty much every neuroscientist I know has a copy in their office from when they were assigned it in undergrad or grad school. I still have mine and it's one of the only textbooks I kept (the other was a neuropharmacology one that I couldn't bear to part with because that class put me through hell). It's just the fundamentals but it does it well.

u/DonPromillo90 · 1 pointr/neuroscience

What kind of paper? Don't you have access to most of the journals through your university?
I can browse many journals at home with VPN-Access, provided by my university.
For books, try these:
OR (less detailed)

I heard some rumours that at least the Kandel is available as a free PDF in the internet, just use google with the proper terms ;)

u/CuriousIndividual0 · 1 pointr/neuroscience

Kandel's Principles of Neural Science is good. Pdf available online. Concussion falls under traumatic brain injury. I have a friend who did her honours in this field. Worked under a prof named Ramesh Rajan at Monash university, you might want to check him out. Awesome guy. Just as a heads up, you will most likely be working with rodent models in TBI.

u/mathemagic · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

Why not learn something about neuroscience? You'd better understand the fundamental concepts on which the brain works and how they structure consciousness. I'm not talking psychology but learning the fundamental biology of neurons and building that into an understanding of behavior and cognition.

You'd just have to read Kandel's Principles of Neural Science which is pretty much the neuroscience bible. It takes you from concepts like "Cell and Molecular Biology of the Neuron" and "Synaptic Transmission" to "The Neural Basis of Cognition" and "Language, Thought, Affect, and Learning" - the wiki lists the chapters here

edit: in fact your comfort with physics will help understand the biophysics of neurons: viewing the cell membrane as a capacitor and using circuit models of membranes with some basic V=IR stuff.

u/chucktheskiffie · 1 pointr/books

The subject matter is a little narrow, but you should read "The Tiger" by John Valliant. Very well constructed and i learned some stuff... not about deep things like life and why we live and where we came from... but certainly a learning experience.

u/missiontodenmark · 1 pointr/WTF

This is an amazing book on tigers.

u/plytheman · 1 pointr/SelfSufficiency

This one, I'd assume? Looks interesting, thanks!

u/anim8 · 1 pointr/books

link for the lazy reader

Naturally, the ebook is MORE than the paperback. WHY WHY WHY?

u/slamdunktiger86 · 1 pointr/todayilearned

This article is highlighting this book:

Totally legit, a very enjoyable read.

The best possible outcome is to never see a tiger in the wild. You'll live longer that way.

u/fishing_buddha · 1 pointr/todayilearned

There an amazing book based on a true story of a man eating Siberan tiger's vengeful behavior in Russia by John Vaillant.

u/Antiwar247 · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

I recommend The Tiger: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival by John Vaillant.

It's the true story of a man-eating tiger (which some of the locals believed was out for revenge against the hunter that tried to kill it) and the hunt to kill it. The book also touches on humans evolving in a world of tigers and bit of Russian history. There are lots of really good side stories to keep you interested, too.

u/jackelfrink · 1 pointr/NoStupidQuestions


Too many examples to mention but the most talked about examples online would include Bonobo Monkeys and Giraffes. If you want more info on the topic I would suggest the book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl Dont let the title fool you. It covers much more than homosexuality.

u/Waterrat · 1 pointr/science

> Biologically, homosexual relationships don't work to further a species.

Yes they do. Two male geese, as an example, are far better at raising a brood than a male/female are.

u/Branchy28 · 1 pointr/askgaybros

Pretty easy to tear down.

First it's always good to start a debate knowing what your arguing against, So the first thing to ask is what their definition of "Natural" and "unnatural" is, The typical definition and the way the word "Natural" is commonly used is:

>Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind

If their definition significantly differs to that then you're arguing against a claim that doesn't follow our languages usage or definitions of common words in which case you're just going to end up wasting your time arguing over definitions, So long as their definition fits this criteria you can move on.

Based on that definition all you need to do is prove that homosexuality occurs "naturally" i.e. "without human intervention"

Which oh boy, we already can, You can point them towards This Wikipedia Article or alternatively they can read up the book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" written by Canadian biologist Bruce Bagemihl which shows homosexuality occurring in hundreds/thousands of species other than humans.


Alternatively What I like to do is to humor their initial claim that "Homosexuality is unnatural" and see where that assertion leads.

So for the discussion we can establish a hypothetical scenario in which they're right and that homosexuality only occurs in humans making it for all intents and purposes "unnatural".

Now that we've created our hypothetical scenario what other conclusions can we draw from that information?... The answer is none, Because neither "natural" things or "unnatural" things have any other inherent qualities or properties that you can make assertions or draw conclusions from, The only question you've answered is whether it occurs with or without human intervention...

The argument that "Homosexuality is unnatural" is typically coming from the Naive perspective that "All unnatural things are inherently bad!" which is obviously nonsense because I doubt these same people making this same stupid argument are going to be the ones denying their children life saving medications because the meds are "unnatural" or refusing to drive to work because cars are "unnatural"


u/potlatch7 · 1 pointr/DoesAnybodyElse

Homosexuality is documented in other animals as well. So yes, it is
> normal like today's society is trying to make it seem

Why are we any different?

u/Midianite_Caller · 1 pointr/atheism

Yeah, I think it will shut them up. Another study I saw suggested that the effect was particularly strong in people who had experienced strict, authoritarian parenting so bring that up if they are conservatives.

Edit: This is a major work on animal homosexuality.

Dr Joan Roughgarden is another expert in this field.

u/perfectlyaligned · 1 pointr/atheism

The news article linked by OP is a much more current example, but it is worthy to note that a book was written on the subject as well. It's by a Canadian biologist named Bruce Bagemihl:

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

u/Agruk · 1 pointr/DebateAVegan

Here's an interesting book about religious veganism:

u/oceanrainfairy · 1 pointr/OpenChristian

We are very clearly allowed to eat animals; no one (well, not many people) would contest that. But I think the Bible clearly shows that animals are God's, not ours - and being allowed to eat them is not the same thing as being allowed to torture them, and that's the crux of the issue for a modern day person contemplating the modern meat industry. Animals were treated much differently, and far better, in Bible times than they are in our factory farms, feedlots, and slaughter houses. Volumes have been written on the subject; I strongly recommend Dominion by Matthew Scully if you want to read a good, measured argument for how we should treat animals.

u/Zyvo · 1 pointr/vegan

There's actually a book written by a former senior speechwriter for George W. Bush that talks about animal welfare from a Christian perspective.

u/llieaay · 1 pointr/vegan

I think I might have actually been thinking of Dominion. I have not read it, based on the reviews it looks like it makes the case for eating vegan while insisting that animals are not our equals.

u/esmifra · 1 pointr/Futurology

Alan Weisman wrote a book explaining what would happen to the infrastructures and world as we know it if we disappeared over night.

It's one of my favorite books.

u/skydivinghuman · 1 pointr/NoStupidQuestions

Read this a few years ago. Discussed exactly that. The World Without Us

u/dsfgdfbhcvxsdf · 1 pointr/pics

> And look how much damage we have done in the tiny amount of time we've been here.

What damage? What impact have humans had on Earth that will still be here a million years later? Here's an interesting book, if you are interested. It describes what would happen to a major human city if all humans suddenly vanished from the Earth.

> do you truly believe that it wouldn't be morally wrong for humans to try to make every species extinct - because species die out anyway?

But we are not actively trying to make every single species out there go extinct. And even if we were there is no way we would be able to do that. The fact that there are a handful of endangered species out there is not a sign of the end of the world. And this really isn't a question of what's morally right and wrong. Life doesn't care about right and wrong, it cares about survival.

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying that we have the right to go and exterminate every single thing on this planet. What I am saying is that nature is not frail and weak, and we are not as powerful as we like to believe. Look at all the natural disasters through out history. Earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, and fires. All of these have destroyed major cities in mere hours.If the Earth was some sort of huge sentient being out to destroy us we wouldn't be able to last a week on this planet.

And things like global warming is no big deal for nature. Dramatic climate changes happen all the time. It might cause a global mass extinction. But in the end the Earth will be fine. We won't be however. That's why we shouldn't be worried about saving the planet, we should be worried about saving ourselves.

u/synapsecollapse · 1 pointr/AskReddit

OP should read The World Without Us. Awesome book explaining how long it would take for nature to reclaim the world when all humans are gone.

u/hso · 1 pointr/pics
u/nightbiscuit · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/Xantodas · 1 pointr/

Reading this right now. Has been a popular subject with me lately, the early US space missions that is, not necessarily just the moon landing. It's old and written by a magazine team, but seems alright.

Some other non-fictions I've read over the last 2-3 years that scream out at me are Ice; the Nature, History and Uses of an Astonishing Substance. Basically everything you could ever want to know about ice. The World Without Us. What would happen to our world if people disappeared completely tomorrow? Fascinating and quick read, plan on rereading it again soon. A Long Way Gone. Story of an African boy soldier. Grim, yet fascinating topic. Guitar; An American Life. History of guitars, how they're built. I'm a player, and so this was great. And lastly, A Crack in the Edge of the World. All about the 1906 SF earthquake, which is my neck of the woods, so was good local history reading.

u/HomeNucleonics · 1 pointr/AskReddit

There's also an excellent book by Alan Weisman on the topic.

u/TheChanger · 1 pointr/books

To add something to the list that others might enjoy, The World Without Us is a fantastic thought experiment of what might happen if humans disappeared overnight. The book delves into a a brief history of human artifacts and how long they could withstand the test of time.

u/schpdx · 1 pointr/worldbuilding

This book is useful for your scenario: The World Without Us. After 40 years, not much city infrastructure will be left usable. Especially since nature has had a chance to play with it for 40 years. Trees get pretty big in 40 years, and there was no one to pull out the saplings. Concrete buildings will still have most of their basic structure recognizable, albeit full of cracks and spalling all over. Wood buildings...might be recognizable as a hill of vegetation. The wood (even pressure treated wood) won't last for 40 years under those conditions. I suppose you might find occasional wood buildings in protected areas that might still be recognizable as a building. Expect leaks if it rains, though.

u/face-on-the-head · 1 pointr/mildlyinteresting

Not totally sure - maybe 100 years or less? That’s a total guess.
this book might be ideal for you

u/lilmookie · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

I can offer a general layman's overview of you like (global studies ftw)

I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at but:

"Humans comprise about 100 million tonnes of the Earth's dry biomass, domesticated animals about 700 million tonnes, ..."

I think human lifestyle might be a bigger issue. If you include indirect human usage like domesticated animals (and the resulting sewage pools) etc.

You might really like this book:

Edit: hopefully as technology progresses we can be less disruptive towards our environment. I'm convinced that bio diversity will be a huge scientific/economic boom in terms of finding out what kind of genetic/mathematical/physical models work well as trial tested by time/evolution (granted they're not all winners but...) A lot of solid architecture and medicine has come straight out of nature. Seems like a shame we're just pissing it away for short term goals/benefits.

I also look forward to the day all science merged into one and there's something better out there to run society than what humans/computers/programs are limited to at the moment.

u/Wildcatb · 1 pointr/gifs

Very welcome :-)

The speed with which nature will take over if left to its own devices is amazing.

For a really good read on the subject, check out The World Without Us.

u/PkSLb9FNSiz9pCyEJwDP · 1 pointr/answers

Check out the book by Alan Weisman, the world without us. Pretty good read. link

u/SmellyWetDawg · 1 pointr/evolution

Anything by Richard Dawkins is great for a general overview. If you wanted to drill down into human evolution, I'd recommend Last Ape Standing: The Seven-Million-Year Story of How and Why We Survived. For fun if you wanted to read an author's hypothesis on a world without humans, I'd recommend The World Without Us. Spoiler alert: cats thrive, dogs die.

u/roontish12 · 1 pointr/askscience

I don't understand why would the US be exempt? But you can take a look at The World Without Us for an idea of what would happen if every human being on earth died or disappeared at the same time.

u/kleinbl00 · 1 pointr/books
  • Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA by Tim Wiener. Chapter and verse how a small cadre of adventuresome elitists ended up shaping the post-War world into what it is today.

  • The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. A balanced look at the effects upon the world of the economic systems of capitalism and communism, and an analysis of how the Soviet loss of the Cold War does not mean an American win.

  • Blood Brothers: The Criminal Underworld of Asia by Bertil Linter. As much a socioeconomic history of the Pacific Rim as a flashy expose of Triads, the Yakuza and the Tongs, Blood Brothers delves into the philosophy of crime in Asia and how the Western paradigm of Law/Crime is inadequate when describing the Eastern mindset of quasi-governmental organized "crime."

  • The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. Discusses the overall impact of mankind on ecology, geology, and the future of the planet, whether or not we happen to be here.

  • The Joke by Milan Kundera. A lyrical, heartbreaking look into the workings of Soviet Czechoslovakia. The allegations that Milan Kundera may have been an informant himself throws a stark and surreal light on the book.

  • The Evolution of Useful Things by Henry Petroski. Starting with the fork and working his way through the paperclip, Petroski illustrates that the oft-repeated platitude "necessity is the mother of invention" is completely wrong - luxury is the mother of invention.

  • Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Oversimplified and infuriating, Ishmael is, however, a pretty good overview told in a semi-entertaining way of Conrad Lorenz's argument that the modern lifestyle is fucking stupid and we were all better off as hunter-gatherers. If condescending sophistry isn't your bag, go to The Source.

  • Watchmen. Fer real.
u/Lost_Afropick · 1 pointr/askscience

The book you want to read is this one

It's very detailed and very good.

u/Zankabo · 1 pointr/atheism

I also encourage:

"Last Chance to See"

"The Deeper Meaning of Liff"

Both are excellent books. Honestly he was a great writer, and greatly missed.

u/drwicked · 1 pointr/travel

Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams is a fantastic travelogue. I love it so much.

Also Michael Palin's books, Around the World in 80 Days and Hemingway Adventure are especially fine.

u/ForgettableUsername · 1 pointr/pics

Haha, they're among my favorite books. If you haven't read it, you should also check out Last Chance to See, which Adams wrote with Mark Carwardine, about a project to travel around the world and see various rare animals on the edge of extinction. I've always felt it was a bit under-appreciated.

u/hamstock · 1 pointr/askscience

While it isn't strictly a science book, Douglas Adam's "Last Chance to See" Is a really great book on a few endangered species he toured around the world to go and try to find. Its short and hilarious and also does a really wonderful job at showing you how silly humans can be and how our silliness actually has pretty detrimental effects on the other animals we share this world with.

If you know anything about Douglas Adams and his Hitch Hikers Guide book then you will probably really enjoy this. It's an overlooked gem in his body of work.

u/readingarefun · 1 pointr/travel

Maybe something like Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine

u/anmoyunos · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Last Chance to See, starring Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine.

The series is based off the book of the same title, written by Douglas Adams, 20 years prior on his travels with Mark Carwardine.

The series is excellent on its own, and Mark talks plenty about his previous trip with Douglas, but it is even better having read the book as well.

u/scayne · 1 pointr/camping

I've used this one in the field

National Audubon American Mushrooms

u/fornax55 · 1 pointr/nanaimo

If you can get your hand on an Audubon's Guide, they're sort of the gold standard for identifying and harvesting in the PNW.
Here's a link to their mushroom guide

u/Shigofumi · 1 pointr/gardening

This book is your bible. It's what I used for my mycology course.

u/Lukesbushcraft · 1 pointr/Bushcraft

About 2 years ago I started really getting into wild plants, sense then I have learned many plants edible, medicinal, and poisonous.

this is where I started
along with youtube.

u/Fucking_throwaway101 · 1 pointr/personalfinance

Also, I forgot to mention. If you want vegetables on the cheap, there's a few ways to go about it. Try going to a flea market that sells vegetables. Often they will sell an entire basket (hand sized basket) of vegetables for a dollar or two. For carrots that's not a big deal, but for peppers, tomatoes, mushrooms,'s wonderful.

You can also offer to cook for someone. Since your ingredients are on the cheap, you can do the hard work of cooking and gain some donations without giving a lot of materials up.

Occasionally, if you study, you can find some harvestable herbs (not weed) growing wild. It's not unheard of to stumble on wild onions, and many wild plants are in fact edible, but always always always check leaf type, leaf grouping, and look alikes. One of my favorite old books is the Petersons Guide to Edible Plants. (

Obviously, don't buy it now. Check it out from the library. You'd be amazed at what you can eat to stay alive once you know what to use, and how to prepare it.

u/omnimoogle · 1 pointr/AskReddit

My Peterson Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants is excellent for putting anything dangerous on the same page as its edible lookalikes. If it's applicable to your region of choice, I'd recommend it.

u/CivilBrocedure · 1 pointr/IWantToLearn

Learn how to identify and use wild plants within your area. There are many edible species that grow wild and in abundance; this is a practice that essentially every human generation prior to this past century was skilled at yet it is becoming a lost skill. Get a guide to edible plants and spend time out in the wild learning to identify which is which. /r/whatsthisplant is also a good resource for identification and there is a large (20k+) group on Facebook which is an excellent resource full of knowledgeable gardeners and naturalists.

u/PM_ME_YOUR_LUNCHEON · 1 pointr/tifu

As a s some what seasoned forager I would really recommend the [Peterson Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants.] ( It is very easy to use and great for beginners. It's uses drawings instead of photos for better clarity and has a simple and intuitive identification system. It is also a very good idea to have 2 or more different guides for cross referencing.

u/greath · 1 pointr/AskReddit

I bought this recently. It will be very useful when society breaks down during the next zombie apocalypse.

u/Mr2001 · 1 pointr/slatestarcodex

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind has some interesting thoughts related to this. It's also been referenced in "Westworld".

u/CoconutCurry · 1 pointr/Life_Journals

Here, Ace Hardware just sells hardware and garden stuff. Landscaping tools, seeds, those huge wooden barrels... It's probably that there's less places up there that sell things like fabric and stuff, so they figured why not.

Hah, yeah. I got my mom to try Thai food years ago. She loves it. She got me to try Vietnamese food this last summer. Fair trade.

My mom went down to New Mexico. Got me some Roswell souvenirs. Apparently there's an entire UFO museum. Her husband also has some family down there, so they got to visit them. She had a blast... and showed me the picture slideshow at least 3 times.

Battlestar is actually not very space-battle heavy. There's some good space battles, but most of it is interpersonal. The bad guys blend in, so there's the whole spy thriller thing.

Pick up Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind if you haven't already. It blew my mind and made me see things in a very different way. It's (in toddler-basic terms) a study of the psychology of ancient peoples based on archaeological evidence, primarily ancient religious materials (because those where usually the best preserved forms of writing etc.).

Also check out Joseph Campbell. I've only read one of his books, but he's a brilliant man who has made comparative mythology his life's work. Definitely gave me some food for thought and helped me figure out where I stand in terms of spirituality and religion.

Hah, yeah. No worries. Setup first is pretty much my go-to for any situation. I'm probably not going to get drunk, as it's not really my thing, but I'm also not likely to be able to set up a tent by myself... so I'll be wrangling someone to help me with that probably with a minute of us finding a decent spot.

I have no idea what games people know how to play. I pretty much only know Go Fish, War, basic 5-card stud, and cribbage... but I don't know wtf happened to my cribbage board, and I've only found like 2 other people under the age of 50 who know the game. If all else fails, there's solitare. My brother and I ended up playing hangman yesterday, so there's that, too. He doesn't go anywhere without pencils and paper.

u/caseinpoint · 1 pointr/biology

It's a long read or audiobook, but i highly recommend reading:

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

It blew my mind and has to do with this exact topic.

u/agolho · 1 pointr/HelloInternet

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" if you liked guns, germs and steel and superintelligence. Like GGS it too constructs a hypotesis and goes on and on to support it. Also as the title suggests it tries to answer the question "where did consciousness came from? and how did it get so complex?"

I really like Dawkins' comment about this book: "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between ..."

u/kantbot · 1 pointr/DarkEnlightenment

This book becomes very interesting when read in light of this one.

u/Eternally65 · 1 pointr/books

I'd nominate "Snow Crash" as the most entertaining book on this list. It's very funny, has wonderfully memorable characters ranging from the deliciously named 'Hiro Protagonist' to a 16 year old skateboard courier, from the head of the mafia ("competition is not part of the mafia ethos") to the would be global telecomms monopolist.

A lot of the plot relies on this book with what might be the world's most daunting title. (You don't actually get to the part that involves that thesis until well into "Snow Crash".)

It's well written and sometimes startlingly funny.

You might have to work harder to get overall themes out of it since it is a work of entertainment. (The author has mused about the 'bifurcation' in writing between what he calls "Dante" fiction and "Beowulf" fiction. See the answer to the second question in this interview. The interview also contains the deathless line, "I had to let her know that the reason she'd never heard of me was because I was famous.")

You are not likely to bog down in overly turgid or pompous prose. <grin>

u/israelhands · 1 pointr/askscience

An interesting book I read related to this subject. I'm not one to really tell if his ideas hold water or if he's a total crackpot, but I found it a fascinating read. If you can find it in your local library, I definitely recommend it.

u/Kromulent · 1 pointr/trees

Nice music, thanks. That was new to me.

I can suggest a book that's pretty cool - it can be challenging to read in parts, but the first chapter is accessible and worthwhile all on its own:

Read the reviews.

u/bigalh · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

There's a really good book that explores this:

Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".

If you're REALLY serious about considering this question, read that book slowly and think about it. Is that voice actually "in your head"? Is it possible that your consciousness, whatever that is, can exist in a room down the hall? Is it existing right now or a split second in the past?

We know that chemical and physical reactions constitute brain activity, which is how we think, but your nervous system doesn't just exist in your head. There's aspects of your nervous system that function inside your body without ever consulting your brain consciously or subconsciously.

There's the concept of a mastermind, a consciousness that develops when two or more people are working on something together. Where does that consciousness exist?

Are "you" observing the world through the lens of your mind, or are you directly experiencing it as "you"? In how many ways can you observe/experience the world? We think of our experiences as a movie that we're viewing, especially when we're remembering, but all of that can be biased and influenced by the feelings we're having right now. We can even have memories implanted in our heads by others or even ourselves.

Our consciousness isn't a computer, it's an organic phenomenon that is extremely malleable and subjective. In short, it's not exactly "you".

These are fun questions to ask, specifically because they don't have an exact answer, and we've been trained to think that everything has an exact answer or no answer yet. This isn't much of an ELI5. I'm sorry.

u/mynameisalso · 1 pointr/psychology

I'm just a normal guy, but this book is a real trip. He thinks up to about 3000 years ago humans didn't have a conscience. And when it started to develop people thought it was God speaking to them. I don't know how true it is, but extremely interesting.

u/spike · 1 pointr/books

Fiction: Locus Solus by Raymond Roussel

Non-Fiction (?): The origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

u/T_H_E_Y · 1 pointr/atheism

My 2nd favotite book next to God Delusion: ( It explains organically why we are cursed with a cocept of god in the first place. Dawkins makes mention of Jaynes' theory, and gives a nod to my other 2nd favorite related book by Carl Sagan (

u/CaptnMeowMix · 1 pointr/Monero

I know right? Totally unrelated to monero, but for anyone that's interested, the book "The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes gives a pretty interesting theory about how and why this kind of authority worshiping behavior was likely the dominant mode of thinking for much of ancient history. If anything, witnessing all this authoritarian-loving hysteria springing up recently, without an ounce of self-reflection or irony, seems like pretty damning evidence of the book's hypothesis being true.

u/bloodraven_darkholme · 1 pointr/WhitePeopleTwitter

For any one who likes West World and dense philosophy texts -- Jaynes wrote an interesting theory on how humans "evolved" the inner monologue: His book is great, but not for the faint of heart.

u/micheletorbidoni · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

This one here is, maybe, THE MOST controversial book regarding our (supposed) shift from non-self-conscious mind to self-conscious one. It's a very (very) interesting reading.

u/hmmthisisodd · 1 pointr/conspiracy

You started off great then went right back into your hole.

Mass is information, good, a cop out if you don't really understand but we will start there.

Then you went from information, back to shit you have to measure. The reason the plank volume and area are 1:1 is because they are both conjugates of golden ratio, your calculations is only relevant up to a real measure, because in fact it could be any scaled versions of those. This is where perception can change a meter to a mile.

"dont ask, it just is" that is a stupid way to interpret the fact the questions you ask and answers you get depend on what you define.

If you ask stupid questions, like what is the source of consciousness, without knowing what consciousness is, then you get shitty answers.

>The only thing you need to understand to understand mass is infinite spin. Once you have an infinite energy due to infinite quantization due to infinitely nested spin boundaries, everything else falls into place. This is exactly analogous to the basic tenants of quantum field theory which requires a harmonic oscillator at each point in space.

Now consider what the purpose of the complex plane is and how that eliminates renorm/singularities.

You are on the right track.

>which is a main practice of mainstream physicists

This is why you go to 1950 and earlier. I would recommend you read this book:

It will help when you get to the "holy shit, how the fuck haven't they finished this yet" point. The full copy is also amazing.

And when you are ready for the second half of your journey (once you can derive Schrodinger's equation (it is possible and quite simple once you have the necessary knowledge)):

When you see what they did and how they did it, you will understand my attitude and frustration.

u/MiserableFungi · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

For the lazy, the primary source/citation for the wiki link is a book by Julian Jaynes called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. OP's claims are more comprehensively backed by the contents of said book. Although not universally accepted as a valid psychological theory of mind, the author's work is well known enough that OP shouldn't be faulted for assuming some degree of familiarization among the scientifically literate here. Even among those who aren't, the recent HBO reboot/re-imagining of Westworld referenced it such that the idly curious would likely have at least some inkling of it. Not necessarily defending the concept of bicameralism. (I think it is an interesting idea but am bothered by the lack of scientific evidence to back it up.) Just providing context here.

u/happybanjodude · 1 pointr/westworld

The title of the finale was based on this book so check it out! Waiting to read it myself.

u/ASnugglyBear · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

Mind's I edited by Daniel Dennet and Douglas Hofsteader

A Sense of Style by Steven Pinker

The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julien Jaynes (This is completely debunked, but mindblowing all the same).

u/memento22mori · 1 pointr/science

The psychological consequences are also the most interesting aspect to me, it's my primary focus. The only problem with the subject is no matter how much evidence you gather mainstream psychology will say it's not enough. From my experience, most educated people think that the mind has changed very little over the last several thousand years because they can't imagine otherwise, but the mind is a very adaptable thing and can change quickly if the proper stimuli appears. I'm going to attach a summary of my favorite book on the subject, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Keep up the good work on your studies. I regret not doing very much of my homework... sometimes aha.

u/Maxables · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

You may also want to check out this book. It's very heady, but thoroughly explores a couple theories for the advent of human consciousness, and its relation to language.

u/nebraska_admiral · 1 pointr/IWantToLearn

If you have a solid background in calculus, this is a great book that touches on fractals as part of a broader treatment of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory. You can also learn a lot by messing around with fractal plots (especially the Mandelbrot set) in programs like Winplot and seeing what happens.

u/grandzooby · 1 pointr/

You can download the full episodes at:

The podcasts are short, but the full hour-long episodes are available. It's one of my favorite programs. That, and Philosophy Talk.

Radio Lab tends to feature one of my favorite mathematicians, Steven Strogatz, in several episodes (Emergence was great). He has a good presentation style (see YouTube) and I've really enjoyed his book:

What kind of nerd am I to have a favorite mathematician? I'm not sure I want to know.

u/blinkallthetime · 1 pointr/askscience

In order to learn about chaos theory, you need to know a little bit about differential equations. If you feel like you have that down, this book is a good place to start for a beginner:

u/mechanician87 · 1 pointr/askscience

No problem, glad you find it interesting. If you want to know more, Steve Strogatz's Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos is a good place to start and is generally very accessible. It talks about how to tell what regions of phase space are stable vs unstable, for example, and how chaos arises out of all of this. Overall it is a good read and has a lot of interesting examples (as is typical of a lot of his books).

For more on the Hamiltonian mechanics in particular (albeit at a more advanced level), the classic text is Goldstein's Classical Mechanics. Its definitely more dense, but if you can push through it and get at what the math is saying its a really interesting subject. For example, in principle, you can do a coordinate transformation where you decouple all the generalized momentum - coordinate pairs and do a sort of modal analysis on a system where you would never be able to do so otherwise (these are called action-angle variables)

u/wthannah · 1 pointr/math

It's cool that you're interested in complex systems, but your post is a bit vague. I liked Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos (Strogatz). It is a very easy/friendly intro to the field. Another good book, depending on what you're wanting to do, might be Daniel Gillespie's book on markov processes. In general, you basically need to read some papers, find a type of problem/approach that interests you and then fill in the blanks with supplementary material. Most of what you need to know is in a journal somewhere. Google that shit. If you want to code stuff, learn python & C.

u/haveyouread · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Strogatz writes in a very easy to understand manner. For those interested in chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics, this is the book to read.

u/schulajess · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

I just finished The Sixth Extinction
Exciting, startling, readable and current.

u/SwedishFishSlut · 1 pointr/OkCupid

I'm currently reading baby books... but my backburner book that I want to be reading but am only 50 or so pages into is The Sixth Extinction and I'm really into it. But more into learning how to not kill my baby.

u/DurangoOfTheRiver · 1 pointr/technology
u/minibuster · 1 pointr/changemyview

That's why I made the remark at the end about separating the signal from the noise. If you get to n = 200, at that point, you need to start questioning your sources. That shouldn't be conflated with questioning the event itself, which of course can be done, but it should be a separate effort.

If you read the book about disasters I listed above, the problem wasn't with people making mistakes because n was 200, but that people stopped listening even when n = 2 or 3. That's a human nature problem, and we should all be aware we have that potential blind spot when we find ourselves digging our heels in.

And finally, I don't know why people don't see climate change as n = 1 at this point, to be honest. This is unlike anything in the past - there is so much evidence out there, so much consensus, so many ecosystems falling apart so quickly right now (here's one book on it), and so many economic and social impacts we're already dealing with, it seems dated to be discussing if. In scientific circles at least, the conversation has long ago moved on to how we can respond to it, but at present it doesn't seem like things will end well.

u/Unoriginal-Pseudonym · 1 pointr/the_meltdown

ITT: People who are trying to argue with people without trying to change their minds.

I'm no expert, but I'll paraphrase words from people who are.

The single best piece of material I've ever seen on the mass extinction we are living in (not the mass extinction that's coming; the one we are currently witnessing) is this. The Sixth Extinction (well, mass extinction) does a really good job of simplifying complex stuff into what normal people like myself can digest. Yes, by definition, this is a mass extinction; the rates of background extinction are currently hundreds to thousands of times higher than before significant human activity and approaching that of the fallout of the comet/asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Please search up background extinction rates and read some material before attempting to argue about this.

Climate change is tremendous, but it is only part of a series of problems that are about to fuck us in the butthole mouth ear bellybutton set that includes all of our orifices. Ocean acidification, habitat fragmentation, flora/fauna trying to migrate and failing (yes, flora. Tree populations spread up slopes faster than down slopes with climate change, especially around warmer climates). The loss of megafauna that comes with poaching and habitat fragmentation.

On top of that, by spreading around the whole globe, we spread life and disease in places where the environment has not evolved to place density-dependent limiting factors on them. We have new invasive species coming into California every week.

I understand your concern that we have more pressing matters, and that we have more time to solve this issue. But we don't. The youngest generation will witness significant changes. Last time we had this much CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were about 100 feet higher.

We are currently past the point of being able to solve the problems. We would need a way to cleanse the atmosphere, cut our population, stop expansion, shut off the car, and end globalization if we are to have the people five generations from now not worry about how to survive.

There is no happy ending to our story. There is only a later ending. We release the most carbon emissions in the world. And we just elected Donald Drumpf.


u/ABaconOfFractals · 1 pointr/news

That should be a decent start. If that's too elementary I could make some other recommendations.

u/pi314158 · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

Honestly I've never seen anything that even attempts to go over the sheer vastness of what goes on inside a cell. The best thing I can think of is to look over the movements and organization of phospholipids on the outer membrane, receptor tyrosine kinases, G-protein coupled receptors, and nuclear transcription factors. That just gives a very small sample of how many interactions the cell has with the outside environment. I know this is probably not what you're looking for, but this is currently the bible for cell/molecular biology:

u/MechaAkuma · 1 pointr/pcmasterrace

Went to med school for 4 years. Most expensive text book I spent on was ~$34 bucks That Apple book is still 20 times that.

u/Biotruthologist · 1 pointr/biology

It probably would not be a bad idea to get some knowledge of basic biology. Biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics are probably the big three sub-disciplines you want to familiarize yourself with, but to do that you need to have a good idea of basic biology. Campell Biology is the textbook of choice for freshman biology. Molecular Biology of the Cell is a fantastic book for molecular and cellular biologists. I, unfortunately, don't know of any good books for synthetic biology itself, but these two can give you a start.

u/Fluffnugget · 1 pointr/trees

I recommend this book. I read it a while back and remember it having some good information on Ayahausca and its tribal uses. I'm pretty sure that the author also tries it and gives his report.

u/QuakePhil · 1 pointr/samharris

While I haven't read this one, it purports to answer some of these questions

(it does seem far fetched, although listening to the video in the OP, I'm having trouble finding where JP mentioned DNA specifically... Can anyone please link hr:mn:sc?)

u/CitizenLuke117 · 1 pointr/Meditation

Your DNA. Seriously. Maybe.
Read this book: The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge by Jeremy Narby

u/akashic_record · 1 pointr/Psychonaut

I recommend also reading Jeremy Narby's book "The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge."

u/Imgodnigga · 1 pointr/Ayahuasca

The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge

A MUST read for anyone who has ever partaken :)

u/pedanticist · 1 pointr/IAmA

I used to do the Shroomery quite a bit... grew up some. Not to disparage, but some of them damn kids! Ugh.

Too northern? I'm not sure about that. Season's coming up for winter stuff in northern climates...

Are you asking for a "shroom" guide, or a mushroom guide?
This for the former.
This and this for the latter.

Can you tell me where you are, generally, so that i can help?

u/that_cachorro_life · 1 pointr/foraging

This is my favorite mushroom guide! all the rain promises and more

Make sure you learn the deadliest mushroom types so you can avoid look alikes, and remember to positively ID each mushroom type you find from a guide and to make sure it is not a similar looking type that may be poisonous. For example, the shaggy parasol and green spored parasol look very very similar, but one will make you very sick. You could also look into joining a local mycological society.

u/skysoles · 1 pointr/SeattleWA

Quinault and Hoh rainforests are definitely worth your time. I've haven't been to the Queets or Bogacheil yet, so I'm not sure about them but I've been told the Queets is amazing even though there was a fire a ways into it a couple summers ago.

The Quinault valley has many largest of type trees in it. You can hike to the end of the valley to a place called "The Enchanted Valley" that has an old abandoned lodge in it and during the snow melt season has hundreds of waterfalls cascading down the cliffs behind it. It's truly beautiful. I went late spring last year and missed the most impressive melt time, but there were still tons of waterfalls and it was amazingly beautiful. The Olympic coast is also an exquisitely beautiful place to camp. I find the coastal spruce forests to be very magical, if somewhat ominous. My favorite plant book states that "the sharp needles of spruce were believed to give it special powers for protection against evil thoughts." There is definitely something very protective about them. Both the Quinault (some parts, check with the ranger to see if your specific campsite requires) and the coast (all areas) require bear cannisters which you can get for a couple dollar deposit at the Quinault ranger station or in Port Angeles.

The Snoqualmie Middle Fork area is also really awesome and much closer, however it's been mostly logged so the trees aren't massive like they are in ONP.

I also strongly recommend doing some mushroom hunting. In the spring, east of the mountains you can find Morels. I haven't been out morel hunting yet because I don't have a car, but I know they grow on burned areas. In the fall you can find tons of delicious edibles. Chanterelles abound. Make sure you have a good guide.

Closer in is Cougar, Squak and Tiger Mountains in Issaquah. We call them the Issaquah Alps. There're over 100 miles of trails and all three mountains have access within ~1 mile of a bus stop.

Not having a car I don't get far out as often as I'd like so I'm always looking for opportunities to go on nature adventures! Hit me up if you're ever interested.

u/BeamTeam · 1 pointr/foraging

"All That The Rain Promises and More" is pretty much THE pocket sized mushroom foraging book. Its technically not specific to the US west coast, but in reality it's very west coast oriented.

All That The Rain Promises and More

u/kmc_v3 · 1 pointr/bayarea

For mushrooms in general (not specifically psychedelic ones) I recommend All That the Rain Promises and More by David Arora. If you like that then check out Mushrooms Demystified which is his famous tome. Two newer books with beautiful color photographs are Mushrooms of the Redwood Coast by Noah Siegel and Christian Schwarz, and California Mushrooms by Desjardin, Wood, and Stevens.

The best way though is to go foraging with someone who knows what they're doing. Check out MSSF or one of the other clubs in the area. If you join MSSF now, you can still get a spot on the Mendocino Woodlands camping trip, which is an absolute blast.

u/ElfinPrincessMarlene · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon
u/slippy0101 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Depending where you live, mushroom hunting.

Edit to add that it can be good exercise and an excuse to get out of the house.

u/pizzabunnie · 1 pointr/mycology
u/penguining · 1 pointr/funny

Now, try not to crash Amazon with your rush to buy it.

u/FreelanceFPS · 1 pointr/mycology

If by ‘good kind’ you mean psilocybin containing, you are dangerously far off. Buy and cherish Paul Stamet’s Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World( if you want to know what to look for.

If by ‘good kind’ you mean edible, then you should read the sticky on how to properly request an ID as you are missing key features used in identification of your mushroom.

Based on the initial picture I would say very likely a no to both possibilities of a good kind.

u/psychonaut936 · 1 pointr/shrooms
u/netherfountain · 1 pointr/shrooms

Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World: An Identification Guide

u/aspbergerinparadise · 1 pointr/IAmA

The world is your source

u/c0mm0nSenseplz · 1 pointr/startrek
u/pharmaconaut · 1 pointr/Drugs

Well, yes, but certain mushrooms grow in certain areas. Not sure how many woodloving mushrooms ya'll got over there in your Louisiana woods, as they're all over the Pacific North West. Could be.

I'd read up on Psilocybe mushrooms, and recommend Paul Stamets' book Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World. The important thing is not knowing about the blue bruising Psilocybes, but rather the blue bruising lookalikes which are toxic.

u/jdow117 · 1 pointr/PsilocybinMushrooms

the first two links will give you more of a general overview of identification techniques and psychoactive mushrooms at large . the youtube playlist at the bottom depicts videos of the species that occur in massachusetts. the more research you do, the more confident you will be. especially considering this is your first hunt, make sure to clarify with experienced hunters reports online. please be extra careful my friend, and if you can’t find any locally i’m sure you can find other ways of obtaining the magic. cheers!

u/SenselessNoise · 1 pointr/see

Hey, you. Yeah, you reading this. Don't think these LBM's (Little Brown Mushrooms) that look an awful lot like the ones growing in your yard are safe. Never, ever, EVER pick and eat mushrooms you find unless you have extensive knowledge of mycology. LBM's are notorious for being difficult to identify, as they have no real phenotypic traits (fancy way of saying that there are few visual cues as to what they are and if they're safe or not).

LBM's usually require spore prints to identify the species, and even then you need a keen eye and lots of experience to use those to identify the mushroom. There are plenty of books to help, but remember that microscopic features can be the difference between a trip and a trip to the hospital.

u/jadenton · 1 pointr/worldnews

I'm not projecting, you're just a fucking filthy liar.

The letter is a hoax. You've admitted that is doesn't exist, and yet your somehow still defending it. Here the book that really explain why you do this :

Unlike your source, which is just one quake ranting about his political opponents, the author of this book pulls togther study after study after study into neroscience to present his thesis about how cognitively defective and morally deficent right wingers are. Funny enough, it's a branch of study that got started back in the 1950s as people tried to figure out how so many Germans could be made to go along with the Nazis. Turns out, 30% of the population is just evil, right wing filth that really really has a hard time confronting reality.

u/MrOrdinary · 1 pointr/IAmA

I just heard there is a new book out about the Republican Brain. About how differently Reps and Dems think. Sounded interesting on the radio review. It may enlighten some.

edit: ok it's due out this week. link

u/Benegger85 · 1 pointr/trump

Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology behind why today’s Republicans reject reality—it's just part of who they are.

From climate change to evolution, the rejection of mainstream science among Republicans is growing, as is the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy and much more. Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts?

Science writer Chris Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas and less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.  

Goes beyond the standard claims about ignorance or corporate malfeasance to discover the real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts (e.g., there were no “death panels” in the health care bill).

Explains that the political parties reflect personality traits and psychological needs—with Republicans more wedded to certainty, Democrats to novelty—and this is the root of our divide over reality.

Written by the author of The Republican War on Science, which was the first and still the most influential book to look at conservative rejection of scientific evidence. But the rejection of science is just the beginning…

Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.

u/jonathan881 · 1 pointr/videos

have you read this? disregard the politics it's worthwhile for the psychology.

u/Exsanguinatus · 1 pointr/politics

So, what you're telling me is that you're not biased, don't think it's possible to search for the statistics around the topic at hand, believe that everyone abuses the welfare system, yet when presented with evidence gathered by the federal agency responsible for the welfare program that contradicts your non-biased view of the matter, you dismiss it immediately as preposterous without needing to provide any counter-examples proving that it is indeed preposterous?

There's a book out I think you should read.

It cites all sorts of lovely studies. Studies that "show conservatives more likely to defend their beliefs against new evidence and highly-educated conservatives are even more prone to do so." (Kulinski is the name of the guy who ran the study, but I'm having trouble finding a link to the paper at the moment, and I have to get to work)

But nobody's trying to tell you you're not biased at all. No. I'd never tell you to your face that you're not, in fact, in possession of the truth (big T, or little t - take your pick).

edit - started on a cell phone, and the damned thing thought it was time to post half-way through my comment.

u/QEDLondon · 1 pointr/atheism

Here is another source for the claim conservative and progressive brains/personalities are different:

The Republican Brain, Chris Mooney

u/shadmere · 1 pointr/politics

This is a great book about that very subject.

It's not that Republicans are mentally wrong, but they do tend to think differently than liberals in many areas. Many of those differences, while they might be useful in certain situations and contexts, are pretty awful when dealing with a modern, free society.

u/opcow · 1 pointr/atheism

The book is called The Greatest Show on Earth. You can hear Dawkins tell the story of the typo here (and then go to the beginning and watch the whole video and be very happy).

u/bmobula · 1 pointr/politics

> Science does not "work differently in different countries". Science is the scientific method.

I LOLed at the ignorance, I really did! Oh dear, what a sheltered little life you must lead. Don't get me wrong, I wish research funding fell out of the sky with no political agenda or strings attached, but sadly that is not the reality. Of course if you knew anything about scientific research, I wouldn't have to explain this to you like you were a child.

> I'm agnostic.

If you're agnostic and you're accusing scientists like myself - people who have reviewed the mountain of evidence in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection that converges from dozens of different disciplines and concluded that it is a fact - of being a cult member, then you are either fantastically ignorant or fantastically stupid. Or both.

As it happens, there are several superb books that explain all of the evidence for evolution in ways that are reasonable accessible to educationally deprived individuals such as yourself. Perhaps a little less Fox News for you, and a little more reading, hmm?

u/bigwhale · 1 pointr/atheism

I'd recommend The Greatest Show on Earth. It's a great explanation of how it all works. Even thinking I knew, I learned a lot.

u/FeierInMeinHose · 1 pointr/atheism

Actually, Dawkins stated the same thing, albeit more elegantly, in his book The Greatest Show on Earth.

u/mirach · 1 pointr/politics
  1. What? I never said that "religion is taught more in school than evolution." I said that without an educational standard - which Ron Paul wants (govt out of everything) - many schools would choose to teach creationism. I live in Texas so hear about the board of education trying to add creationism into the textbooks pretty often. Many members who run for the board do so on a platform of inserting ID into the classroom. I never mentioned the pledge. And I don't know what you mean by the first sentence.

  2. How much have you studied evolution? Do you understand evolution? Try reading one of these books,

  1. Parents and teachers can be dumb. Experts should be writing the books and determining the material - with input from parents and teachers on what to focus on and how to present it - especially in technically difficult areas like evolution. In Texas this is a big concern because intelligent design (i.e. creationism) is taught in some science classes. Anyway, my point is that science class should be for science only and creationism has no place in it at all and neither should anything without scientific evidence backing it up. I almost don't even want to argue this because even acknowledging creationism with evolution raises it up to a status is doesn't deserve. Creationism is anti-science. And really, I don't mind studying religion in other contexts. I was taught the tenants and beliefs of religions in one of my classes and found it very informative. Analyzing the stories sounds more like it should stay in Bible Study though.

  2. Have you never heard of the Scopes Trial which challenged a law that made teaching of evolution illegal? I never said Dr. Paul would force creationism into public schools. I said he implicitly supports the teaching of creationism in public schools by taking a hands off approach. By holding the schools accountable to parents, you're going to get a lot more bad science taught in schools. Even you should see that some standards should be set so that we don't teach kids incorrect facts.
u/protell · 1 pointr/books

i recently finished reading "the greatest show on earth" by richard dawkins, it is a book about the evidence, beauty and elegance of evolution. it really was an amazing and informative read, yet still accessible to the layman.

i am currently reading "incognito:secret lives of the brain" by david eagleman. i originally heard about this from a talk he had done on npr a couple months ago. the basic gist of it is something like this: the vast majority of what goes on in your brain is controlled by your subconscious and goes on just fine without your consciousnesses ever needing involvement. occasionally a conflict arises that cannot be resolved by your subconscious, and a request is sent to the conscious to solve the issue. i'm probably butchering this explanation, and as i have only started the book, i can't give a good review one way or the other on it, but so far it seems interesting.

u/Chumkil · 1 pointr/atheism

You need to read this book, it has every argument you need:

u/Super_Sagan · 1 pointr/atheism

If you're interested in evolution, I would recommend Richard Dawkins as a favorite author of mine. He writes in a very understandable and accessible manner. I myself just finished The Greatest Show On Earth which covers the evidence for evolution. It was very informative and entertaining, and would be a great starting point if you can find it in a local library.

Edit: Just thought I'd add, Youtube can also be a great source. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, Sam Harris, all have videos online.

u/CoreLogic · 1 pointr/atheism

On the assumption you mean evolution, Richard Dawkins actually happens to be a well respected biology professor.

This is one of his leading books on the subject.

u/Murrabbit · 1 pointr/atheism

>good sources on Darwinism?

So far as I know "Darwinism" isn't actually a thing. I know this is mostly semantics, but really the only people who say "Darwinism" are creationists who wish to portray evolution as an ideology, and of course over-inflate Darwin's relevance in the contemporary theory of biological evolution. Hes he was the first to lay out the idea of evolution by natural selection, but we know oh so much more about it now than what his observations revealed, so painting Darwin as the final word in evolutionary theory is also just as misguided as trying to portray it as an ideology.

As for where to start, though, as a few others in this thread have suggested I'd say take a look at Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth. He does a wonderful job of explaining many of the major points in what is currently known about evolution and how we know it all in language that regular laypersons like most of us here are quite capable of understanding.

u/HertzaHaeon · 1 pointr/atheism
u/adodson · 1 pointr/atheism

Dawkins mentions this interview in his new book. I got it for Christmas. It seemed like a very good survey of the existing evidence... in a format that is like a rebuttal to her kind of denials.

u/jawston · 1 pointr/skeptic

Pick up the Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest show on Earth" and read it asap! It will explain it all and help you when you have to deal with such people.

u/fezzuk · 1 pointr/atheism

this is obviously much more up to date and is aimed at people like your father, i read it but found it was just preaching to the converted.

(also origins is incredibly racist in parts, due to the stupid that was around at that time. that can be used to attack it)

u/bperki8 · 1 pointr/atheism

Here are two books to help you.

Why evolution is true.

The Greatest Show on Earth

u/sheep1e · 1 pointr/atheism

Buy, or borrow from a library, a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth. Aside from giving you a metric assload of ammunition, it's interesting and you'll learn a lot.

u/jjberg2 · 1 pointr/askscience

You might try here:

and then ctr+F for "evolution" for a few previous instances of this question, or here:

or other variations thereupon.

Anyways, we don't make a habit of letting these questions out all that often, as they never really do well, and when they do attract attention it's mostly people who don't really understand evolution all that well, trying to explain evolution to people who definitely don't understand it that well, and it just never really winds up being productive (while those of us who do know something about evolution squirm in agony at even attempting to undue all the damage this whole "fact vs theory" thing in a somewhat concise manner).

I'm keeping it spammed (you could also try searching in /r/evolution), but my honest suggestion would be to have her read something like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, if she's willing to (and perhaps you could sit down and read it yourself first, to be able to give it an honest recommendation). Alternatively Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth is supposed to be good (I haven't read it myself), although Coyne's writing style might be more appealing for the non-academic, and some people are allergic to Richard Dawkins, for obvious reasons if you know who he is.

What's her angle. Presumably she is of the faithful? If that's really her angle, then you might be hard pressed to convince her with a short paragraph or two that I could provide.

u/Carg72 · 1 pointr/atheism

I wouldn't say a damn thing. I'd just point them in the direction of this and this.

u/ericchen · 1 pointr/AskReddit

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

u/Cdresden · 1 pointr/alaska
u/rcuhljr · 1 pointr/guns

link One of the better sources I've seen on the subject.

u/luigipasta · 1 pointr/Ultralight

Buddy of mine spends a lot of time outdoors, have me this book when I went to Alaska. I feel like it was very comprehensive.

u/mvmntsofthemind · 1 pointr/CampingandHiking
u/Acies · 1 pointr/CampingandHiking

Well first, I said he was claiming that running away was safe, I noticed that he advocated standing your ground.

But second, the question is, why not run in this case? The two main reasons bears attack are self defence and because they see something as prey. In a bear encounter, you have to balance your activity so that you appear as neither. If running away doesn't make you view the bear as prey, it sure doesn't make them view you as a threat. So it would seem to be by far the best course of action if it were true.

And third, it's false. Running will cause a bear to chase you, as demonstrated by a good number of incidents. I'll try to remember to edit this to cite a few of them when I get back home to my book, which I would incidentally advise for anyone interested in the subject.

u/VortexCortex · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

I turned my younger brother on to logic via Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

While not a book, per se, the appeal to fan fiction and use of science to dissect magic got him hooked, and he's shared it with all his friends. Not sure if that would fly with your cousin's parents, given the wizards and what not.

I mean, if you bought them a book on evolution, would their fundamentalist parents would let them read it? It reasons out very clearly why evolution is a fact using some simple critical thinking...

::sigh:: I wish religious indoctrination were outlawed below a certain age.

u/BustyMetropolis · 1 pointr/atheism

My one-stop book recommendation would be Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation. It's a short read, but nearly every paragraph is its own distinct argument, and it covers a lot of territory.

If you're aiming to construct your paper around a set of the most popular arguments, here are some common refutations to arguments for the existence of God. Keep in mind that many of our arguments are in the form of refutation instead of assertion, since the burden of proof is on the claimant:

Ontological Argument (Argument from experience) - We assert that feelings do not equal facts; revelation is not a reliable basis for a factual claim. We also realize that to criticize someone for feelings that are personal can seem like a personal attack. Most of us wouldn't tell someone who claims he/she had a spiritual experience that it didn't happen, but we would try to find a scientific explanation rather than coming to the immediate conclusion that it was God's doing. As a brief example, a friend of mine said he "felt the touch of God" when his daughter was born, but we interpret his feeling as a normal, natural high that most people feel at such an emotional moment.

Teleological Argument (Argument from design) - We accept the evidence for evolution and realize that it is inconsistent with the biblical creation story. For further reading about what proof we have for evolution, I'd personally recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and he promotes Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True though I haven't read the latter yet.

Cosmological Argument (Causal Argument) - This is a case of people assigning the "God" label to something difficult to comprehend. The best we have to go on so far is the Big Bang Theory, and scientists will continue to test the theory. We don't have evidence that the beginning of the universe was brought about by an omnipotent/omniscient being outside of what is claimed by religious texts, and that goes back to the. We might also ask, "who/what made God?" inviting an infinite loop of "which came first" questions.

Moral Argument - We believe (normal) people are able to tell the difference between right and wrong without religious guidance. In turn, it seems that the Christian Bible teaches, excuses, or condones actions that our enlightened society would deem immoral, such as slavery, killing of children and non-heterosexuals, oppression, rape, and genocide. Interpretations of the Bible differ, of course, and most modern Christians don't believe they should actually kill their disobedient children (or that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply since the coming of Christ, which is another conversation). Regardless of arguments from the Bible, we believe that science can tell us a lot more about morality than we give it credit for.

Lastly, here is a wikipedia list of lots more arguments in case you'd like to ask about specific ones: link

Good luck, and I hope you enjoy writing your paper. Not that you should necessarily crowd-source coursework, but you'd probably get quite a strong response if you posted up a final draft, too.

u/uwjames · 1 pointr/atheism

You are not ready for a debate, but perhaps you are ready for an education. Read/watch these and then report back to us:

Universe from Nothing Video

Universe From Nothing Book

The Selfish Gene Book

How New Organs arise video

Why Evolution is true Video

Greatest show on Earth Book

u/newtonslogic · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Buy it. Read It.

EDIT: quick note...for all those who enjoy those goofy memes...(and even for those who don't) Richard Dawkins introduced the term "memes" in his book The Selfish Gene.

u/CatFiggy · 1 pointr/evolution

>evolution is based around the fact that existence is random and chaotic.

>random system

Evolution is the opposite of random. It's natural selection, not natural shit happens (no offense). It's a pattern: the things likely to be reproduced are reproduced the most, and there end up being the most of those things, until they completely overpower the others and they're all that's left and they're the new standard. (To answer your questions: The hornier humans made more babies. Then there were more horny babies and humans. Today, all the humans are horny (inclined to mate), to paraphrase.)

We're not naked all the time because it snows. (I'm simplifying, but do you see my point?) Also, culture. That's been around, in anthropological terms, fo eva. (Shyness is something else. This is all extremely complex.)

>And if you take into account that that would accelerate reproduction too much, food supply would diminish and natural selection would kick in.

Looks like you answered your own question there. It's like trees: being taller (mating more) gets them an advantage; but being too tall costs too many resources (we eat too much) and they even out.

I hate to sound insulting, but there are soo many things wrong with your post; you don't understand evolution at all. I think you should read up on it a little. If you're willing to read a book, Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth is amazing. Not only will it give you a wonderful understanding, but it's just a brilliant read, and I plan on rereading it for the fun of it. And I got the tree thing from Chapter 12. (Dawkins explains it much better.)

But if you don't want to read a whole book, maybe find some articles or something.

Anyway, good luck.

u/johnnius · 1 pointr/Christianity

>I understand how we arrived at that theory, and it may even be true, but can we really say with 100% certainty that it is correct? Really?

100%? Sure, you're right. No, we can't be 100% sure. But we can be 99.9999% sure, and that's where we're at. Read The Greatest Show on Earth for a better understanding. All available evidence points to evolution of all species from a single common ancestor.

EDIT: Just wanted to add another phrasing: The theory of evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt.

u/gkhenderson · 1 pointr/DebateAnAtheist

I suggest you read a couple of books that present the evidence for evolution very clearly:

Why Evolution Is True

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Evolution itself is a simple concept, but the evidence for it is broad and detailed across many scientific disciplines, and it all fits together.

Regarding the existence of God, one can't prove that your God doesn't exist, or that any of the other thousands of gods that have been worshiped through the ages don't exist. The real question is whether there is enough evidence to positively prove the existence of any one of those gods.

u/AManHasSpoken · 1 pointr/atheism

And I would recommend reading The Greatest Show on Earth if you haven't already.

u/penguinland · 1 pointr/atheism

> Is evolution real? I have no idea

Then go learn about the evidence. Some of the most easily understood parts are in The Greatest Show on Earth. Rather than staying ignorant and sticking your head in the sand, learn about the world around you and all the evidence in it.

> The moon landing is fake, dunno.

Really!? ಠ_ಠ It happened at the height of the Cold War; if it were faked, I would expect the Soviets to have called the bluff and humiliated America in front of the rest of the world. We furthermore have moon rocks brought back from it that are unlike any rocks found on Earth, and we have photos from years later showing the tracks the astronauts made on the moon. Yes, it's possible that it was faked with the help of both superpowers from the Cold War, and that they have kept up this conspiracy for over two generations without any credible evidence leaking out, even bringing the Japanese into the conspiracy when they started sending probes to the moon. Would you agree that this scenario is vastly less likely than an actual moon landing would be?

> Mohammad split the moon in half, well I haven't heard that

That's why I linked you to info about it, which in turn has further links to further details. I'm mildly insulted that you don't appear to be considering my writing or looking at any evidence for your arguments before you write them down. Given what you can learn about it, you should be able to at least decide whether it's likely on unlikely, and the degree to which it is plausible.

> I simply take a non-stance on anything I do not know myself. I level my knowledge based on how reliable my source is.

I'm confused. I do the same thing, but we come to wildly different conclusions. You seem to be taking a solipsistic stance, that we cannot know anything about the outside world, so it's best just to give up and never learn anything or evaluate whether or not any claims are true. If you're trying to suggest that we can't have absolute 100% proof, then I agree, but that's a red herring. Go for reasonable evidence instead, and be willing to admit you're wrong if new evidence comes up. For instance, no one can prove for sure that unicorns don't exist, yet I really hope you think they don't exist, rather than saying "I don't know, maybe." In any day-to-day colloquial vernacular, I'd say I know that unicorns don't exist, and there is a common understanding of what that means. I'm not claiming to know absolutely for sure that at no time in history have any unicorns ever existed; I'm claiming that their existence is extremely unlikely given the evidence I have seen so far.

> we can revive a human... 50 years ago, and they would laugh at you.

The pioneering work behind life support machines was done in the 1930's; they wouldn't laugh at you in the 60's. Frankenstein was written in the early 1800's; the ideas were plausible back then even if they hadn't been fully implemented yet. Even if you went back further, they would only laugh at you if you didn't have evidence. Revive a human in front of them and explain how it works, and people would believe you.

> I am actually more of a skeptic than anything

You don't sound skeptical at all to me; skepticism is not the same as the extreme solipsistic stance you seem to be taking. When there is a vast preponderance of evidence for or against something, a skeptic accepts that evidence and believes or disbelieves in the thing until a vast preponderance of conflicting evidence arises.

I feel frustrated that you seem to be unwilling to accept the evidence around us (you seem to think we can't tell if segregation existed, or if Genghis Khan existed, or if Jesus really performed miracles, or if the moon landing was faked, etc.). I can't imagine you really go through life this way. You can't tell for sure if the sun will rise tomorrow, but I doubt you seriously consider what will happen if it doesn't. Why do you accept reasonable amounts of evidence for that but not for other aspects of the world?

> My reason for believing in a higher power... This experience has been experienced by many people, cross language and cultures, the same experience.

No, the higher powers experienced by people in different cultures religions are wildly different from each other. It's strange that so many people can agree that a higher power exists but have such disagreements about what this higher power is like. The details are not widely shared.

> without that my brain cannot come up with a society normal morality.

This is beside the point. How does whether or not you are able to be moral on your own have anything to do with how many authors the bible had (your original question), or whether any of it is historically accurate (what appears to be our main disagreement). There are lots of ethical systems you could subscribe to without believing Yahweh or Jesus existed or performed miracles.

u/Xarnon · 1 pointr/atheism

> You simply disbelieve because you refuse to try to understand.

I don't know about cephalgia, but for me: false. I "simply disbelieve" because there's a severe lack of evidence.

> If evolution explains all, how does evolution just "decide" it is going to do what it does?

You lack information of how evolution works. Go read The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins, or The God Delusion... If you dare.

> ... there is no reason to believe that when life was creating itself, ..., that conditions would change or that it would need to adapt... that's called consciousness

Again, a lack of information, because that's not how evolution works.

> but it fails in glaring fashion at explaining how it came to be in the first place

And again, a lack of information, because that's not what the theory of evolution explains.

> it's an idea, it can't create anything.

Again... (I think you're getting the idea here)

> Every cell in your body acts like a well oiled machine.

Say that to my face when I had 12 operations all related to my cleft lip, with which I was born with.

u/dizzy_lizzy · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Dawkins has a fantastic book on precisely this: the evidence for evolution. There are a few chapters with specific examples we have actually observed, such as isolated populations of lizards on two islands and in-lab bacterial growth. (Remember that micro- and macro-evolution are the same thing.)

The book is The Greatest Show on Earth, and is probably available at your local library!!

u/WaffleRun · 0 pointsr/vegan

Maybe suggest the book Dominion. It's written by a Christian, conservative vegan and talks about religious reasons to abstain from animal products (title references God giving man dominion over the animals, but that doesn't mean killing them).

u/required3 · 0 pointsr/

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

u/gruntle · 0 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

An utterly fascinating book about this is The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. There aren't any books that spook me out any more, but this one did. It was just weird reading it...sort of what people in the 20s must have felt reading HP Lovecraft back before movies like Hellraiser became commonplace and we lost our sense of horror. From the Amazon review:

>His theory, in simplest terms, is that until about 3000 years ago, all of humankind basically heard voices. The voices were actually coming from the other side of the brain, but because the two hemispheres were not in communication the way they are now for most of us, the voices seemed to be coming from outside. The seemed, in fact, to be coming from God or the gods.
>But he also posits that many sophisticated civilizations were created by men and women who were all directed by these godlike voices. What is not very clearly explained (a serious gap in his theory) is how all the voices in these "bicameral civilizations," as he calls them, worked in harmony. But his theory is that ancient Greece, Babylon, Assyria, Egpyt, and less ancient but similar Mayan and Incan kingdoms were all built by people who were not "conscious" in our modern sense.
>When one hears voices, whether then or now, the voices tend to be commanding and directive, and the need to obey them compelling. Free will is not possible. And so the people who built the pyramids were not self-aware as we are, did not feel self-pity, did not make plans, but simply obeyed the voices, which somehow were in agreement that the thing must be done.

The author produced only this work and died in 1997. It is either total B.S. or an absolutely revolutionary idea. Unfortunately, it is non-provable, all we can do is speculate. Read the book, it's worth your time and available from the usual places, including torrents.

Er, just realized that the topic is before language. Oops. Anyway I wrote this all out so clicking 'save' anyway.

u/d8_thc · 0 pointsr/RationalPsychonaut

The Cosmic Serpent is a good book on the subject.

u/maetrix · 0 pointsr/pics

A mycology post would be incomplete without this treasure:

u/LaserDinosaur · 0 pointsr/mycology

I'd either find a guide specific to your locale or read up on something more broad. Anyway, for the "basics" I'd recommend Arora's works.

The pocket guide:

The bible:

u/InsideOutsider · -1 pointsr/AskHistorians

Perhaps this might offer a glimpse. Julian James - The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. A fascinating read.

u/CactusInaHat · -1 pointsr/funny
u/ru-kidding-me · -1 pointsr/Liberal

I am not questioning their methodology, I am questioning their motives. Reading the citations at the end sounds like a reading list for young progressives. I am sorry, but it sounds like AGW believers that conservatives are irrational and here, we have the "hockey stick" (i.e. heart rate) to prove it.

Check out the Republican Brain book which basically says conservatives don't have the empathy gene, so they are emotionally inferior to the morally superior liberals.

It really smacks of 1984 to prove a political point more than research designed to show some innate difference.

Sorry if you wrote the study. Did you base your thinking on the book?

u/Mistbeutel · -1 pointsr/worldnews

>but I will say that most conservatives I know at least understand the liberal position and disagree with it, while lots of people like the redditor above you seem to have trouble grasping the idea.

It's quite undeniably the exact other way around.

What do you believe do I not understand about the right wing position?
You see, understanding a position doesn't mean you agree with it.

Because you commented on my personal position: I understand right wing positions quite perfectly. Which is why I fundamentally disagree with it. I have thorough debates about politics every day. I have a thorough education about these topics. I discuss my views and those of others every day. I constantly improve my views and reject ideological reasoning. If I am confronted with evidence, I will change my views. In fact, I won't even express views that I haven't already seen evidence of.

And one of the problems with right wingers is that they don't do these things. As becomes evident by their type of argumentation and the way they conduct debates alone. If right wingers understood their own position, they would stop supporting it. And if they understood the left wing position (not liberal, by the way) they would start supporting it.

As you might have notice: I am literally am asking people to justify their right wing position. Because that way they themselves have to critically think about the things they believe and have to formulate falsifiable statements so I can be convinced by them or refute them. But it turns out that most of the time they can't even do that. Unlike left wingers they don't even provide falsifiable arguments and aren't really willing to debate in the first place. And it's not that they won't for whatever reason they tell themselves (e.g. "The evil libtards never listen to me or tolerate my valid opinions anyway!"). It's that they simply just can't. Even if you can get them to actually discuss their views, ultimately always abandon rational debate and start blindly dismissing arguments of others or attacking people personally (see: your own comment).

In the meantime: Ever saw a right winger try and understand positions that differ from his/her own? Because I sure didn't. Just look at all the replies I get here. Non of them is actually interested in reasonable conversation or understanding what I said. They just got enraged by my criticism and become defensive and attack me personally or blindly dismiss what I said. No serious questions, no serious attempt to answer mine. They aren't interested in understanding things and choosing what is better based on evidence and arguments. They make their choice first and then spread relativism to justify their position. "My position is just as valid as yours, it's all just different opinion." That's simply not how logical reasoning works.

>For more reading look at research done into confirmation bias, the difference between the values of conservatives vs liberals, and egalitarian communitarianism vs heirarchal individualism.

Yes, please do.

You will notice that left leaning people are far more open to discussing ideas and considering the views of others. They are also more rational and base their opinions on reason and logic rather than emotions and ideology. That doesn't mean they are more accepting of opinions that are evidently bad for society. Which right wing views simply quite often are (if they were evidently good for society, left wingers would immediately adopt them).

You will also notice that there is a positive correlation between the level of intelligence and education and left wing thought. While the dumber and less educated you are the more likely you are to fall for right wing propaganda.

The problem with what you said is that it's flawed based on a very fundamental level of definitions: Left wing politics is inherently open-minded. The entire purpose of left wing politics is to do what's best for society and the people and the planet as a whole. It is based on evidence and reason. It stands directly in contrast to right wing politics, which is based entirely on establishing hierarchy and doing what's best for an elite (e.g. nationalist, religious, economic, etc.).

Research shows us that, on average, left wingers are: Significantly more empathetic, educated, intelligent, open-minded and unbiased. Left wing politics is inherently more evidence based and progressive. These things are thoroughly confirmed through evidence (and, as was already said, are a consequence of the very definitions of these tenets).

Sorry, but reality doesn't support your views and relativism.

Politics isn't about left vs. right and the truth being somewhere in the middle. It's pretty much about the people who care about society as a whole (i.e. the left) fighting against people who put themselves or elitist groups over the general population and the planet (i.e. the right). Centrists are simply people who try and find a middle ground because they implicitly believe the elites in power can't be stopped in their quest to consolidate it and the left wing won't stop defending the interests of the general population and the planet, either, so they "compromise" regardless whether or not one side is objectively superior to the other. Seriously, look up what left and right mean, understanding the definitions of these terms alone should already do away with most of your opinions.

Edit: Notice how right wing apologists are making blind accusations and unsubstantiated claims and when met with evidence of them being wrong and thorough and falsifiable explanations, they just downvote and refuse to even expose themselves? It's always like that. Right wingers are simply never demonstrating reasonable behaviour. I haven't met a single reasonable right winger in my life (if they were reasonable, they wouldn't be right wingers). Yet here we had a person making excuses and actually accusing the left of not being open-minded. What /u/chintzy claimed was effectively a lie and instead of fessing up to it and apologizing or deleting their comments, they keep up their lies. It's impossible to reason with people that display such behaviour and that's why right wing thought keeps existing.

u/weshallrise · -1 pointsr/progressive

You would do well to read the book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science - and Reality by Chris Mooney. You may be able to find it at your local library. If not, it is worth the price to purchase it, especially if you have lots of Right Wing folks in your family. I learned so much reading this book and cannot recommend it highly enough!

And thanks for the link at the end of your post! I've been laughing my ass off for the last 15 minutes!

u/climate_throwaway · -4 pointsr/climateskeptics

video makes the same mistake in interpretation you do. impossibility of deterministic forecasts of climate in the terms of weather, say, max and min temperatures on Nov 22 2104 is a given. does not mean that we can not predict a likely distribution of for those max and min temperatures conditioned on some boundary condition change to the climate system.

silly, silly, silly. you should start with strogatz, not with youtube.