What do you think?
Rate this book
Dòng sông trôi khuất địa đàng: một góc nhìn theo học thuyết Darwin về sự sống
Có một dòng sông âm thầm trôi mãi hàng tỷ năm.
Đó là dòng sông của Dawkins, dòng sông ADN, một dòng sông trôi đi và rẽ nhánh ra trong thời gian địa chất.
Với giọng văn hài hước, qua từng chương sách Mẹ châu Phi và con cháu của bà, Hàm thỏa dụng của Chúa, Kiến tha lâu đầy tổ... Dawkins đưa ra những lập luận khoa học thấu đáo và toàn diện về tổ tiên loài người cũng như mối quan hệ họ hàng, nghiên cứu về con đường đi của gien qua các thế hệ cũng như những yếu tố đã và đang tác động mạnh mẽ đến dòng sông ADN.
Hãy cùng xuôi Dòng sông trôi khuất địa đàng và tìm ra câu giải đáp cho những bí ẩn, thắc mắc về nguồn gốc các loài mà Charles Darwin đã công bố hơn 100 năm trước.
Đó là dòng sông của Dawkins, dòng sông ADN, một dòng sông trôi đi và rẽ nhánh ra trong thời gian địa chất.
Với giọng văn hài hước, qua từng chương sách Mẹ châu Phi và con cháu của bà, Hàm thỏa dụng của Chúa, Kiến tha lâu đầy tổ... Dawkins đưa ra những lập luận khoa học thấu đáo và toàn diện về tổ tiên loài người cũng như mối quan hệ họ hàng, nghiên cứu về con đường đi của gien qua các thế hệ cũng như những yếu tố đã và đang tác động mạnh mẽ đến dòng sông ADN.
Hãy cùng xuôi Dòng sông trôi khuất địa đàng và tìm ra câu giải đáp cho những bí ẩn, thắc mắc về nguồn gốc các loài mà Charles Darwin đã công bố hơn 100 năm trước.
186 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
459 people are currently reading
14719 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 449 reviews
August 15, 2007
This book takes about 30 minutes to read, but is probably the best book I've read when it comes to shooting down morons who believe in stupid shit. If you're offended by the fact that I think creationism is utter bullshit, I'm sorry - but Richard Dawkins isn't, and he's more than happy to give a hundred reasons why you're a moron for believing it.
On top of giving ammo to those of us who do come in contact with the less scientifically enlightened among us (snobbery, anyone?), he manages to put a lot of things into very good perspective. While this book is about DNA and life, it's also about the fact that there's a HUGE difference between the life of the individual and the life of the species, and just how important it is that we understand this as we come to control our own genome.
Seriously, don't judge this book by its size (or its stupid-ass, kissing fish cover): It's heavy but quick, and will do your brain good.
On top of giving ammo to those of us who do come in contact with the less scientifically enlightened among us (snobbery, anyone?), he manages to put a lot of things into very good perspective. While this book is about DNA and life, it's also about the fact that there's a HUGE difference between the life of the individual and the life of the species, and just how important it is that we understand this as we come to control our own genome.
Seriously, don't judge this book by its size (or its stupid-ass, kissing fish cover): It's heavy but quick, and will do your brain good.
September 4, 2025
Short and simple but thorough explanation of the natural selection.
I was surprised that Dawkins didn't attack religion as much as he does in his other books.😅
I was surprised that Dawkins didn't attack religion as much as he does in his other books.😅
December 26, 2022
“Never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions. Not only does the Darwinian theory command superabundant power to explain. Its economy in doing so has a sinewy elegance, a poetic beauty that outclasses even the most haunting of the world’s origin myths.” ~Richard Dawkins, Oxford, 1994
River Out of Eden is but one in a series of entertaining and enlightening books called “Science Masters” - HarperCollins, publisher. Others feature Richard Leaky, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond, Stephen Jay Gould, and Steven Pinker, to name but a few.
I found this to be a wonderful overview of evolutionary biology. If you’re at all familiar with the plethora of material Dawkins has penned, then consider it a Selfish Gene/Extended Phenotype/Blind Watchmaker hybrid, written for a wide demographic. Highly recommended!
“DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
River Out of Eden is but one in a series of entertaining and enlightening books called “Science Masters” - HarperCollins, publisher. Others feature Richard Leaky, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond, Stephen Jay Gould, and Steven Pinker, to name but a few.
I found this to be a wonderful overview of evolutionary biology. If you’re at all familiar with the plethora of material Dawkins has penned, then consider it a Selfish Gene/Extended Phenotype/Blind Watchmaker hybrid, written for a wide demographic. Highly recommended!
“DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
July 24, 2021
“There are now perhaps thirty million branches to the river of DNA, for that is an estimate of the number of species on earth. It has also been estimated that the surviving species constitute about 1 percent of the species that have ever lived.”
Before reading River Out of Eden, I had read that it was basically a mixture of the ideas Dawkins first presented in The Selfish Gene, then in The Blind Watchmaker and finally in The Extended Phenotype. So, having only read The Selfish Gene, I naturally thought it might be a good idea to read this book. And while Richard Dawkins tells us that nature is neither cruel nor kind, only pitilessly indifferent, his writing clearly isn’t, remaining compelling throughout the whole book.
The title of this book is related to the analogy Richard Dawkins uses in the first chapter. He writes about a river of genes, flowing since the emergence of life on Earth. This river started its flow with the first ever organism and has since then branched into the many different life forms and domains that we now see all around us. It’s a powerful message (much more eloquently presented in the book than here) and I found it to be a particularly successful one.
In the end, this is a short and very well written book. The way Richard Dawkins is able to communicate his opinions and transmit science to the reader remains on the same level as in some of his other works. While not as good as say, The Selfish Gene, this book still remains an engaging read and is quite commendable to people who haven’t read the three previous books that I first mentioned in the beginning.
Before reading River Out of Eden, I had read that it was basically a mixture of the ideas Dawkins first presented in The Selfish Gene, then in The Blind Watchmaker and finally in The Extended Phenotype. So, having only read The Selfish Gene, I naturally thought it might be a good idea to read this book. And while Richard Dawkins tells us that nature is neither cruel nor kind, only pitilessly indifferent, his writing clearly isn’t, remaining compelling throughout the whole book.
The title of this book is related to the analogy Richard Dawkins uses in the first chapter. He writes about a river of genes, flowing since the emergence of life on Earth. This river started its flow with the first ever organism and has since then branched into the many different life forms and domains that we now see all around us. It’s a powerful message (much more eloquently presented in the book than here) and I found it to be a particularly successful one.
In the end, this is a short and very well written book. The way Richard Dawkins is able to communicate his opinions and transmit science to the reader remains on the same level as in some of his other works. While not as good as say, The Selfish Gene, this book still remains an engaging read and is quite commendable to people who haven’t read the three previous books that I first mentioned in the beginning.
October 22, 2010
There is a point in River Out of Eden when the stark brutality of nature really hits home. With a nervous system programmed to kill anything that moves near its young unless it emits a babies cry, a deaf mother turkey mistakes her children for predators and, in a bid to protect them, ends up massacring every last one. It's one of several tragic anecdotes used to make an important point, and the kind of jolt that Dawkins does best. This is not however a pessimistic book. Far from it. As Dawkins reminds us, nature is neither cruel nor kind, only "pitilessly indifferent" - but when you understand how it works, its genius is positively awe-inspiring.
If you have already read several other Dawkins' titles - The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, etc - then you may find this adds little to what you already know. However if you're not too familiar with evolution but keen to delve into Dawkins' scientific titles - perhaps you've only previously read the God Delusion - then I recommend going for this one. Not too long and not too lumbered with detail, it takes the reader through genes, DNA and natural selection - via African Eve and blindfolded bees - in a beautifully-written account peppered with anecdotes and various mind-boggling facts and figures that will explain just enough to inspire you to read more.
If you have already read several other Dawkins' titles - The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, etc - then you may find this adds little to what you already know. However if you're not too familiar with evolution but keen to delve into Dawkins' scientific titles - perhaps you've only previously read the God Delusion - then I recommend going for this one. Not too long and not too lumbered with detail, it takes the reader through genes, DNA and natural selection - via African Eve and blindfolded bees - in a beautifully-written account peppered with anecdotes and various mind-boggling facts and figures that will explain just enough to inspire you to read more.
June 5, 2025
«نهری از عدن» یکی از کتابهای کوتاه ریچارد داوکینزه که به شکل ساده و قابلفهم به مفهوم تکامل از دیدگاه ژنمحور میپردازه. داوکینز تو این کتاب سعی میکنه نشون بده که حیات نتیجهی یک طراحی هوشمند نیست، بلکه حاصل میلیاردها سال انتخاب طبیعی و بقای ژنهاست. به زبان ساده، داوکینز میگه که زندگی چیزی نیست جز جریانی از اطلاعات دیجیتال که از طریق DNA از نسلی به نسل دیگر منتقل میشه.
زبان کتاب، برخلاف خیلی از متون علمی، خشک و پیچیده نیست. با مثالها و تشبیههای هوشمندانه، مفاهیم علمی مثل DNA و انتقال اطلاعات ژنتیکی رو طوری توضیح میده که حتی اگه پیشزمینهی علمی هم نداشته باشی، میتونی درکشون کنی. بعضی از بخشها واقعاً آدم رو به فکر فرو میبرن؛ مثلاً وقتی دربارهی زندگی بهعنوان جریان پیوستهی اطلاعات حرف میزنه، نگاهت به دنیا یهکم تغییر میکنه.
در عنوان «نهری از عدن»، به رودخانهای استعاری اشاره میشود که جریان اطلاعات ژنتیکی از گذشتههای دور (ریشهی حیات) تا به امروز را نشان میدهد؛ رودی که از بهشت (عدن) آغاز شده و در طول زمان انشعاب یافته و متنوع شده است.
در مجموع، کتابی آموزنده و تاملبرانگیزه، مخصوصاً برای کسانی که به علم، فلسفهی حیات و مرز بین علم و باورهای دینی علاقهمندند. من از خوندنش لذت بردم.
فایل صوتی کتاب رو میتونید با جستجوی اسم کتاب در کست باکس پیدا کنید.
زبان کتاب، برخلاف خیلی از متون علمی، خشک و پیچیده نیست. با مثالها و تشبیههای هوشمندانه، مفاهیم علمی مثل DNA و انتقال اطلاعات ژنتیکی رو طوری توضیح میده که حتی اگه پیشزمینهی علمی هم نداشته باشی، میتونی درکشون کنی. بعضی از بخشها واقعاً آدم رو به فکر فرو میبرن؛ مثلاً وقتی دربارهی زندگی بهعنوان جریان پیوستهی اطلاعات حرف میزنه، نگاهت به دنیا یهکم تغییر میکنه.
در عنوان «نهری از عدن»، به رودخانهای استعاری اشاره میشود که جریان اطلاعات ژنتیکی از گذشتههای دور (ریشهی حیات) تا به امروز را نشان میدهد؛ رودی که از بهشت (عدن) آغاز شده و در طول زمان انشعاب یافته و متنوع شده است.
در مجموع، کتابی آموزنده و تاملبرانگیزه، مخصوصاً برای کسانی که به علم، فلسفهی حیات و مرز بین علم و باورهای دینی علاقهمندند. من از خوندنش لذت بردم.
فایل صوتی کتاب رو میتونید با جستجوی اسم کتاب در کست باکس پیدا کنید.
February 25, 2022
Codul genetic este digital. Nu este, insa, un cod binar ca la calculatoare, ci un cod cuaternar cu patru simboluri, corespunzatoare celor patru baze azotate (A,T,C,G).
Ne putem imagina un cod genetic analogic. Principala problema a codurilor analogice este acumularea erorilor. Daca fotocopiem o imagine de o mie de ori va arata in final toata gri. Nu este surprinzator ca Natura a preferat codul digital. Codul genetic digital este remarcabil de stabil. Exceptand mutatiile distincte, pe care selectia naturala ori le elimina, ori le conserva, procesul de copiere este perfect.
"Viata este doar biti si biti si biti de informatie digitala."
Ne putem imagina un cod genetic analogic. Principala problema a codurilor analogice este acumularea erorilor. Daca fotocopiem o imagine de o mie de ori va arata in final toata gri. Nu este surprinzator ca Natura a preferat codul digital. Codul genetic digital este remarcabil de stabil. Exceptand mutatiile distincte, pe care selectia naturala ori le elimina, ori le conserva, procesul de copiere este perfect.
"Viata este doar biti si biti si biti de informatie digitala."
June 25, 2022
A fascinating, succinct story of how we got here. An alternative story to the Bible version, with far more basis in reality.
March 27, 2020
ریچارد داوکینز یکی از نویسندگان مورد علاقه من هست و شاید کمی از نظر فکری به خط فکری این نویسنده نزدیک باشم.(قید کنم که کامل نه ولی تا حدودی)پس در نتیجه در مورد مطلبی که در طول کتاب سعی در تفسیر اون داشت نمیتونم نظر بدون بایاس داشته باشم. ولی در کل داوکینز یک داروین گرای به شدت سرسخت هست که در اکثر کتاب هایی که ازش خوندم سعی داشته تمامی حیات ما انسان ها را با مفاهیم وراثت و بقای دی ان ای و حیات ژنتیکی ما توضیح بدهد. این کتاب هم از این قاعده مستثنا نیست و در این کتاب هم قرار هست در رابطه با اینکه ژنتیک و دی ان ای چطور کار کرده و چطور موجودات مختلف برای بقا و بر اثر انتخاب طبیعی از یک منشا یکتا به میلیاردها گونه جاندار امروزی تبدیل شدند رو توضیح بده.
مادی گراهایی مانند داوکینز به بی خدایی معتقد هستند و روابط علت و معلولی و نظم عالم و ... را کاملا بی اساس می دانند. من به عنوان فردی که تلاش میکنم بدون جهت گیری و گرایش خاصی مطالب رو بخونم و در مورد اون ها فکر کنم هر چقدر که جلوتر میرم به نتایج گنگ تری میرسم.
امروز که این کتاب رو تموم کردم با تمام احترامی که برای داوکینز و امثالهم قایل هستم ولی نمیتونم بگم آیا چیزی که در مورد اون بحث انجام میشه دارای پایه های علمی هستند یا خیر. همه چیز در عالم بر اساس شواهد هست و نه بر اساس حقیقت. بنابراین این کتاب برای افرادی که دوست دارند نظر بی خدایان رو در مورد نحوه ی شکل گیری جهان هستی ما و تمامی موجودات را بر پایه نظریه تکامل داروین بدونن کتاب خوبی است. ولی در نهایت تصمیم با شمای خواننده هست که آیا پذیرای این مطالب هستید یا خیر.
مادی گراهایی مانند داوکینز به بی خدایی معتقد هستند و روابط علت و معلولی و نظم عالم و ... را کاملا بی اساس می دانند. من به عنوان فردی که تلاش میکنم بدون جهت گیری و گرایش خاصی مطالب رو بخونم و در مورد اون ها فکر کنم هر چقدر که جلوتر میرم به نتایج گنگ تری میرسم.
امروز که این کتاب رو تموم کردم با تمام احترامی که برای داوکینز و امثالهم قایل هستم ولی نمیتونم بگم آیا چیزی که در مورد اون بحث انجام میشه دارای پایه های علمی هستند یا خیر. همه چیز در عالم بر اساس شواهد هست و نه بر اساس حقیقت. بنابراین این کتاب برای افرادی که دوست دارند نظر بی خدایان رو در مورد نحوه ی شکل گیری جهان هستی ما و تمامی موجودات را بر پایه نظریه تکامل داروین بدونن کتاب خوبی است. ولی در نهایت تصمیم با شمای خواننده هست که آیا پذیرای این مطالب هستید یا خیر.
July 8, 2012
There are some good examples in this book, in addition to some good science-fiction scenarios that were enjoyable and original, but I found it hurrying from topic to topic without much depth. There's nothing special here that can't be found in Dawkins' other book. If you still didn't read The Blind Watchmaker, or better still The Ancestor's Tale, I would suggest you opt for them as the topics he is talking about in this book are better treated in in the others and in the case of The Ancestor's Tale, they are more up to date.
May 25, 2016
This was okay, but it felt like a simplified version of his other work. A good place to start, but maybe one to skip over if you've read The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.
January 24, 2010
Magisterial. In person, Richard Dawkins can seem defensive, arrogant: chippy. Hardly surprising, considering that he is a dignified and serious scientist who has had to spend years combating preposterous and impudent attacks. But his books are meticulous, supple and surprisingly sensual. His love of, and fascination with, the mechanics of the natural world is exhilarating and a joy to read. Complexities melt away, leaving a view of the world which is infinitely more beautiful, mysterious and astonishing than that propounded by any of his innumerable detractors.
I defy any rational person to read his fiercely funny analysis of Intelligent Design and its fallacies (deaf turkeys who dilligently slay their own young because they cannot hear the sound that makes them recognise the chicks as their own, for instance) and not be convinced: they must simply not want to know. As Winston Churchill once said to a persistent questioner: 'Madam, I have given you an explanation: I cannot, alas, give you an understanding.'
If Dawkins did not exist, we would have to invent him.
I defy any rational person to read his fiercely funny analysis of Intelligent Design and its fallacies (deaf turkeys who dilligently slay their own young because they cannot hear the sound that makes them recognise the chicks as their own, for instance) and not be convinced: they must simply not want to know. As Winston Churchill once said to a persistent questioner: 'Madam, I have given you an explanation: I cannot, alas, give you an understanding.'
If Dawkins did not exist, we would have to invent him.
November 29, 2022
پایان خوانش: 1401.09.01
بعد از بیش از دو ماه به پایان رساندمش...
کتاب خوبی بود، در روزهای عجیب...
پیشگفتار
1. رود دیجیتال
2. تمام آفریقا و نوادگانش
3. کار خیر را در خفا انجام بده
4. تابع مطلوبیت خداوند
5. بمب همتاسازی
بعد از بیش از دو ماه به پایان رساندمش...
کتاب خوبی بود، در روزهای عجیب...
پیشگفتار
1. رود دیجیتال
2. تمام آفریقا و نوادگانش
3. کار خیر را در خفا انجام بده
4. تابع مطلوبیت خداوند
5. بمب همتاسازی
July 11, 2024
A scientist told me to read this and I did; it is poetry, an insight into a world largely incomprehensible, especially in of scale and duration. Facing such as a layman reader, one with an impoverished grammar, Dawkins illuminates.
June 7, 2010
This is simply a beautiful book. It's kind of hard to put into words why this book is worth reading, or even really what it's about, but I'll try.
Richard Dawkins was catapulted into popular stardom by his views on religion, not his views on science. But what the average person (who now knows his name) doesn't know is that Dawkins was a well-respected evolutionary biologist long before he released "The God Delusion". The vast majority of his books are written within his primary field of expertise, and The God Delusion is the exception to this, despite it being the book for which he is now most famous among the population.
I imagine it must be frustrating for Dawkins that whenever he appears on a news show, the caption under his name says something like "militant atheist" rather than "evolutionary biologist" or even "scientist". Sam Harris and, to an extent, Christopher Hitchens, are at war with religion: belief in God is their primary target. Though Dawkins is often lumped with them, I don't get the impression that Dawkins is really the same kind of atheist as Harris or Hitchens.
Richard Dawkins is an expert on evolution and biology. In his writing, he makes it clear that he has an outstanding appreciation for nature, an appreciation that is informed by his understanding of evolution. To Dawkins, the world is full of majesty and wonder, beauty and grace, and it is so not IN SPITE of the fact that it formed gradually over billions of years, but BECAUSE of it. For Dawkins, the Darwinian view of life is what makes the world so fascinating and awesome. This makes Dawkins passionate about evolution, to the point where he wants to share his appreciation for nature with others.
The problem is, whenever he has done so, he was met with frothing morons who talk about evolution being "just a theory" without knowing what they were talking about. Further investigation into this perplexing resistance to facts revealed they were all motivated by religion, which caused Dawkins to realize that one of the major problems with our society was that it was largely under a collective delusion that prevented them from having the same appreciation for the world that Dawkins wished to impress upon them, hence: The God Delusion. For Dawkins, religious belief isn't something to argue against on its own, but it is particularly heinous because it takes a thing of elegant beauty (that from a simple set of basic rules and a huge amount of time, a great deal of complexity could develop on its own) and cheapens it by explaining all as the mere act of an all powerful bearded man in the sky.
I see Dawkins as a teacher who considers the entire population his classroom. He wants to share with his students, but has found them resistant for a silly reason. Undaunted, Dawkins has simply taken it upon himself to remove this roadblock before continuing on his lesson. If he wants everyone to understand and appreciate how amazing evolutionary biology is, he must first get them to release their grips on this ancient superstitions that prevent them from accepting it. Once that's done, he can get back to work.
Dawkins's recent books, The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth, are addressed to these students. The ones who cannot let go of their ancient myths, and the ones who refuse to understand the basic facts of evolution. The God Delusion is meant to weaken the grip, and The Greatest Show on Earth is meant to explain the very basic tenets of evolution as well as dispel some of the most common misconceptions and weak arguments against it.
His earlier books, however, were written for a different kind of audience. This audience already accepts the facts of evolution. This audience already has an appreciation for the world as seen through the lens of Darwin. And River Out of Even is exactly this kind of book.
If you don't accept or don't like evolution, River Out of Eden will not convince you that you are incorrect. The book you want to read is The Greatest Show on Earth. If you insist that all of this complexity surrounds us because sky-daddy deemed it so, pick up a copy of The God Delusion.
But if you accept evolution, River Out of Even will take you on a fascinating journey. Dawkins uses Darwinian evolution as a lens to look at a wide variety of different aspects of life on this planet, leading the reader down dozens of unique "wow, I never thought about it like that" moments. The implications of evolution often included things I never realized, and I had more "holy crap, that's awesome!" occurrences during this book than anything I've read recently.
Dawkins takes the reader on this journey with extraordinarily well-written prose, weaving concepts together seamlessly. The book never gets particularly technical, but it never reduces itself to pandering to the ignorant either. This is a book for smart people who think science is interesting. If you've ever read about or seen an experiment that resulted in a feeling of heart-pounding excitement at its implications, you may well enjoy this book a great deal.
Richard Dawkins was catapulted into popular stardom by his views on religion, not his views on science. But what the average person (who now knows his name) doesn't know is that Dawkins was a well-respected evolutionary biologist long before he released "The God Delusion". The vast majority of his books are written within his primary field of expertise, and The God Delusion is the exception to this, despite it being the book for which he is now most famous among the population.
I imagine it must be frustrating for Dawkins that whenever he appears on a news show, the caption under his name says something like "militant atheist" rather than "evolutionary biologist" or even "scientist". Sam Harris and, to an extent, Christopher Hitchens, are at war with religion: belief in God is their primary target. Though Dawkins is often lumped with them, I don't get the impression that Dawkins is really the same kind of atheist as Harris or Hitchens.
Richard Dawkins is an expert on evolution and biology. In his writing, he makes it clear that he has an outstanding appreciation for nature, an appreciation that is informed by his understanding of evolution. To Dawkins, the world is full of majesty and wonder, beauty and grace, and it is so not IN SPITE of the fact that it formed gradually over billions of years, but BECAUSE of it. For Dawkins, the Darwinian view of life is what makes the world so fascinating and awesome. This makes Dawkins passionate about evolution, to the point where he wants to share his appreciation for nature with others.
The problem is, whenever he has done so, he was met with frothing morons who talk about evolution being "just a theory" without knowing what they were talking about. Further investigation into this perplexing resistance to facts revealed they were all motivated by religion, which caused Dawkins to realize that one of the major problems with our society was that it was largely under a collective delusion that prevented them from having the same appreciation for the world that Dawkins wished to impress upon them, hence: The God Delusion. For Dawkins, religious belief isn't something to argue against on its own, but it is particularly heinous because it takes a thing of elegant beauty (that from a simple set of basic rules and a huge amount of time, a great deal of complexity could develop on its own) and cheapens it by explaining all as the mere act of an all powerful bearded man in the sky.
I see Dawkins as a teacher who considers the entire population his classroom. He wants to share with his students, but has found them resistant for a silly reason. Undaunted, Dawkins has simply taken it upon himself to remove this roadblock before continuing on his lesson. If he wants everyone to understand and appreciate how amazing evolutionary biology is, he must first get them to release their grips on this ancient superstitions that prevent them from accepting it. Once that's done, he can get back to work.
Dawkins's recent books, The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth, are addressed to these students. The ones who cannot let go of their ancient myths, and the ones who refuse to understand the basic facts of evolution. The God Delusion is meant to weaken the grip, and The Greatest Show on Earth is meant to explain the very basic tenets of evolution as well as dispel some of the most common misconceptions and weak arguments against it.
His earlier books, however, were written for a different kind of audience. This audience already accepts the facts of evolution. This audience already has an appreciation for the world as seen through the lens of Darwin. And River Out of Even is exactly this kind of book.
If you don't accept or don't like evolution, River Out of Eden will not convince you that you are incorrect. The book you want to read is The Greatest Show on Earth. If you insist that all of this complexity surrounds us because sky-daddy deemed it so, pick up a copy of The God Delusion.
But if you accept evolution, River Out of Even will take you on a fascinating journey. Dawkins uses Darwinian evolution as a lens to look at a wide variety of different aspects of life on this planet, leading the reader down dozens of unique "wow, I never thought about it like that" moments. The implications of evolution often included things I never realized, and I had more "holy crap, that's awesome!" occurrences during this book than anything I've read recently.
Dawkins takes the reader on this journey with extraordinarily well-written prose, weaving concepts together seamlessly. The book never gets particularly technical, but it never reduces itself to pandering to the ignorant either. This is a book for smart people who think science is interesting. If you've ever read about or seen an experiment that resulted in a feeling of heart-pounding excitement at its implications, you may well enjoy this book a great deal.
October 3, 2022
Didn't enjoy this one as much as I wanted to be.
Because I felt the topics were only touched upon - with no insights or details.
Secondly, a few examples were too trivial for my taste.
Good and fast paced read if you are looking for some quick science essays.
Because I felt the topics were only touched upon - with no insights or details.
Secondly, a few examples were too trivial for my taste.
Good and fast paced read if you are looking for some quick science essays.
March 28, 2021
This is pretty much a repetition & piece of several other books he's written about evolution. Most of the examples are different, though. As usual, very well done. Read by him & Lalla Ward. As usual, I want to go back & reread the first two books of his that I read, The Selfish Gene & The God Delusion which this references quite a bit. I might just do that now that I've read most of his books & it's been a while. They're both dense with ideas.
If you've never read any of his books on evolution, this would be a good starting point. It's short & displays his style well. He often mentions objections & comments that are made to him either at lectures or in letters & then shows why he disagrees. He doesn't have any tolerance for sloppy thinking, even his own. That's one of the reasons I'm such a fan.
If you've never read any of his books on evolution, this would be a good starting point. It's short & displays his style well. He often mentions objections & comments that are made to him either at lectures or in letters & then shows why he disagrees. He doesn't have any tolerance for sloppy thinking, even his own. That's one of the reasons I'm such a fan.
May 3, 2020
Or how to be introduced both to evolution and the work of Richard Dawkins.
Quick and easy to read, the author uses the metaphor of a flowing river to talk about genes passing through generation to generation (that's indeed his crucial hypothesis: we are just vehicles to genes).
It's a good essay, but, first, we find better introductory books on the subject, and, then, The Selfish Gene, more detailed, is far better to discover Dawkins' ideas.
Quick and easy to read, the author uses the metaphor of a flowing river to talk about genes passing through generation to generation (that's indeed his crucial hypothesis: we are just vehicles to genes).
It's a good essay, but, first, we find better introductory books on the subject, and, then, The Selfish Gene, more detailed, is far better to discover Dawkins' ideas.
February 9, 2011
I finally get him!!! Guess what? Your DNA is eternal, not you. It flows like a river through us (and all creatures) and we are merely the banks (of the river) that house the DNA for its continuation into next generation, and the next (or not).
I have read many of Dawkins' books and articles and this is a winner! If you're interested in learning exactly what Dawkins means by "The Selfish Gene" or the DNA river - this is the read & it's a quicky! The concepts are not as difficult in this book as many others - rather - it's a layman's explanation of our beginnings from the replacation bombs in space to the biological zygote (or previous bacteria) and on to our own technological replacation bombs. Now, I get why he was lead to the next step: memes.
A fun read about the river of DNA that flows in all of us! And, it was particularly interesting to learn about Mitochondrial eve and the importance of the female line as it is always a pure line (no mixing of DNA there!), so it's much easier to study.
I have read many of Dawkins' books and articles and this is a winner! If you're interested in learning exactly what Dawkins means by "The Selfish Gene" or the DNA river - this is the read & it's a quicky! The concepts are not as difficult in this book as many others - rather - it's a layman's explanation of our beginnings from the replacation bombs in space to the biological zygote (or previous bacteria) and on to our own technological replacation bombs. Now, I get why he was lead to the next step: memes.
A fun read about the river of DNA that flows in all of us! And, it was particularly interesting to learn about Mitochondrial eve and the importance of the female line as it is always a pure line (no mixing of DNA there!), so it's much easier to study.
May 26, 2015
A wonderfully exciting read. There were bits of it (like the last chapter)that were way over my head, but a lot of it was absolutely fascinating. Dawkins writes enchantingly. My understanding of DNA has changed...and I loved all the wonderful examples and illustrations that he brings to his arguments.
I'm grossly ignorant, yet even I managed to get tons from this book. Now I need to read it again.
I'm grossly ignorant, yet even I managed to get tons from this book. Now I need to read it again.
February 9, 2008
I got this book for an english class. Richard Dawkins really bugs me. His view is that people who are religious are uneducated and delusional - hence his newest book "The God Delusion".
May 16, 2016
I didn't connect with the river analogy and also felt that the "greatest show on earth" and some of his other works were much stronger but this was still enjoyable.
September 5, 2019
รีวิวไว้ในคลิปนี้ครับ
https://youtu.be/b7H2Q8f25nE
https://youtu.be/b7H2Q8f25nE
March 6, 2014
A short read with few surprises, the main theme of mitochondrial DNA tracing back to Africa is eloquently written. He is indeed Darwin’s rottweiller.
March 11, 2022
Dawkins is a clear thinker and elegant writer. This book is an introduction to his views on evolution.
August 17, 2019
This was a great book to introduce me to the wonders of evolutionary biology. Richard Dawkins is one of the most intelligent writers in this topic and will easily describe and outline the best arguments for evolution in this book. Plus, he is able to give an amazing description of the natural processes that occur everyday, and do so with great examples which are relatively easy to understand. I didn't quite grasp everything, but I got Richard's point. He has written other great books on similar topics, and they are more detailed. This book wasn't meant for people who already know the nitty gritty details of evolution. It's centered at those who have a fast paced life and are interested in learning the truth about the process of natural selection. If you are a creationist, than you'll definitely be triggered by Dawkins. And for a good reason: he completely destroys your world view every day that he is able to communicate with the public, which includes him writing books to inform this society about the dangers of illogical thinking and how you can very easily start to understand a difficult to grasp topic by simple reading 170 pages. This book will spark a passion for science in many creationists (and people who aren't decided on what to believe). Along with this book, I recommend reading Mr. Dawkins' other highly interesting books on evolution, as they will cover more an this book did.
June 17, 2024
Every single young (and older) person should immerse him/herself in Dawkins’ exquisite science writing; the man can think, speak and write and take you on a thrilling in-depth science ride leaving you wanting more; the examples in this particular book were a bit worn out after all these years but highly recommended reading/listening nonetheless; be sure to check out some of Dawkins’ best; Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design and The God Delusion.
September 6, 2019
"[...]A natureza não é cruel, apenas implacavelmente indiferente. Esta é uma das lições mais duras que os humanos têm de aprender. Não podemos admitir que as coisas possam ser nem boas nem más, nem cruéis nem carinhosas, mas simplesmente cruas – indiferentes a todos os sofrimentos e sem nenhum propósito."
October 7, 2024
I usually enjoy Dawkins' books but unfortunately I can't say that for this one. I found it a mixture of simplistic and complicated, with little in between.
August 20, 2024
reverse engineering and utility function
molecular clock hypothesis- river out of eden
cultural relativism
NOTES:
chapter 4 revisited
Paternal genes and maternal genes do not blend; they recombine independently. A given gene in you came either from your mother or your father. It also came from one, and only one, of your four grandparents.
When you plead with your lover over the telephone, every nuance, every catch in the voice, every passionate sigh and yearning timbre is carried along the wire solely in the form of numbers. You can be moved to tears by numbers - provided they are encoded and decoded fast enough.
Up until 1953, with the discovery of DNA, it was still possible to believe that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material.
DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do.
Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of 46 immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes - the chromosomes - contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. That is why muscle cells are different from liver cells. There is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information. Genes are pure information - information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. All the different types of cells contain the genetic instructions needed to make any of the types. Only the genes appropriate to the tissue concerned are switched on.
Cells are programmed, by the genes switched on inside them, to behave as if they know where they are in relation to their neighboring cells, which is how they build their tissues up into the shape of ear lobes and heart valves, eye lenses and various muscles.
From the gene’s perspective, there is only the long-term outlook of the river of DNA flowing down through the generations, only temporarily housed in particular bodies, only temporarily sharing a body with companion genes.
We are all distant cousins of the Queen, and of everybody else, in more ways than can ever be traced. The only thing special about royalty and aristocrats is that they can do the tracing explicitly.
We get our mitochondria from our mother only. Sperms are too small to contain more than a few mitochondria.
Some Africans are more distantly related to other Africans than to anybody in the whole of the rest of the world.
The whole of the rest of the world form one relatively close group of cousins.
The rule of thumb a turkey mother uses to recognize nest robbers is a dismayingly brusque one: In the vicinity of your nest, attack anything that moves, unless it makes a noise like a baby turkey. A mother turkey that savagely killed all her own babies. The reason was woefully simple: she was deaf.
Nilsson and Pelger’s computer model: the time taken to evolve a fish eye from flat skin was fewer than four hundred thousand generations. At one generation per year, that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye.
No wonder “the” eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom.
Miracle is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.
Humans have purpose on the brain. We find it hard to look at anything without wondering what it is “for,” what the motive for it is, or the purpose behind it.
The mere fact that it is possible to frame a question does not make it legitimate or sensible to do so.
There are many things about which you can ask, “What is its temperature?” or “What color is it?” but you may not ask the temperature question or the color question of, say, jealousy or prayer.
Don’t assume that the “Why” question deserves an answer when posed about a boulder, a misfortune, Mt. Everest or the universe.
Questions can be simply inappropriate, however heartfelt their framing.
The true utility function of life, that which is being maximized in the natural world, is DNA survival.
The reproductive cake that must be divided among all males is equal to the cake that must be divided among all females.
Therefore if there are, say, more males than females in the population, the average slice of cake per male must be smaller than the average slice of cake per female.
It follows that the average reproductive success (that is, the expected number of descendants) of a male compared with the average reproductive success of a female is solely determined by the male-female ratio.
An average member of the minority sex has a greater reproductive success than an average member of the majority sex.
If you were trying to maximize the number of your grandchildren, should you have a son or a daughter?
We have already seen that you should have a child of whichever sex is in the minority in the population. That way, your child can expect a relatively large share of reproductive activity and you can expect a relatively large number of grandchildren.
The wastefulness of the harem economy: Males, instead of devoting themselves to useful work, squander their energy and strength in futile struggles against one another.
Maximized in every cranny of the living world is, in every case, the survival of the DNA responsible for the feature you are trying to explain.
It all makes sense once you understand the true utility function - genes are maximizing their own survival.
Humans have a rather endearing tendency to assume that welfare means group welfare, that “good” means the good of society, the future well-being of the species or even of the ecosystem.
But group welfare is always a fortuitous consequence, not a primary drive. This is the meaning of “the selfish gene.”
(story) : Henry Ford commissioned a survey of the car scrapyards of America to find out if there were parts of the Model T Ford which never failed. His inspectors came back with reports of almost every kind of breakdown: axles, brakes, pistons - all were liable to go wrong. But they drew attention to one notable exception, the kingpins of the scrapped cars invariably had years of life left in them. With ruthless logic Ford concluded that the kingpins on the Model T were too good for their job and ordered that in future they should be made to an inferior specification.
Ford’s alleged ruthlessness was, indeed, entirely logical. The alternative would have been to improve all the other bits of the car to bring them up to the standard of the kingpins.
Either the whole car is built to Rolls Royce specifications or the whole car is built to Model T specifications. If you make a hybrid car, with some components of Model T quality and some components of Rolls Royce quality, you are getting the worst of both worlds, for the car will be thrown away when the weakest of its components wears out, and the money spent on high-quality components that never get time to wear out is simply wasted.
Many insects impose a rigid separation between radically different stages in their life history. Caterpillars are devoted to gathering food and growing. Butterflies are like the flowers they visit, devoted to reproducing. They do not grow, and they suck nectar only to burn it immediately as aviation fuel.
Everybody is descended from an unbroken line of ancestors all of whom were at some time in their lives young but many of whom were never old.
So we inherit whatever it takes to be young, but not necessarily whatever it takes to be old.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The means used by DNA sequences to get themselves replicated are bewilderingly variable.
They include building more efficient hearts for hippos, springier legs for fleas, aerodynamically more streamlined wings for swifts, more buoyant swim bladders for fish.
All the organs and limbs of animals; the roots, leaves and flowers of plants; all eyes and brains and minds, and even fears and hopes, are the tools by which successful DNA sequences lever themselves into the future.
molecular clock hypothesis- river out of eden
cultural relativism
NOTES:
chapter 4 revisited
Paternal genes and maternal genes do not blend; they recombine independently. A given gene in you came either from your mother or your father. It also came from one, and only one, of your four grandparents.
When you plead with your lover over the telephone, every nuance, every catch in the voice, every passionate sigh and yearning timbre is carried along the wire solely in the form of numbers. You can be moved to tears by numbers - provided they are encoded and decoded fast enough.
Up until 1953, with the discovery of DNA, it was still possible to believe that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material.
DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do.
Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of 46 immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes - the chromosomes - contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. That is why muscle cells are different from liver cells. There is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information. Genes are pure information - information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. All the different types of cells contain the genetic instructions needed to make any of the types. Only the genes appropriate to the tissue concerned are switched on.
Cells are programmed, by the genes switched on inside them, to behave as if they know where they are in relation to their neighboring cells, which is how they build their tissues up into the shape of ear lobes and heart valves, eye lenses and various muscles.
From the gene’s perspective, there is only the long-term outlook of the river of DNA flowing down through the generations, only temporarily housed in particular bodies, only temporarily sharing a body with companion genes.
We are all distant cousins of the Queen, and of everybody else, in more ways than can ever be traced. The only thing special about royalty and aristocrats is that they can do the tracing explicitly.
We get our mitochondria from our mother only. Sperms are too small to contain more than a few mitochondria.
Some Africans are more distantly related to other Africans than to anybody in the whole of the rest of the world.
The whole of the rest of the world form one relatively close group of cousins.
The rule of thumb a turkey mother uses to recognize nest robbers is a dismayingly brusque one: In the vicinity of your nest, attack anything that moves, unless it makes a noise like a baby turkey. A mother turkey that savagely killed all her own babies. The reason was woefully simple: she was deaf.
Nilsson and Pelger’s computer model: the time taken to evolve a fish eye from flat skin was fewer than four hundred thousand generations. At one generation per year, that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye.
No wonder “the” eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom.
Miracle is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.
Humans have purpose on the brain. We find it hard to look at anything without wondering what it is “for,” what the motive for it is, or the purpose behind it.
The mere fact that it is possible to frame a question does not make it legitimate or sensible to do so.
There are many things about which you can ask, “What is its temperature?” or “What color is it?” but you may not ask the temperature question or the color question of, say, jealousy or prayer.
Don’t assume that the “Why” question deserves an answer when posed about a boulder, a misfortune, Mt. Everest or the universe.
Questions can be simply inappropriate, however heartfelt their framing.
The true utility function of life, that which is being maximized in the natural world, is DNA survival.
The reproductive cake that must be divided among all males is equal to the cake that must be divided among all females.
Therefore if there are, say, more males than females in the population, the average slice of cake per male must be smaller than the average slice of cake per female.
It follows that the average reproductive success (that is, the expected number of descendants) of a male compared with the average reproductive success of a female is solely determined by the male-female ratio.
An average member of the minority sex has a greater reproductive success than an average member of the majority sex.
If you were trying to maximize the number of your grandchildren, should you have a son or a daughter?
We have already seen that you should have a child of whichever sex is in the minority in the population. That way, your child can expect a relatively large share of reproductive activity and you can expect a relatively large number of grandchildren.
The wastefulness of the harem economy: Males, instead of devoting themselves to useful work, squander their energy and strength in futile struggles against one another.
Maximized in every cranny of the living world is, in every case, the survival of the DNA responsible for the feature you are trying to explain.
It all makes sense once you understand the true utility function - genes are maximizing their own survival.
Humans have a rather endearing tendency to assume that welfare means group welfare, that “good” means the good of society, the future well-being of the species or even of the ecosystem.
But group welfare is always a fortuitous consequence, not a primary drive. This is the meaning of “the selfish gene.”
(story) : Henry Ford commissioned a survey of the car scrapyards of America to find out if there were parts of the Model T Ford which never failed. His inspectors came back with reports of almost every kind of breakdown: axles, brakes, pistons - all were liable to go wrong. But they drew attention to one notable exception, the kingpins of the scrapped cars invariably had years of life left in them. With ruthless logic Ford concluded that the kingpins on the Model T were too good for their job and ordered that in future they should be made to an inferior specification.
Ford’s alleged ruthlessness was, indeed, entirely logical. The alternative would have been to improve all the other bits of the car to bring them up to the standard of the kingpins.
Either the whole car is built to Rolls Royce specifications or the whole car is built to Model T specifications. If you make a hybrid car, with some components of Model T quality and some components of Rolls Royce quality, you are getting the worst of both worlds, for the car will be thrown away when the weakest of its components wears out, and the money spent on high-quality components that never get time to wear out is simply wasted.
Many insects impose a rigid separation between radically different stages in their life history. Caterpillars are devoted to gathering food and growing. Butterflies are like the flowers they visit, devoted to reproducing. They do not grow, and they suck nectar only to burn it immediately as aviation fuel.
Everybody is descended from an unbroken line of ancestors all of whom were at some time in their lives young but many of whom were never old.
So we inherit whatever it takes to be young, but not necessarily whatever it takes to be old.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The means used by DNA sequences to get themselves replicated are bewilderingly variable.
They include building more efficient hearts for hippos, springier legs for fleas, aerodynamically more streamlined wings for swifts, more buoyant swim bladders for fish.
All the organs and limbs of animals; the roots, leaves and flowers of plants; all eyes and brains and minds, and even fears and hopes, are the tools by which successful DNA sequences lever themselves into the future.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 449 reviews