(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best biological science books

Overviews of the evidence:

The greatest show on earth

Why evolution is true

Books on advanced evolution:

The selfish gene

The extended phenotype

Climbing mount improbable

The ancestors tale

It is hard to find a better author than Dawkins to explain evolutionary biology. Many other popular science books either don't cover the details or don't focus entirely on evolution.

I will hit one point though.

>I have a hard time simply jumping from natural adaption or mutation or addition of information to the genome, etc. to an entirely different species.

For this you should understand two very important concepts in evolution. The first is a reproductive barrier. Basically as two populations of a species remain apart from each other (in technical terms we say there is no gene flow between them) then repoductive barriers becomes established. These range in type. There are behavioral barriers, such as certain species of insects mating at different times of the day from other closely related species. If they both still mated at the same time then they could still produce viable offspring. Other examples of behavior would be songs in birds (females will only mate with males who sing a certain way). There can also be physical barriers to reproduction, such as producing infertile offspring (like a donkey and a horse do) or simply being unable to mate (many bees or flies have different arrangements of their genitalia which makes it difficult or impossible to mate with other closely related species. Once these barriers exist then the two populations are considered two different species. These two species can now further diverge from each other.

The second thing to understand is the locking in of important genes. Evolution does not really take place on the level of the individual as most first year biology courses will tell you. It makes far more sense to say that it takes place on the level of the gene (read the selfish gene and the extended phenotype for a better overview of this). Any given gene can have a mutation that is either positive, negative, of neutral. Most mutations are neutral or negative. Let's say that a certain gene has a 85% chance of having a negative mutation, a 10% chance of a neutral mutation, and a 5% chance of a positive mutation. This gene is doing pretty good, from it's viewpoint it has an 85% chance of 'surviving' a mutation. What is meant by this is that even though one of it's offspring may have mutated there is an 85% chance that the mutated gene will perform worse than it and so the mutation will not replace it in the gene pool. If a neutral mutation happens then this is trouble for the original gene, because now there is a gene that does just as good a job as it in the gene pool. At this point random fluctuations of gene frequency called genetic drift take over the fate of the mutated gene (I won't go into genetic drift here but you should understand it if you want to understand evolution).

The last type of mutation, a positive mutation is what natural selection acts on. This type of mutation would also change the negative/neutral/positive mutation possibilities. so the newly positively mutated gene might have frequencies of 90/7/3 Already it has much better odds than the original gene. OK, one more point before I explain how this all ties together. Once a gene has reached the 100/0/0 point it does not mean that gene wins forever, there can still be mutations in other genes that affect it. A gene making an ant really good at flying doesn't matter much when the ant lives in tunnels and bites off its own wings, so that gene now has altered percentages in ants. It is this very complex web that makes up the very basics of mutations and how they impact evolution (if you are wondering how common mutations are I believe they happen about once every billion base pairs, so every human at conception has on average 4 mutations that were not present in either parent)

This all ties back together by understanding that body plan genes (called hox genes) lock species into their current body plans, by reducing the number of possible positive or neutral mutations they become crucial to the organisms survival. As evolutionary time progresses these genes become more and more locked in, meaning that the body plans of individuals become more and more locked in. So it is no wonder that coming in so late to the game as we are we see such diversity in life and we never see large scale form mutations. Those type of mutations became less likely as the hox genes became locked in their comfy spots on the unimpeachable end of the mutation probability pool. That is why it is hard to imagine one species evolving into another, and why a creationist saying that they will believe evolution when a monkey gives birth to a human is so wrong.

Hopefully I explained that well, it is kind of a dense subject and I had to skip some things I would rather have covered.

If you want a textbook, I would recommend one of two books:

Biological Physics by Philip Nelson is a pretty good starting point. The author tried to write a book that is both as accessible as possible and introduces only the most important topics. He covers a lot of interesting, but important material like random walks and molecular machines assuming that the reader does not have a very strong background in either biology or physics. The advantage to this is that he covers only the most important ideas, and in a way that someone with only introductory physics and calculus can understand. The downside is that some of the results are not general, focussing on one dimension instead of three for example, and for the experienced his introductions can be a little redundant. Nelson tries to get around this by having an optional “Track 2” that goes into greater detail and looks are tough problems and original papers.

Physical Biology of the Cell by Rob Phillips is also very good. This book is much longer than the Nelson book and goes into greater detail on a lot of the material. Where Nelson was trying to include only the most important topics, Phillips tries to include everything. The upside is that this book covers more examples and often includes more general results, but it makes for a long read at over a thousand pages. A fairly strong background in some higher level physics, like knowing how to set up and use a partition function, makes reading this book much easier.

I personally like the Phillips book more than the Nelson book, but it depends on where you are at in your major. If you have just taken introductory physics, the Nelson book might be better, if you have taken some higher level courses (especially thermodynamics/statistical mechanics) the Phillips book would be better. Either way I recommend checking them out from the library before you buy them.

Edit: How could I forget this little gem: Can a Biologist Fix a Radio? by Lazebnik. If you want a nice introduction into the philosophy of biophysics, I strongly recommend this well written article.

>methodically state the case for why creation is most likely and/or why evolution is unlikely.

You will find lots and lots of the latter. Very little of the former.

>I'd also be happy to read GOOD anti-creation books as well, provided they meet the above criterion of not being mocking.

Those would just be science books based on the academic literature, wouldn't they?

Here is my reading list form the past few months. These would be pro-evolution (a.k.a science). Creationism is mentioned in a few of them, but almost in passing because Creationism is simply not a factor in legitimate scientific research, so it gets pretty much no consideration.

Knock yourself out. ;)

• Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin - Also, watch the three part series that aired on PBS hosted by Neil Shubin.
  
  
• Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carroll - An in depth look into developmental evolution.
  
  
• The Universe Within: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets, and People by Neil Shubin
  
  
• The Link by Colin Tudge and Josh Young
  
  
• Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade
  
  
• Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA by Daniel J. Fairbanks - This and the other Fairbanks book listed below are the only books on this list with the intent to refute what creationists contend. He does this not by presenting the creationist argument and then trying to refute. He does it by simply presenting the evidence that science has born out regarding human evolution and genetics.
  
  
• The Story of Earth by Robert Hazen - this is a cool book about the history of the Earth and life and how geology and biology worked in tandem with other factors to produce life from the point of view of a protein biologist.
  
  
• Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth by Richard Fortey - Good general overview of evolutionary and geologic history.
  
  
• The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Edwin Douglas - This is the most academic book in this list and, as such, is the most difficult to read. It is a concise look at what we know about the Cambrian Explosion from the scientific literature.
  
  
• Life's Ratchet by Peter Hoffmann - Very good book about how the chaos wrought inside cells by thermal motion at the molecular level leads to the ordered functioning of the machinery of life.
  
  
• What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology by Addy Pross - Super interesting take on the question, "What is Life?" He comes to a very interesting conclusion which might have implications for abiogenesis research.
  
  
• The Machinery of Life by David S. Goodsell - A neat little book that gets you acquainted with what it's really like inside of cells. A good companion book to read with Life's Ratchet as they highlight different aspects of the same topic.
  
  
• Evolving by Daniel J. Fairbanks
  
  
• Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes by Svante Paabo - Very interesting book about the drama, blood, sweat and tears, Dr. Paabo shed to develop the techniques to sequence ancient DNA. You simply won't find books like this and Your Inner Fish above amongst Creationist literature because they simply don't do what these scientists do out in the field and in the lab.

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.

Random selection of some of my favorites to help you expand your horizons:

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan is a great introduction to scientific skepticism.

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris is a succinct refutation of Christianity as it's generally practiced in the US employing crystal-clear logic.

Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor by Anthony Everitt is the best biography of one of the most interesting men in history, in my personal opinion.

Travels with Herodotus by Ryszard Kapuscinski is a jaw-dropping book on history, journalism, travel, contemporary events, philosophy.

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson is a great tome about... everything. Physics, history, biology, art... Plus he's funny as hell. (Check out his In a Sunburned Country for a side-splitting account of his trip to Australia).

The Annotated Mona Lisa by Carol Strickland is a thorough primer on art history. Get it before going to any major museum (Met, Louvre, Tate Modern, Prado, etc).

Not the Impossible Faith by Richard Carrier is a detailed refutation of the whole 'Christianity could not have survived the early years if it weren't for god's providence' argument.

Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman are six of the easier chapters from his '63 Lectures on Physics delivered at CalTech. If you like it and really want to be mind-fucked with science, his QED is a great book on quantum electrodynamics direct from the master.

Lucy's Legacy by Donald Johanson will give you a really great understanding of our family history (homo, australopithecus, ardipithecus, etc). Equally good are Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade and Mapping Human History by Steve Olson, though I personally enjoyed Before the Dawn slightly more.

Memory and the Mediterranean by Fernand Braudel gives you context for all the Bible stories by detailing contemporaneous events from the Levant, Italy, Greece, Egypt, etc.

After the Prophet by Lesley Hazleton is an awesome read if you don't know much about Islam and its early history.

Happy reading!

edit: Also, check out the Reasonable Doubts podcast.

>George W. Bush

Went to Yale and Harvard and isn't as stupid as he looks. And while he's the figurehead, the reins of power are shared among everyone in the government, all of whom went to university and studied the Greeks and Romans.

>I bet there are a bunch of undiscovered civilizations and we are living just fine without their discovery. Archaelogy only purpose is to satisfied our curiosity, it has zero impact in today world, is just a really interesting hobby.

That's like saying (100 years ago) that there are lots of scientific ideas that we are living fine without. Or to put it more generally, what we don't know doesn't matter.

> This guy discovered by accident.

From your very source, "The significance of the discovery, first published in 1871, was not at first apparent"

Without evolutionary theory, DNA is practically irrelevant. Without DNA combined with the theory of common ancestry, genetic science simply doesn't exist or doesn't make any sense. Without genetic science, our understanding of the nature of a large fraction of disease and heredity would be nonexistent.

> I´m not saying "if we dropped the scientific method", i´m saying if we dropped those three sciences 100 years ago the world would be pretty much the same, this doesn´t mean there are not interesting fields only that they give us a look into the past but nothing to the future.

> Please tell me i really want to know.

I spend a lot of time working on resource optimization problems utilizing computational genetic optimization tools based on the foundation of evolutionary theory -- surivival of the fittest, random mutation, and hereditary descent. These tools and methodologies are a direct outgrowth of evolutionary theory.

I have friends who work in cytogenetics (in disease diagnosis) and in evodevo (fiddling with nematodes). None of what they do makes any sense without first understanding the evolutionary heritage of the diseases involved or the developmental patterns that preceded them.

What you have to understand is that without evolutionary theory linking together all of the various forms of life, they would be mysterious black boxes, each with obvious commonalities with no obvious explanation. We'd have big lists of different creatures with surprisingly similar features and no cogent story to place them in. The tree of life (phylogenetic tree, not to be confused with metaphysical mumbojumbo also referred to as the tree of life) that we all see in biology class is the result of evolutionary theory and gives us that context in which to talk about the interrelatedness of the world around us. That was the state of biology before the integration that evolution gave us.

Yes, before evolutionary theory there was a sort of tree of life that people had in their minds, generally variations on the "great chain of being" that God laid out in the beginning. The great difference between that limited perspective and what evolutionary theory gives us is the ability to make predictions. It allows us to take in observations and use them to generate new hypotheses that lead us to great discoveries. A pre-evolutionary perspective is a distinctly passive passenger in the quest for knowledge.

If you're interested in getting some specifics on exactly how evolutionary theory reaches out into the world that you live in, try this:

http://www.amazon.ca/Evolutionary-Dynamics-Exploring-Equations-Life/dp/0674023382

I. Sure, some forms of theism are coherent (Christianity is not one of those forms, for what it's worth; the Problem of Natural Evil and Euthyphro's Dilemma being a couple of big problems), but not all coherent ideas are true representations of the world; any introductory course in logic will demonstrate that.

II. The cosmological argument is a deductive argument. Deductive arguments are only as strong as their premises. The premises of the cosmological argument are not known to be true. Therefore, the cosmological argument should not be considered true. If you think you know a specific formulation of the cosmological argument that has true premises, please present it. I'm fully confident I can explain how we know such premises are not true.

III. There is no doubt that the teleological argument has strong persuasive force, but that's a very different thing than "being real evidence" or "something that should have strong persuasive force." I explain apparent cosmological fine-tuning as an entirely anthropic effect: if the constants were different, we wouldn't be here to observe them, therefore we observe them as they are.

IV. This statement is just false on its face. Lawrence Krauss has a whole book about the potential ex nihilo mechanisms (plural!) for the creation of the universe that are entirely consistent with the known laws of physics. (Note that the idea of God is not consistent with the known laws of physics, since he, by definition, supersedes them.)

V. This is just a worse version of argument III. Naturalistic evolution has far, far more explanatory power than theism. To name my favorite examples: the human blind spot is inexplicable from the standpoint of top-down design, but it makes perfect sense in the context of evolution; likewise, the path of the mammalian nerves for the tongue traveling below the heart makes no sense from the standpoint of top-down design, but it makes perfect sense in the context of evolution. Evolution routinely makes predictions that are tested to be true, whether it means predicting where fossils with specific characteristics will be found or how fruit fly mating behavior changes after populations have been separated and exposed to different environments for 30+ generations. It's worth emphasizing that it is totally normal to look at the complexity of the world and assume that it must have a designer...but it's also totally normal to think that electrons aren't waves. Intuition isn't a reliable way to discern truth. We must not be seduced by comfortable patterns of thought. We must think more carefully. When we think more carefully, it turns out that evolution is true and evolution requires no god.

VI. There are two points here: 1) the universe follows rules, and 2) humans can understand those rules. Point (1) is easily answered with the anthropic argument: rules are required for complex organization, humans are an example of complex organization, therefore humans can only exist in a physical reality that is governed by rules. Point (2) might not even be true. Wigner's argument is fun and interesting, but it's actually wrong! Mathematics are not able to describe the fundamental behavior of the physical world. As far as we know, Quantum Field Theory is the best possible representation of the fundamental physical world, and it is known to be an approximation, because, mathematically, it leads to an infinite regress. For a more concrete example, there is no analytic solution for the orbital path of the earth around the sun! (This is because it is subject to the gravitational attraction of more than one other object; its solution is calculated numerically, i.e. by sophisticated guess-and-check.)

VII. This is just baldly false. I recommend Dan Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" and Stanislas Dehaene's "Consciousness and the Brain" for a coherent model of a materialist mind and a wealth of evidence in support of the materialist mind.

VIII. First of all, the idea that morality comes from god runs into the Problem of Natural Evil and Euthyphro's Dilemma pretty hard. And the convergence of all cultures to universal ideas of right and wrong (murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc.) are rather easily explained by anthropology and evolutionary psychology. Anthropology and evolutionary psychology also predict that there would be cultural divergence on more subtle moral questions (like the Trolley Problem, for example)...and there is! I think that makes those theories better explanations for moral sentiments than theism.

IX. I'm a secular Buddhist. Through meditation, I transcend the mundane even though I deny the existence of any deity. Also, given the diversity of religious experience, it's insane to suggest that religious experience argues for the existence of the God of Catholicism.

X. Oh, boy. I'm trying to think of the best way to persuade you of all the problems with your argument, here. So, here's an exercise for you: take the argument you have written in the linked posts and reformat them into a sequence of syllogisms. Having done that, highlight each premise that is not a conclusion of a previous syllogism. Notice the large number of highlighted premises and ask yourself for each, "What is the proof for this premise?" I am confident that you will find the answer is almost always, "There is no proof for this premise."

XI. "...three days after his death, and against every predisposition to the contrary, individuals and groups had experiences that completely convinced them that they had met a physically resurrected Jesus." There is literally no evidence for this at all (keeping in mind that Christian sacred texts are not evidence for the same reason that Hindu sacred texts are not evidence). Hell, Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Christ" even has a strong argument that Jesus didn't exist! (I don't agree with the conclusion of the argument, though I found his methods and the evidence he gathered along the way to be worthy of consideration.)

-----

I don't think that I can dissuade you of your belief. But, I do hope to explain to you why, even if you find your arguments intuitively appealing, they do not conclusively demonstrate that your belief is true.

For beetles north of Mexico, I recommend the old favourite, Peterson Field Guides: Beetles of North America. People who complain that the book should have photos instead line drawings don't know what they're talking about. Line drawings are superior for identification because diagnostic traits are more visible. The purpose of a field guide of identification, not to a pretty coffee book (if you want a pretty coffee book, The Book of Beetles is my favorite, and I have it in my living room at the moment).

For insects in general north of Mexico, I recommend the counterpart from the same series.

If you insist on photos, I recommend the National Wildlife Federation Field Guide to Insects and Spiders & Related Species of North America (which, by the way, was written by a member of BugGuide.net). Since it has photos, I'd recommend it for beginners. Once they feel more comfortable with insect taxonomy, they should add the Peterson Field Guides to their collection. Avoid the popular Audubon series because it values pretty photos over practicality.

The Peterson Field Guides are great because they provide keys, diagnostic traits, similar families, collecting methods, and a plethora of amazingly detailed line drawings (and color slides). They also have great introductory material. The taxonomy is outdated, but it's not a big issue when you have online guides, like BugGuide.net, that keep their taxonomy current. The more important takeaway is that these guides will quickly teach you insect taxonomy, and you quickly develop a big-picture sense--that is, the diversity--and a granular sense--that is, the subtle difference between similar clades.

As for "state by state" guides, I have the California Natural History Guides: Field Guide to Beetles of California. There aren't line drawings like those in the Peterson Field Guides, but you do have some photographic slides in the middle section. For this, I would only recommend the book for those with enough familiarity with beetles.

Like you said, "the scope of insects is way too huge for a simple, small field guide." Many reviewers don't understand this, and complain about the lack of specificity. To satisfy their specificity, you'd probably need a guide at the city or county level (without exceeding a million pages, and assuming an entomologist is willing to take on that task LOL). Insects are so grossly misunderstood by most people (that is, most people compare the taxonomic scope of insects with that of let's say, mammals, which is like comparing travel guides for the Vatican with that of Russia--or the United States), you are better off ignoring most laymen reviews if your goal is to actually learn.

> "I've heard this argument before, and it does not hold water."

Nice. A bold but completely empty assertion.

> "It's merely an attempt to shackle the psuedoscience of evolution to many more well-known and proven sciences."

Ohhhh.. and from there you spring to another, completely unsupported, empty assertion.

> "If you're going to make the audacious claim that all sciences must be abandoned if evolution is not embraced,..."

It's not remotely audacious. The fact you can pretend it is only indicated both the depth of your own lack of knowledge about the sciences in general and the equal lack of such knowledge by most in Christian culture.

> "... I'd like to see your proof."

Nice try. You have made a series of empty assertions in order to hand wave away an entire section of science, (evolutionary theory). The evidence for evolution is as strong, as robust, and as complete as it is for any of the other theories I have listed and is often dependent upon them.

The simplest such example is based upon the fact that those who reject evolution are nearly universally Young Earth Creationist, (I am not saying all, but the vast majority). Evolution demands more time than Young Earth dogma allows for. In order to weasel around Geological dating of fossil records, most Young Earth proponents will put forth hypothesis, (they call them 'theories'... it's actually kindof cute in a 'child playing at scientist' sort of way), that tend to do all of the following: fail to account for most of the factual evidence on hand in the geological sciences, demand that we completely throw out all methods of dating used in modern geological sciences, chuck out everything we know in general about geology.

Well, there goes one of the sciences on my list - thrown out for nothing but ideological reasons.

Lets look closer though. Lets look at all of those objections that young earth proponents have about things like carbon dating and potassium dating methods, (etc...). Others, in many other places, have done a much more complete job of disassembling the standard arguments against these dating methods than I have space for here but the short version is that those dating methods are the result of fundamental aspects of everything we know about physics. If those dating methods are wrong, (which, though possible, would require the presentation of something other than assertion and unfounded hypothesis to establish), then pretty much all of physics is wrong. Admittedly, that would be really cool. I doubt you have any idea how exciting that would actually be to most of the physicist I know. However, as cool as it would be, it is not only terribly unlikely there is absolutely no reason to suspect it, (unless, once again, we count the empty assertions of people with ideological positions and no evidence to suggest that they may be remotely correct).

But wait... there goes a second, entire field, of science. Thrown out the window because people don't like the time scales associated with evolutionary theory.

Really, this just goes on and on. It's also not hard to educate yourself about the scientific reality of this topic either. All you have to do is get out of the echo chamber of people committed to rejecting evolution and an old earth and look around at what the 'other side' is actually saying.

Here, I'll even make it easy for you.

Here's a great book, by a Christian, explaining the in's and outs of why Evolution has to be true based upon what we know.

Here is a brilliant book talking about the fossil record, how we know what we know about it, and what that actually tells us.

Here is a fantastic book about geology as taught and explained through the disasters that we, as humans, experience from it's actions on occasion.

Finally, I give you a link to the Science Based Medicine website through their search tool. You will find there several, researching, practicing, medical doctors; all of whom are highly respected in their fields. This is their blog about medicine, science, and all things that impinge upon those fields. I have taken the liberty of entering 'evolution' into their search bar for you. The resulting page of articles is what comes up. If nothing else, it should provide a good place for you to springboard from in the search for whatever you want to know past that in the several books I have pointed you at.

Lastly, I want to make one final point. if you read the books I have pointed you at, if you start reading the articles on the site I pointed you at, if you from there start reading the articles and books and studies available all through the world of science publication and science blogging you will find something pretty quickly. Each of those books has different information in them. Any real study of evolution exposes you to not one, or two, but many lines of evidence, (from almost all of the sciences), showing that it is true. Every single book I have ever read trying to argue against evolution, on the other hand, always ended up attempting to make the same unsupportable arguments, (irreducible complexity, gaps in the fossil records, efforts to deny various dating methods), that have been addressed by proponents of evolution a million times if once. If you can't understand all that, if you can't even take the time to educate yourself about some of it before dismissing the position counter to yours out of hand, then you are showing yourself as having no interest in truth. Instead you are saying that you are only interested in trying to make the world believe that you are right.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. Source: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. Source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks. Source: https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/38/3/441/2239811

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. Source: http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf#page=2

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. Source: https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. Source: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

In America, more diverse cities have more segregation. Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf

Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence. Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

Diversity reduces charity and volunteering. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. Source: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/23/3/239.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Ethnic diversity reduces social trust. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5677

Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8627

Diversity correlates with low GDP. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

On race:

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html

Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5

96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html

97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/

With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6

Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/

Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

Races are human subspecies. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full

For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf

Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract

Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract

With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351

An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html

100% (324/324) of Chinese researchers believe race is biologically real. Source: http://collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28%282004%292_907-921.pdf

The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazonE.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861

I mostly learned from a variety of sources, as there's not an ideal single text on this avenue of research, IMO.

I found general small-angle scattering references for free here and here, the latter being a PDF document from the EMBL small-angle scattering group. For NSE experiments on these sorts of systems, it's pretty much expected you've already done characterization of your samples via small-angle x-ray and/or neutron scattering

I'd also recommend the NIST Summer School course materials as a good and inexpensive way to get started on the neutron spectroscopy side of things. Most of what I'd seen in terms of texts tended to be fairly pricey monographs when starting out, so I'd either borrow stuff from coworkers or my institutional library. There are advanced undergrad/starting grad student texts on x-ray & neutron scattering - e.g., 1 and 2 - but I didn't find out about them until a bit further into my studies.

As might be obvious, there's definitely inspiration and foundational work to be found in the polymer science literature. I went running to Doi and Edwards, for example, when I realized that I needed more background reading in this area, but I'm sure others have their particular favorites in this and related areas.

Insofar as the bio-side of things, well, I've been doing biophysically oriented research since I was an undergrad. I'd suggest a popular biophysics text as well (either Nelson's Biological Physics or Physical Biology of the Cell ) as a starting point/reference. These are aimed towards advanced undergraduates or new grad students as well, mostly due to the interdisciplinary nature of the topics. Speaking of PBoC, one of the authors maintains a publications page where you can check out the PDFs of his group's work.

I think I'll end there, as I think that should be enough pleasure reading for a little while, at least.

Ernst Mayer, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have written some decent books broadly covering the evidence for evolution. Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters fits into that general category, and does a good job of outlining the evidence for evolution as well, in particular from a paleontological perspective.




Astrobiologist / Paleontologist Peter Ward has written a ton of fantastic books. I'd start with Rare Earth, which outlines the Rare Earth hypothesis, ie complex life is likely rare in the universe. If you read Rare Earth, you'll come away with a better understanding of the abiotic factors which influence the evolution of life on Earth. If you end up enjoying Rare Earth, I'd highly recommend Ward's other books.




Terra, by paleontologist Michael Novacek describes the evolution of the modern biosphere, in particular from the Cretaceous onwards, and then discusses environmental change on a geological scale to modern environmental challenges facing humanity. It's one of those books which will change the way you think about the modern biosphere, and the evolution in the context ecosystems, as opposed to individual species.




Another book by a paleontologist is When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time, looking at the Permian mass extinction, which was the most catastrophic mass extinction of the Phanerozoic wiping out 95%+ of all species. More focused on the geology than the other books I mentioned, so if you're not into geology you probably wont enjoy it so much.



Biochemist Nick Lane has written some great books. Life ascending would be a good one to start off with. Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life is really excellent as well.




The Origins of Life and the Universe is written by molecular biologist Paul Lurquin. It mostly focuses on the origin of life. It's pretty accessible for what it covers.




Another couple of books I would recommend to people looking for something more advanced are: Michael Lynch's Origins of Genome Architecture, which covers similar stuff to much of his research, although takes a much broader perspective. Genes in conflict is a pretty comprehensive treatment of selfish genetic elements. Fascinating read, although probably a bit heavy for most laypeople.

I can think of a few

• Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" - WHY and how whole empires fall
  
  
• Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money" - How money rules the world - here's how.
  
  
• Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" - his thesis might not be entirely correct - but it's a VERY fair look at how our history was influenced by these factors.
  
  
• Bruce Bueno De Mesquita's - "The Predictioneer's Game" - - How quantitative models are SCARILY accurate
  
  
• Emanuel Derman's "Models Behaving Badly" - And how sometimes quantitative models are totally wrong.
  
  
• Paul Roberts - "The End of Oil" - Probably the most serious and balanced read on what could be one of the most important economic problems facing our modern civilization in the next 20 years.
  
  
• Frank & Cook's "Winner Take All Society" - and why things are a problem.
  
  
• Richard Florida's "The Great Reset" - Florida is a pretty good author all around - far better than some others in the pitch.
  
  
• James Bamford's amazing "Body of Secrets" - Not all our enemies are external, and sometimes our allies turn out to actually be thuggish & deadly enemies.
  
  
• Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking" - Nobody here is exactly as they appear.
  
  
• Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World"
  
  
• Robin Marantz Henig's "A Monk in the Garden" - Yeah - the priest that proved Darwin's theory, in 1865.....oh yeah and he invented statistics along the way.
  
  
• Brian Sykes' "The seven Daughters of Eve"
  
  
• Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" - Every page is practically amazing - a collection of amazing old articles from Dr. H's work
  
  
• Kristina Borjesson's edit of "Into the Buzzsaw" - the hard truth about a couple of things in the US media
  
  
• Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" - a great work about such an amazing idea.
  
  
• Kim Sterelny's "Dawkins vs. Gould" - this is a REAL debate about evolution!
  

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.

Well, first we have to acknowledge that rocks are different than minerals. And both require different identification. For minerals, u/guaranic has given a good start. Other things to think about to add to u/guaranic are, crystal structure (what shape does it form naturally) and cleavage (how does it break, does it break straight along one plane, two?). The good news is often, though not always, these are observable and most times related. A mineral that does not break along a plane also has no cleavage which also may be a tell.

Now a mineral is composed of one type of element or compound. A rock is composed of minerals. With rocks, in order to learn identification you must first have an understanding of the three main types of rocks: Igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. Each produces a different rock with different things to look for.

Igneous: Igneous rocks are formed from cooling magma, literally liquid minerals. I've is a naturally forming mineral, water is its magma. When you see frost condense on a windshield on a cold day you can see points where the ice began to freeze and grow outward untill it touches another forming ice sheet. Those center points are where the crystal is seeded and how large that seed can grow will corespond with how cold it is. The colder it is the more seeds will start and more crystals with less room to grow means many small crystals. Slower cooling allows larger crystal formation with less crystals to get in the way. In igneous rocks, often crystal size is a good place to start. Are there large crystals? Than this rock most likely formed deeper in gound. Lots of tiny crystals? This probably cooled more rapidly as it approached the surface. Another thing to look at when beginning is the color of the rock over all. basltic lava is less viscous and very dark, often black. It forms oceanic crust . Andesitic lava is a mix between basaltic and rhyolitic, and produces brown and grey rocks like andesite! Rhyolitic magma is the most viscous and most common for us. It's magma doesn't flow like the stereotypical lava in movies. It forms lighter rocks, think granite. With crystal size and general mineral composition, you should be able to tell most types of igneous with some observation.

Sedimentary: sedimentary rocks are made up of broken down rock and minerals. Identification mostly comes down to partial size. However once you grab the basic size differences, the source of the material may also have a play in identification.

Metamorphic: Metamorphic rocks are igneous and sedimentary rocks that have been exposed to hi heat and pressure. This changes the organization of the crystals often times makeing foliation, a good indicator of metamorphic rock. Yet non foliated rocks do exist and are out there and may be hard to distinguish.



The best way to learn how to identify rocks and minerals is to honestly study, and practice. I like this book as a place to start. With good pictures, clear descriptions and fun facts, it was where I got my foot in the door. As well as the Audubon guid. But really once you read a little to get to know what your looking for you can start to figure it out. Although it may not always be as simple as looking at something and knowing what is. You may need to get samples and test things. Minerals may look similar. Some metamorphic rocks you might mistake for igneous. You just got to start by knowing where to look to get a good hunch and an educated guess.

Get him one of the small rock id books with lots of pictures (like http://www.amazon.com/National-Audubon-Society-American-Minerals/dp/0394502698/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368484350&sr=1-1&keywords=rock+guide). Even if he's barely reading, he can match pictures to the rocks and you can read it with him.

And yeah, don't throw away his rocks. If space in the house becomes an issue, help him create a rock garden in the yard and mark off an area for him.

My parents have cute pictures of me when I was really little walking holding up pants with pockets bulging and so full of rocks that they wouldn't stay up. If he wants to bring too many home, you can make a rule about only the top 3 or 5 or give him a specific box or bag and he can't bring home more than will fit in that item from each trip.

When you travel, look online for cool rock spots or neat geology opportunities where you're going to tie in his hobby with family events. It will make him feel special and feed his love.

Very cool of you to work to support your kid's inquisitive nature.

I don't think this is exactly what you're looking for, but At The Bench - A Laboratory Navigator has a 10-page chapter about keeping a lab notebook.

Here's a brief Google Books preview; unfortunately it does not cover the relevant chapter.

This presentation(PDF link) cites a book called Writing the Laboratory Notebook by Howard Kanare, which (based on the Amazon reviews) might be more geared towards industry labs but could still be pretty useful in a general sense. You can find out for yourself, since I managed to find a full text copy online(PDF link). I don't think I'm accessing this through any proxies, so it does seem like it's freely available.

For a more thorough investigation of what's out there, you should consult your institution's library; I'm sure someone will be happy to help track down the exact book you are thinking of, or something functionally equivalent.

edit - here's a PDF link to another presentation, just for fun

Given your background, you could read Ken Binmore's Game Theory: A Very Short Introduction (2007). It's really short, but it assumes the reader is familiar with probability theory and a fair amount of mathematics. Binmore has another textbook Playing for Real (2007) which is goes much more in depth. It assumes the reader is familiar with linear algebra.

One of the central results of von Neumann and Morgenstern's Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1928) is the minimax theorem. This was John von Neumann's favorite theorem from that book. John Nash generalized this in his PhD thesis in 1950. The minimax theorem establishes the existence of Nash equilibrium for zero-sum games with finite players and strategies. Nash's extended this and showed that any normal form game with finite players and strategies has an equilibrium. You might have seen the movie A Beautiful Mind which depicted John Nash working on this. If you are interested, you can read about Nash's proof in Luce and Raiffa's Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey (1957). The proof does assumes the reader is familiar with point set topology.

Outside of economics, game theory is also applied to evolutionary biology. One of the best books on evolutionary game theory is Martin Nowak's Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life (2006). You might also like John Maynard Smith's Evolution and the Theory of Games (1982). Maynard Smith assumes the reader is familiar with homogenous differential equations.

Hope this helps!

Currently reading a book titled Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts, I would highly recommend it if you're interested in the science of consciousness.

In terms of going back to uni to do an undergraduate in neuroscience, i don't think it's worth it. I'm about to start an honours in visual neuroscience, but before finding my project I was talking to a prof about honours projects and he said he had a computer science graduate doing a project with him on alzheimer's. A lot of neuroscience these days involves programming so you have a huge one up there (i'll be learning programming for my project). In terms of how to get into the field, you could probably go straight into post grad if you have good marks with your current undergrad degree. Honours or Masters degrees, or as ciaoshescu mentioned you may be able to do an internship, i'm not to sure how that would work though.

Good luck on your journey!

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.

I have family of my own in medicine and forensics and they will confide that race is a reality, though the Zeitgeist of our age wishes much that it wasn't so.

Perhaps this admittedly-spammy trove of evidence will convince you...

BOATLOAD OF LINKS CONCERNING VERACITY OF RACE CONCEPT ALERT 🔔:

Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Races are human subspecies. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html

Lol.

"Look at all the sources of information that I haven't read or even bothered to cite any of their relevance!"

Naming the title of a book or journal doesn't indicate that its contents support your argument. I'll actually give you things you can read, AND tell you what they're about and how they relate to my point.

Enjoy. Dunce.

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf
Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Races are human subspecies. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eAhKIwaj70
http://smile.amazon.com/Dominion-Power-Suffering-Animals-Mercy/dp/0312319738/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427517946&sr=1-3&keywords=dominion

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.
http://www.jesuspeopleforanimals.com/

I'm also surprised, this thread is a lot more eloquent than the one we had last week on the same topic.

“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

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, Bruce Bagemihl
Amazon link (but I encourage you to not support Amazon)

>Homosexuality in its myriad forms has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other animals worldwide. Biological Exuberance is the first comprehensive account of the subject, bringing together accurate, accessible, and nonsensationalized information. Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Bruce Bagemihl shows that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting--even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.

>Part 1, "A Polysexual, Polygendered World," begins with a survey of homosexuality, transgender, and nonreproductive heterosexuality in animals and then delves into the broader implications of these findings, including a valuable perspective on human diversity. Bagemihl also examines the hidden assumptions behind the way biologists look at natural systems and suggests a fresh perspective based on the synthesis of contemporary scientific insights with traditional knowledge from indigenous cultures.

>Part 2, "A Wondrous Bestiary," profiles more than 190 species in which scientific observers have noted homosexual or transgender behavior. Each profile is a verbal and visual "snapshot" of one or more closely related bird or mammal species, containing all the documentation required to support the author's often controversial conclusions.

>Lavishly illustrated and meticulously researched, filled with fascinating facts and astonishing descriptions of animal behavior, Biological Exuberance is a landmark book that will change forever how we look at nature.

His 'secret' isn't what he knows so much as his entire attitude to learning.

What sets 'experts' apart is that at some level they question everything instead of taking it at face value. Questioning something forces you to really think about it: you have to turn the idea around a few times and examine it from all angles. You can't help but gain an understanding of the reasons for something - not just of the thing itself. Teaching others works in a similar way - being able to clearly explain an idea requires deep understanding.

It sounds condescending, but that really is what it comes down to - curiosity and critical thought.

Nothing we deal with requires more than a high school knowledge of science - for example, while you need to know that light levels and frequencies affect photosynthesis, you don't need to know the exact quantum/biochemical processes involved. You might be curious though, so it becomes a new avenue for you to research - and what you find out might change what you thought you knew, or might lead you on to new things.

Think about what you don't know that you wish you did - and then go try and find it out. Who knows what else you'll discover in the process?

Now, as for some specific learning sources - for the basics you're looking at things like Jorge Cervante's classic Indoor/Outdoor Medical Growers Bible. Beyond that, there's Reddit - eg SAG's own /r/HandsOnComplexity (googling everything you don't understand) - or some kind of introduction to Botany - the Botany For Dummies book is pretty good. College classes might also be an option.

There isn't a huge amount of current scientific research material - largely due to the War On Drugs making it less attractive. That said, if you go back a way it does exist and is now being reprinted - for example Michael Stark's Marijuana Chemistry and Robert Clarke's Marijuana Botany. Both were originally printed back in the 70s, but were fairly extensively researched. They are dated in places - but the scientific rigor was solid, and they both have wonderful bibliographies of research papers that I hadn't come across elsewhere. Newer papers can be found on Google Scholar. (As a general rule, trust scientific publications over books and books over unsourced websites.)

Yeah it’s heartbreaking, they breed then begin to senesce, some hang on for weeks others months.

Ive spent a lot of time with several GPOs-it’s incredibly difficult to not establish a relationship with an animal as intelligent, expressive, inquisitive, individualistic, and dynamic as an octopus. This is an animal with a vast repertoire of skills and emotions, from placid “loving” inquiries with their suckers to fickle attempts to bite their keepers, playful water-jets during an interaction to targeted streams of water aimed at a stranger. Working with these animals gives you a true appreciation for senescence and animal cognition/perception.

Anthropomorphizing in this industry’s often a “four letter word” used to diminish the cognitive faculties of non-humans when we see a reflection of ourselves. GPOs taught me this may be true but in the sense that I️ was interacting with an organism on an equal, greater, or entirely alien plane of consciousness. We shouldn’t diminish their experience as less than that of our own.

My good friend wrote a book about octopus with a focus on animal consciousness and the bonds formed working with these animals. Definitely worth checking out if you’re interested in learning more Link here

I have a few geology guide books, but by far my favorite is my Audubon society field guide to rocks and minerals. It encompasses many different kinds of rocks and minerals, and has clear pictures of each one along with more information about various characteristics of each one, how they are formed, how to identify them, etc... The Audubon society always does a great job with their field guides, and for someone interested in geology I guarantee it will not disappoint.

Here is the link to the guide on amazon. I know the book is geared toward North America but I imagine it will still work in Europe. Enjoy!

That's great you want to reduce unnecessary suffering! It's actually very easy once you start doing it. Go at your own pace and start cutting out animal products.

We all lost the convenience and particular pleasures but it's important to ask ourselves whether our desire for pleasure and ease really justify the death and torture of so many innocent sentient animals. You are clearly understanding that it is unjustifiable which is natural upon looking into it! That feeling of conflict goes away just as soon as you do what your conscience is telling you and you put animals off your plate! Will it always be a breeze going veg? No, but living in accordance with your own ethics is worth it. Plus I eat tons of delicious food all the time so no need to worry about not enjoying delicious foods!

If you're interested in reading more from a religious perspective I really recommend the book Dominion by Matt Scully. He too is catholic and a former George Bush speechwriter and addresses a lot of the issues you are concerned with.

So just do what you already know is the right thing to do! We're all here to support you even if folks in your day to day aren't. You can make a positive step to reduce pain and suffering in the world! That is amazing! Just follow your own ethics :)

edit: silly typos!

[Physics PhD, theoretical soft condensed matter physics/active matter]
In short, I think interdisciplinary research is always a good thing. Both sides benefit from different ways of thinking and different methodology, which leads to an even greater understanding.

Long version:
Biology (unlike physics or mathematics) contains an “-ology” suffix, which means it is the study of something, specifically life. Whereas physics is more of way understanding and distilling nature through universal principles, and mathematics is a tool or a language to develop those principles and more. Physics/mathematics and biology meet most commonly when biologists borrow physics/math tools to understand new biology. For example, the use of optical tweezers (part of this year’s physics Nobel prize) to accurately control proteins in the subcellular environment in vivo is a vital tool in understanding vesicle transport (if I’m not mistaken). Or in general, the use of more mathematics to make biology more quantitative may help make biology experiments more reproducible.

A second way biology and physics meet is when physicist use biology as a system to understand new physics of things out of equilibrium (or active), complex/adaptive networks, or living. For example, William Bialek and Jeremy England develop general theories for living systems. Mathematics is used as a language to think about these theories. One of my favorite analogies is, “if mathematics is the language of nature, physics is the poetry”.

As for mathematics and biology without physics, ecology is a field that has been a fruitful endeavor for both math and biology.

Lastly, I’d like to add that biology is not being replaced by physics/math. The goals of the fields are inherently different. But where there’s some overlap in these goals, teams collaborate and even more can be achieved/understood than separately. This is beautiful science.

P.S. Two great textbooks where biology, math and physics (and some chemistry) meet are “Biophysics” and “Physical Biology of the Cell”.

On evolution:

I urge you to read some books on the issue that aren't written with a fundamentalist Christian slant. The science is decisive, and the distinction between "macro" and "micro" is itself a religious confusion. (as others have already pointed out).

On the Big Bang: The biggest problem with the Big Bang is that we don't know how it happened. That is a problem, and scientists are working obsessively to solve it. But saying "God did it" buys you a whole host of new problems. How did God happen? Who created God? Why did he create the universe? You haven't answered anything by saying "God did it": you've just kicked the can down the road and added an additional unfalsifiable and unsupported assumption.

Also, the evidence for the Big Bang is all around you: look up background microwave radiation,distribution and evolution of galaxies, the abundance of light elements, and the expansion of space.

On the supernatural:

Any thinking that starts with "Do you think it's possible that..." is a HUGE RED FLAG. Almost anything is possible, but usually the sort of logic that must be defended with a "Well, it's possible..." is absurdly improbable. This is a good example. Yeah, it's possible that an entire other world could be layered on our own - but it's more improbable than winning the lottery, and I don't buy lottery tickets.

If I had to explain the fundamental difference between the way I think about the spiritual and the way you think about the spiritual, it would be this. You ask "Is it possible that..." and "Do you think that maybe..."

I ask "Is there empirical support for..." and "Does the evidence support the assertion that..."

As for the hope that human consciousness continues on....

Nope. This is it. That sucks, and I'm sorry. It's among the hardest pills to swallow about being an atheist - but it's true whether you believe it or not.

race is deeper than skin:

Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Races are human subspecies. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html

A specific regional guide will usually be more meaningful to own than a general guide that covers all of North America.

That been said, I personally own and recommend the National Wildlife Federation's Field Guide to Insects and Spiders of North America. It's packed with pictures and organizes everything by order, and then by family (to really understand the groupings, you should familiarize yourself with taxonomic rank). For each order, it includes some basic anatomical diagrams to help you distinguish one order from another.

It's also printed on some pretty durable gloss paper and has a water resistant cover, as icing on the cake.



I have not compared it to the Kaufman guide, since my book store does not carry it.

Comparing it to the Audubon version, I find that the NWF's guide is better for beginners due to having a picture for everything it lists. I also noticed the toner was coming off on my hand on the audubon guide while I was flipping through it in the book store.

I scarcely use it now because I've gotten good enough at identifying orders and a good number of families to use bugguide to narrow things down, but it was nice to take along on a camping trip.

Note that if you want to learn how to differentiate families of beetles or butterflies or spiders based on their anatomical traits, you'll probably need a specific field guide pertaining only to that bug. I can't recommend any, since I don't own any. Or use online references - again, bugguide is pretty good for a lot of things, but I have learned a ton from just googling for the information on a specific taxon.

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?

>End of the day both both sides of the argument have evidence.

No they don't. One side has one crappy study from 1972. Here's a list of sources supporting the other side:

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html

Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5

96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html

97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/

With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6

Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/

Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full

For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf

Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861

Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract

Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract

With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351

An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html

>So you believe which research makes you happy, and I’ll believe the research that makes me happy.

Your "research" gets minorities killed.

1. Fossils. I love the book Evolution: What the Fossils say, and why it matters. It's a handy, bring-it-with you guide that includes lots of transitional things. Lots of pictures. (Including evidence for the sea->land->sea trips for whale ancestors.)
   
   
2. ERV's, Endogenous Retroviruses. Living species share ancient DNA markers of an infection given to ancestors. Not only do they imply common descent, but the ones that a given species does and doesn't have in common with neighboring species perfectly predicts the fossil evidence for how and when they branched off each other. And looking at small differences in the genome as a 'molecular clock' lets you (successfully) predict how long ago these splits took place.
   
   > Not only are there many ERVs shared among primates, but they are shared in hierarchical subsets of the whole. Each set falls within another set, giving an unbroken line of inheritance for every species (Kurdyukov et al., 2001; Lebedev et al., 2000). This pattern is called a nested hierarchy. These patterns further corroborate that the many species of primates share common ancestry, and necessitate a specific sequence of divergence from one ancestral species to the next. They are wholly inexplicable by the model of uncommon ancestry.
   
   
   

> It's like you and me have to race up this mountain side

Mountain climbing is actually a good metaphor for evolution, and natural selection is very good at climbing mountains. I recommend Richard Dawkins' book "Climbing Mount Improbable" if you'd like to understand how natural selection drives adaptation of species to their environment. You can also find a good overview of how natural selection climbs mountains here on Wikipedia.

A good introductory text on the statistical mechanics of biopolymers (including a number of models of DNA) is Ken Dill's Molecular Driving Forces. Much of it is undergraduate level, and it will necessarily include simple models that are primarily pedagogical, but they are nonetheless incredibly useful tools for connecting to the literature in a deeper way. For example, two state models can deliver some surprising results despite how simple they are -- such models show up in the literature in the form of elastic network models (ENMs), where two well-defined configurations are used to construct harmonic approximations to the state space. These can then be used to model transitions between states across the potential surface. ENMs aren't as relevant to DNA, as far as I know (I work on a membrane transporter at the moment), but is representative of the simpler tools used in the field.

Additionally, Rob Phillips has some very useful texts (that emphasize an intuition of the length- and time-scales involved): Physical Biology of the Cell and Cell Biology by the Numbers.

Hope that helps!

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins doesn't really go into anything new or original, but the strength of the book is that is a great, concise summary of all the beginning arguments for atheism.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

I'd follow it with Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell", also a good recommendation. Same goes for Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World"

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/

Christopher Hitchens is a bit vitriolic for some, but "God is not Great" has some nuggets in it.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/

I personally didn't like Sam Harris' "End of Faith" but I did like his "Letter to a Christian Nation".

http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Vintage-Harris/dp/0307278778/

For the topic of evolution, Talk Origins is great (and free) http://toarchive.org/
Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is also a good read (and short). Not so short but also good are Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "Unweaving the Rainbow"

http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/

http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823/

http://www.amazon.com/Unweaving-Rainbow-Science-Delusion-Appetite/dp/0618056734/

I am not at all an expert on this topic, but I am reading Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors right now, a fascinating book on the history of humans that tends to favor genetic explanations above the more social anthropological explanations.

This book argues that race is a very real thing, but it has little to do with looks (which is how people traditionally separate out race, e.g. black, white). It argues there are clean genetic clusters (based on a small number of genes) that can be referred to as "human races". You can say this person is ~x% this cluster, y% that, etc. You are right that genetically individuals are very diverse, but some genes dominate in some races. Just a few 100 years can create some major genetic changes that are selected for in that group. This is a fact supported by many examples, like the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, or the long distance running abilities of East Africans.

It is possible to look at someone's genetic signature and map them to a cluster pretty cleanly. Whether you want to call this "race" or not is debatable given the terrible history of race relations, but that is just a semantic debate. The politically correct stance that there is no difference between human populations hides the truth for social reasons.

The best thing you can do is become familiar with the terminology. This book was useful for looking up various nomenclatures on certain body parts or regions, like which veins are which on wings. Otherwise This book had some good keys in it, but it's primarily description based, and many other keys I've used beyond it are this way as well. For the book, it was convenient that it had many pictures to reference in earlier chapters if you wanted some visual confirmation you were on the right path in the key. Otherwise, I'd suggest getting with the professor and asking for sources they might suggest to become better with the terminology.

The keys I've used with as many pictures as descriptions were constrained to species-level ID of one insect. There might be some sources you can find with some internet searches, though those aren't so easy to find all the time.
Bugguide.net might be a resource you can consider, though it doesn't act as a key, and is more useful if you are already familiar with the different types of insects and their classifications.

i did my phd in a related field. it seems like you will have enough math and that some more computer programming could be a good thing. the main pitfall in this kind of stuff is that people want to do a bunch of math that is more complicated than it needs to be without tying it back to the biological system.

obviously you will need help from senior people with that, but it seems to me that the best thing you could do to prepare is read a bunch about motor proteins and the cytoskeleton. every cell-biology textbook should have a few chapters on this. i recommend this book if you want something with a bit of math.

if you want, PM me the name of the person you'll be working for. odds are good i know a bit about what they are doing.

From R.C. Clarkes Marijuana Botany: Propagation and Breeding of Distintive Cannabis
"Seeds are allowed to dry completely and all vegetable debris is removed before storage. This prevents spoilage caused by molds and other fungi. Seeds preserved for future germination are thoroughly air dried in paper envelopes or cloth sacks and stored in air-tight containers in a cool, dark, dry place. Freezing may also dry out seeds and cause them to crack. If seeds are carefully stored, they remain viable for a number of years. As a batch of seeds ages, fewer and fewer of them will germinate, but even after 5 to 6 years a small percentage of the seeds usually still germinate. Old batches of seeds also tend to germinate slowly (up to 5 weeks). This means that a batch of seeds for cultivation might be stored for a longer time if the initial sample is large enough to provide sufficient seeds for another generation. If a strain is to be preserved, it is necessary to grow and reproduce it every three years, so that enough viable seeds are always available."

This being said, virtually ALL seedbanks use a fridge/freezer for long-term storage. Humidity is the big evil in a fridge... After they are well dried, pack them into the smallest opaque/airtight container that will hold them. If you are going to put them in the fridge/freezer, add a silica packet or rice as a dessicant inside each sealed container.

sidenote: Hermaphrodites tendencies are passed through genetics, but often show after the plant is stressed. Receiving light during the dark cycle and heat are the 2 most common causes. though some will start kicking the male flowers out late into flowering to try and ensure survival of the species. Starting with seeds from a hermi will mean all future plants have a higher than normal chance of developing this trait. If you're just learning, probably not a bad place to start... If you were wanting to make $$$ or a career out of this I would buy/obtain better genetics it will save you a million headaches.

RC Clarkes Hemp diseases and pests is another great book

You are moving the goalposts, you didn't ask for peer reviewed sources. Scholarly articles aren't as readily available as simply links that I can post on Reddit. And the last time I checked, the NYT was hardly an alt-right publication.
.

But if you insist, here are quite a few for you, although only the abstracts are generally available:

The Biological Reification of Race

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/2/323.abstract

Race: The Reality of Human Differences

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861

How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20983/full

Race Reconciled? How Biological Anthropologists view human variation

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20995/full

Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21006/full

Biohistorical approaches to “race” in the United States: Biological distances among African Americans, European Americans, and their ancestors

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20961/full

Now - most of the anthro articles don't endorse the "folk" or popular view of race and so they might seem like a debunking of race, but in fact, they recognize there are measurable variations, they just think there is more variation than what people popularly observe. And the usefulness in forensic DNA in indentifying victims or suspects has been invaluable. See the landmark Dr. Frudakis case.

EDIT - wow, so I include a ton of peer reviewed articles and already I am downvoted in the first 30 seconds, not even enough time for anyone to have skimmed those links. Classy.

I recommend "Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial". It's pretty short and easy to read and has examples and pseudocode for many of the discussed methods. Use whatever programming language you're most comfortable with (MATLAB does have nice built in functions for dealing with large matrices). Depending on the amount of data, I'd avoid excel and just load ASCII data files from your code if possible.

That book has now been added to my library, thank you. Link for anyone interested.

As far as the "It's only a really convincing simulation" goes:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
If a simulation is so convincing of faking his consciousness that there's nothing we could do (except maybe open up the soft- and hardware) to differentiate it from something we would consider conscious, then by all means it is conscious. I know I'm conscious, because I have my own thoughts to prove it to myself. But everyone else in the world might just be a clever robot. But it's senseless to assume this because it's not functional.

I think this argument ultimately comes down to "there's something special about us" rather than accepting consciousness too is 'just' a product of complex mechanics. As I mentioned somewhere else, the problem is we don't have a clear definition of what is conscious and can therefore not test for it.

The original 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 animals 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.

"no scientific consensus that black people are genetically predisposed to lower intelligence"

The report is by the APA from 1996. The APA in 96 to even acknowledge that there was a gap was a huge thing, considering its bias. Discoveries have ramped up in the last few years so I don't know why wikipedia is relying on sources from 94 & 96 considering the human genome mapping wasn't completed until 2003. Discoveries since then have been one after another.

It's no surprise wikipedia comes to the PC conclusion, but it suffers from problems. It acknowledges that the black-white test gap exists. Either it is genetic, or environmental. There has been decades of money, and time thrown at fixing the environment by rich billionaires like Gates, and others. Dozens upon dozens of education, nutrition, parent swapping (giving black babies to whites), and other experiments, and they all failed. There is not a single study in the world that can claim lasting gains in the IQ gap. This bit of evidence would point to a genetic basis right? That and the fact that twin studies (the only proper studies that can control for genes) shows intelligence, among other dispositions, are highly heritable. In that wikipedia page, they link to the actual numbers from the APA study: "A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence."

Finally, does that statement even pass the laugh test? "Science" doesn't work by consensus, but if it did, wouldn't it be relevant to ask the actual scientists involved in intelligence research?

There are people with very high intelligence, very low IQ, and everyone between. Most people can recognize that height is highly heritable, but it isn't a guarantee, sometimes you are taller than your tallest parent, sometimes you are shorter than the shortest parents. Most times you regress towards the mean. The idea that the brain is a blank slate has been discredited by Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, and others. The brain comes with innate abilities, abilities that are partly inherited from your parents genes.

If you are actually concerned with finding the truth you can read Nicholas Wade, who writes for the NYTimes. The 10,000 Year Explosion. Or Gene Expression1. Or Gene Expression2. Rather than having your views filtered by whoever happens to be editing one of the many wikipedia pages.

Fun fact: sexual activity between same sex members of the same species is really quite common. It appears that as many as 60% of all species whose sex acts have been observed by humans engage in same sex activity. Here is a link that probably contains more information about the subject than 99% of Redditors probably need.

When I teach at the Uni I sometimes bring this up, and then follow up with a brief discussion about whether something that is engaged in by thousands of animal species can be considered to be "unnatural".

Edit: just realized that Darth_Face2021 made the same point as me in an earlier post. Even better, his link goes to a website, rather than a book. Give Darth_Face2021 your love.

This is highly dependent on the area of neuro you're in. It might not vary much from the typical cell/molec biology lab, might involve skills heavy in engineering, animal handling skills, programming skills, etc. Even across labs within an area there will variation in the "set" of core techniques (and thus skills) required.

For a general introduction to working in a lab, you should check out "at the bench". This will skew towards general biology lab skills, but is a great start. It also gives very important tips on peacefully co-existing with your lab mates: https://www.amazon.com/At-Bench-Laboratory-Navigator-Updated/dp/0879697083

Here's mine

To understand life, I'd highly recommend this textbook that we used at university http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-Edition-Jane-Reece/dp/0321558235/ That covers cell biology and basic biology, you'll understand how the cells in your body work, how nutrition works, how medicine works, how viruses work, where biotech is today, and every page will confront you with what we "don't yet" understand too with neat little excerpts of current science every chapter. It'll give you the foundation to start seeing how life is nothing special and just machinery (maybe you should do some basic chemistry/biology stuff on KhanAcademy first though to fully appreciate what you'll read).

For math I'd recommend doing KhanAcademy aswell https://www.khanacademy.org/ and maybe a good Algebra workbook like http://www.amazon.com/The-Humongous-Book-Algebra-Problems/dp/1592577229/ and after you're comfortable with Algebra/Trig then go for calc, I like this book http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Ron-Larson/dp/0547167024/ Don't forget the 2 workbooks so you can dig yourself out when you get stuck http://www.amazon.com/Student-Solutions-Chapters-Edwards-Calculus/dp/0547213093/ http://www.amazon.com/Student-Solutions-Chapters-Edwards-Calculus/dp/0547213107/ That covers calc1 calc2 and calc3.

Once you're getting into calc Physics is a must of course, Math can describe an infinite amount of universes but when you use it to describe our universe now you have Physics, http://www.amazon.com/University-Physics-Modern-12th/dp/0321501217/ has workbooks too that you'll definitely need since you're learning on your own.

At this point you'll have your answers and a foundation to go into advanced topics in all technical fields, this is why every university student who does a technical degree must take courses in all those 3 disciplines.

If anything at least read that biology textbook, you really won't ever have a true appreciation for the living world and you can't believe how often you'll start noticing people around you spouting terrible science. If you could actually get through all the work I mentioned above, college would be a breeze for you.

Read. read. read. read. read. read

Dont waste money on good seeds right now. Use bagseed. It will give you the chance to learn the ropes and if you fuck up, you won't have wasted your good genetics.

I would seriously recommend setting up an account at ICmag. They are some of the most knowledgeable people on the web. It became the spot where most of the old OG members went after it got shut down. If you post a growlog there, read as much as you can, ask lots of questions, post pictures (carefully... just plants with nothing identifying in the background, etc.), you will learn a ton and grow some good weed.

As others have said. don't tell a soul. Loose lips sink ships. Check the legal forum and see how many people get in trouble because they got ratted out. That forum is a great place to learn from other people's mistakes. If you want to do this properly, you will likely have to change many aspects of your life that you may not be aware of.

Stay safe.

I am not a biologist.

The Counter-Creationism Handbook might be something like what you're looking for, though it does branch into non-evolutionary topics. It is a compilation of questions/arguments from talk.origins (usenet) that are discussed for a paragraph or two with lots of sources cited. Check out the reviews on Amazon. Really recommend this one.

What Evolution Is was a good introduction to evolution. I've read several, and I feel that this was the best. He also talks in passing about what evolution is not. Standard kind of non-fiction book.

Evolution is supposedly the reference textbook of atheists. There is a newer edition out, or you can pick up this one for about $15 (USD).

My undergraduate degree is in mathematics with a mathematical ecology concentration, and I love my current Ph.D. research. (I think it's hard to go wrong with a math major as an undergrad, if you're good at it -- you can use it for anything.) I'm planning to go into academia for a career, but depending on your specific interests there are all kinds of government or consulting jobs for good ecological modelers.

A few books on Amazon that may give you a taste for the field (any given person's specialty will more closely align with just one of them, but I'm trying to convey the broad options):

http://www.amazon.com/Game-Theory-Animal-Behavior-Dugatkin/dp/0195137906/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260173721&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Individual-based-Modeling-Princeton-Theoretical-Computational/dp/069109666X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260173431&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Models-Biology-Stephen-Ellner/dp/0691125899/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260173431&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Dynamics-Exploring-Equations-Life/dp/0674023382/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

I'd recommend looking for some of these in your university library, then just browsing through everything next to them at the shelves and seeing if anything jumps out at you.

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.

I'm sure how far back you want to start, but if you want to get into our ancient ancestors, I'd start with Before the Dawn. Follow that up with Cro-Magnon for a decent overview of the first modern human migrations into Europe. There is some overlap with After the Ice-Age, but the latter is a great resource describing the first transitions into agriculture.

The History of the Ancient World would be a good follow up; it's breadth is quite broad, starting with the ancient Sumerians and taking you up to the fall of the Roman Empire, but it's broken into small, readable chunks.

Hopefully this helps to get you started!

Soul of an Octopus is a great read for those who are curious about the intelligence of these amazing creatures.

For books:

• Someone the other day posted [this link] (http://earthds.info/) to a basic introductory textbook which may tide you over.
  -I find this field book to be the best newbie friendly to "what's that rock?"
  
• Raiding your local thrift store/used books for anything geology related may help.
  
  Get your students to talk about geology they've seen in their life to connect it to what's being taught in lecture. I'm learning more about the natural history and geology of my home city of L.A. on the opposite coast than I did living there for half my life by talking in class.

That app sounds so cool! You might also like the app iNaturalist, it's helpful for learning what something is if you're not sure. Pojar is the absolute BEST guide if you want to learn more about PNW coastal plants before you explore! Also, sword fern spores are useful for soothing the pain if you accidentally walk into some stinging nettle. :)

That's actually a part of an entire book about Octopuses! It's called The Soul of an Octopus ! It's a great read and goes into even more depth about octopus intelligence!

Octopuses are some of the coolest animals in the world, I encourage everyone to learn more about them. You won't regret it!

Get a good mineral/rock ID book (I suggest buying this one ahead of time).

You will probably have really good mineral specimens in lab so you won't need a hand lens just yet, but you should buy one anyway (I suggest this one).

When the semester starts, spend a lot of time in lab alone looking at the minerals and memorizing a few key characteristics (name, formula, crystal habit, hardness, streak) of each one. Seriously, get used to being in there on the weekend, bring a beer (brown bag it). If you are good at identifying minerals in hand specimen, it will help out tremendously when you get into Petrology and out in the field. Don't rely on your instructor alone, look around for mineralogy websites from other universities. I found this series of lectures by Doug Haywick to be helpful.

> You haven't explained what's wrong with defining the term this way.

Sure I have. It's an attempt to define something into existence (in a roundabout way). All our evidence shows that what we generally refer to as consciousness is instead an emergent property from the processes in our brains.

I'm sure you must be familiar with some of the work in this area? In any case, here's a couple of quite interesting articles and books on the subject in case not:

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Brain-Deciphering-Codes-Thoughts/dp/0670025437


https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254735485_Consciousness_as_the_Emergent_Property_of_the_Interaction_Between_Brain_Body_and_Environment







(Note the third research article begins with "according to the assumption that consciousness is the emergent property of the interaction between brain, body, and environment," however there is some interesting references and further reading from here as to why that is a reasonable assumption given the evidence.)

Indeed, the concept doesn't even make any sense without this, as it would constitute an unevidenced exception to every analogous circumstance in any context, and wouldn't be explained or have any supporting framework. This is treading dangerously close to special pleading, if not outright crossing the line.

>Face saved by the bell, eh?

Heh. :) Not at all, it's just that these discussions are of more use to those following along but never participating (the vast majority according to most data on IP accesses to forums such as these) and while often interesting are of less utility when limited to just the two of us.

Take care.


Edit: my links disappeared! I'll re-add them, sorry.

Definitely depends on your location. Here in the PNW we love Pojar, and I'm betting there's a favored guide in your area :) For that matter I have an additional guidebook for the Olympics, so even relatively small areas can have a lot of diversity that can be difficult to fit into a single guide. What you'll need depends on where you roam.

Also Evolution by Donald Prothero was a good one along the same line. He has a couple of talks on youtube based on the book. Your Inner Fish is decent but less substantial. It has a 3 part educational PBS series that I believe is on Netflix. Dawkins is easy to read but he doesn't lay out the evidence as much as he talks about the processes, but those are still good books. The Selfish Gene is excellent.

> 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. https://www.amazon.ca/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/031225377X

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.

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.

I'm a fan of penguin and elephants. I wish I could have a pet octopus! I actually just won a signed copy of The Soul of an Octopus which I am very excited to read.

What, especially, is tripping you up when it comes to evolution? In what way does it seem impossible? Don't feel ashamed...you have years of brainwashing to overcome. I was also in the same boat. I'm a scientist with an interest in science literacy and education, so I'm happy to answer any questions as best I can :)

I recommend the book "What Evolution Is" (http://www.amazon.com/What-Evolution-Science-Masters-Series/dp/0465044263) and "The Ponyfish's Glow" (http://www.amazon.com/The-Pony-Fishs-Glow-Purpose/dp/0465072836)

If you live in eastern North America, I highly recommend Stephen Marshall's Insects: Their Natural History and Diversity. It has a brief written overview for each insect order, and is filled with tons of captioned color photos showcasing common or interesting species. It's basically a mega field guide, so don't expect a huge amount of written discussion, but I love my copy so much!

Also, if we are making suggestion for what to read, I strongly suggest Nicholas Wade's three somewhat recent books on the evolution of religions, cultures, and modern humans. It might allow you to take a broader view of what seem like neat and narrow issues. The audiobooks are well narrated if you prefer those.

http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X/ref=la_B001H6WF40_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410286302&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Instinct-Religion-Evolved-Endures/dp/0143118196/ref=la_B001H6WF40_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410286302&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/1594204462/ref=la_B001H6WF40_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410286302&sr=1-1

I'd like to add that you should definitely get a field guide to insects that is relevant to your area. Being able to ID what you catch at least to order or family will make the whole thing more enjoyable and will help you learn what you are catching. If you can afford it this is a FANTASTIC book with a ton of photos that is appropriate to your area.

When I took Game Theory the professor used Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics, which I really liked.

Evolutionary Dynamics is just amazing, but a bit on the biological side.

If you are studying on your own I would suggest Game Theory Evolving, which has a lot of exercises and examples to keep you going.

And for added bursts of motivation read The Art of Strategy, which is not really technical but explains the concepts incredibly well.

The Flora of the Pacific Northwest is the book you want. It has full keys. Picture guides specifically related to the northwest (like this and this) can be used to supplement this, but FPN is the best authority for most of that region.

"Wildflowers of North America" and Newcomb's Guide and things like that are not going to help you at all. They mostly cover Eastern species and there is rather little botanical overlap between there and the Pacific Northwest.

This one? I've used it a lot and it's quite good.
Edit: Amazon says "May 31st 2007" so I'm not sure if that's the publication date or just the date it became available on Amazon but that makes me think it's probably not this one. This is a good guide so if you can't find the one you had in the 90's I'd recommend either this one or the Kaufman field guide.

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

Read a book on evolution then. Might I recommend this book. Transform yourself into an Atheist if you desire the truth :)

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.

Feigelson & Babu is a great read, with lots of applications using R.

If you're looking for something a bit more "cookbook" style then this book is good. The authors also have the solutions to all the problems on their website.

For general statistics and data analysis (without a focus on astrophysics) Sivia & Skilling is also good.

If you enjoyed that paper, I'd recommend a book called Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life by Martin A. Nowak. It's a little dry, and I haven't finished it yet, but it's well presented and reads like a book rather than a textbook.

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

I use the National wildlife federation's field guide. It is by no means exhaustive but it helps me identify most things. The pictures are great.
https://www.amazon.com/National-Wildlife-Federation-Insects-Spiders/dp/1402741537/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1402741537&pd_rd_r=CYNBQ573JKYM4SCS4W21&pd_rd_w=7e5Oe&pd_rd_wg=VTINW&psc=1&refRID=CYNBQ573JKYM4SCS4W21

What do you mean by Darwinian Evolution?

Most people are sold on evolution based gradual model; where things like the human eye - which are very complex - can evolve if there are many, many tiny steps over millions and millions of years. . Not just tiny improvements all the time, but twists, turns, dead-ends and etc. Richard Dawkins book Climbing Mount Improbable Gives a great overview of this how the seemingly design of living things really isn't.

And it was only those "Crazy Christian Creationists" talked about gaps in the fossil record. They didn't know what they were talking about.....until 1972.

That's when Niles Eldridge and Stephen J Gould were tracing the evolution of trilobites and lands snails; most of the fossil record showed no change through millions of years of strata. That's right, most species are stable for millions of years and then change so rapidly that we rarely if ever see it in the fossil record. see Punctuated Equilibrium

What happens in Punctuated Equilibrium, you see, is that a small sub-population of a species will evolve; gain such an advantage they will take over, the main population dies, and is fossilized thus making it appear that there was no transitions. But.... there is no fossil evidence for it as the theory admits.

So which Darwinian Evolutionary theory are you speaking about when you ask about having secular scientific arguments against them?

Gradualistic evolution isn't supported by the fossil record and neither is Punctuated Equilibrium.

Personally I'm a big fan of Steve Marshall's book:
http://www.amazon.com/Insects-Natural-History-Diversity-Photographic/dp/1552979008

It's well written in plain english, with tons and tons of pictures. I found it extremely easy to read when I was first getting into entomology, yet very accurate and informative. Covers all the major families you're likely to run into, and works well as a field guide too (except it weighs a ton!).

Plus, since it's not technically a textbook, it's relatively cheap.

You can find several lectures on Youtube by Andrew Linzey, Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. He's also a Theologian and Anglican priest.

http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/who-we-are/director/

There's even hard core conservative Christians who speak out, like Matthew Scully, one of George Bush's speechwriters.

https://www.amazon.ca/Dominion-Power-Suffering-Animals-Mercy/dp/0312319738

There's many other such examples.

http://www.all-creatures.org/

And for every highly public figure, there are many more everyday, average Christians that have combined animal ethics together with their faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ekOPyXGs3Q#t=354

Yeah, we need more people like Father Frank.

I'm doing this same thing right now. I let my plants mature to 10 weeks. I just put the clones out yesterday. Keep your fingers crossed for me.

I normally let my plants mature to 12 weeks before they go into flower, this is on regular and feminized seeds. I read that sexual maturity is reached by week 12 on average. I'm hoping for early maturity with these plants.

I found that info in this book. Marijuana Botany

They are amazing animals if you consider they're about the size of a grain of rice when they're born, get no parental instruction, have to learn everything themselves and grow into such intelligent creatures while having very short lifespans (the longest lived only live 3 to 5 years).

And if you want to read more about them, I highly recommend "The Soul of the Octopus"

https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Octopus-Surprising-Exploration-Consciousness/dp/1451697724

https://www.amazon.com/At-Bench-Laboratory-Navigator-Updated/dp/0879697083
Is a really good start - it also covers more "big picture" items about working in a lab, like etiquette and safety.

If you like game theory, you will absolutely love Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life. This is a groundbreaking work by Martin Nowak, arguably the leading researcher in Evolutionary Theory today.

I haven't heard of any good insect field guide apps, but this is my favorite field guide:

National Wildlife Federation Field Guide to Insects and Spiders & Related Species of North America https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402741537/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_kbj-tb1X4SW2Z

This is a close second:

Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America (Kaufman Field Guides) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618153101/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_zfj-tb1ZVGNYF

Edit: it's probably worth getting both for those prices.

Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial is really nice. It starts off with continuous parameter estimation and then moves on to model selection. Unlike Peter Lee's book it feels like a clean break from classical stats.

You do need statistics, but if you have a physics degree, you should be able to pick up the necessary statistics fairly quickly. I would recommend going through introductory statistics homework assignments to learn the very basics.

I'd also heavily recommend learning Bayesian statistics and understanding where the loss functions actually come from (ie why do we minimize the sum of squared errors in linear regression). The best book on introductory Bayesian statistics I've read was Data Analysis: A Bayesian tutorial.

Homosexuality is well documented and been known for a long time (source: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions (Paperback)) https://www.amazon.com/dp/031225377X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_prkBDbH4HMXTB ).

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.

Sometimes I ponder the same idea. Ultimately we won't know until consciousness is better understood. The research is moving forward.

A great book on the matter is:

Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts
by Stanislas Dehaene (Author)


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670025437/

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.

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.

https://www.amazon.com/Bear-Attacks-Causes-Avoidance-revised/dp/158574557X

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.

There are two books that I think would be good:

What Evolution Is

Why Evolution Is True

I liked both books. I am not sure how readable they are without a decent understanding of basic biology. Can you tell us how much background you have in biology? That may help with suggestions.

I've read a few. My interest is AI. Of them all I'll recommend two:

• Consciousness and the Brain
  
• On Intelligence
  
  
  edit - sigh I am now unable to reply to people who have replied to me. Would love to talk about neuroscience and consciousness and Ai but I guess well meet on another sub

Here's a good source on vegan health, by a registered dietitian:

http://veganhealth.org/

For religious perspectives there is the Christian Vegetarian Association and the book Dominion by Matthew Scully.

I don't have another source but here's a page from Peta on fish pain:

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/fish/fish-feel-pain/

Here's some good general information:

http://woodstocksanctuary.org/learn-3/factory-farmed-animals

It may seem daunting but I think your mom will understand once she sees that you're definitely committed. Just hang in there!

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."

There is an awesome book called The Soul of An Octopus that talks a lot about this subject. If you are interested in Octopuses at all you should check it out.

HERE is a better one for the Pacific Northwest. Comes recommended from many people I've encountered out on trails.

Also, use smile.amazon.com and they'll donate a portion of your purchase to a non-profit :)

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.

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?

Professing to be an atheist and accepting the sound scientific evidence for evolution are completely disconnected. To try to connect the two is somewhat like saying that because I accept the law of gravity, I must be an atheist. The Watchtower likes to confuse the two by attacking atheism and calling it an argument against evolution. But that’s their logical fallacy - don’t buy into it.

BTW, a book I found helpful in learning about evolution and debunking creationism was “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters” by Donald Prothero (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0231139624/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=)

https://www.amazon.ca/Plants-Pacific-Northwest-Coast-Washington/dp/1551055309

i keep this book in my cruiser vest. Trees are relatively easy to identify once you get into the swing of things.

I think that being familiar with its counterparts (shrubs, herbs, etc) are VERY important to understanding forest dynamics and as it follows, they're a little bit trickier to identify than our trees.

Same here. I just used my old entomology textboook, Insects: Their Natural History and Diversity, which is one of the best textbooks I've ever bought. They have a limited section on non-insect arthropods and the Dimorphic Jumping Spider was the closest match I could find.

I also moved mobile homes a couple times out in Bedford as a summer job this year and saw a few of these guys. There were False Black Widows all over the place, but I had these spiders and Bold Jumpers crawling over me all day, too.

You should direct most of these questions to r/evolution, since I think they are for the most part a little more informed and a lot more willing to answer questions on the topic. This should get you started though: talk origins archive on the matter of human evolution

edit: also wanted to add that there are plenty of fossil examples; a great book I would suggest is "Evolution" by Don Prothero. This book is great because it focuses almost entirely on the fossil record, which is oftentimes attacked as having "holes" or lacking transitional forms. Keep in mind that nearly every fossil found could be considered a transitional fossil between an ancestor and something else, the term is really a misnomer.

Well, I'm currently reading What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr. I picked it up for some light reading and because I love the subject. It basically goes into detail about what evolution is (hence the title) and how it has shaped our thoughts as a society.

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.

Back in my day, we used this for Gen Chem and this for Principles of Bio. Don't buy textbooks until you make it to campus because they will most likely be using an updated version. Although which edition you get won't matter for the content, it will matter for the end of chapter questions.

Good luck!

Very highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/At-Bench-Laboratory-Navigator-Updated/dp/0879697083. In grad school, we kept a copy in the lab and gave specific readings to new lab members. It's a super-friendly and pragmatic book, targeted to readers in exactly your situation.

But no book will resolve all the contradictory lab folklore, the field has lots of history and habitual behavior. Many researchers believe that if a particular protocol consistently works, then it's good because it eliminates a source of uncertainty. That doesn't make it the optimal protocol, but because so much of experimental science is eliminating sources of uncertainty, it's a perfectly reasonable opinion.

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.

If you want something that will actually be thorough and help you out, this one right here is what you want. It's a serious reference with a ton of great information and not a pretty little coffee table book about wild berries.

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.
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291778199&sr=8-1

You realize that some people spend their life studying a single aspect of the question you just asked. Not a genetic master key however and outside source seems too vague a term. If you're interested there are a lot of resources just start with a college intro to biology textbook - the [one] (http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-9th-Jane-Reece/dp/0321558235/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376693419&sr=1-1&keywords=campbell+biology+9th+edition) is excellent.

> 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?

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-7

If you like octopuses, check out the book The Soul of an Octopus by Sy Montgomery. It's a fun read.

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-Edition-Jane-Reece/dp/0321558235/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Seems like it's a pretty well-used and credible textbook for introduction into biology...

If you're looking for something that is really easy to read, then I would recommend What evolution is by
Ernst Mayr.

Edit: link

> 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.

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1/187-8590692-7268402?ie=UTF8&qid=1382549797&sr=8-1&keywords=biological+exuberance

Insects: Their Natural History and Diversity by Stephen Marshall is a rather large book that gives some information on each of the orders of insects. Following the write-ups there are many pictures detailing the various families among each order with descriptions about those families. Then, toward the end of the book there is a dichotomous key that can be used to ID insects to family.


That is what was recommended in my introductory entomology class for identification, but the bulk of what I learned was from lecture materials that aren't commercially available. Hopefully other folks here might have a good idea for other books/media!

Pretty much yes. Really he is argueing that some things are so irreducibly complex that they had to be designed. Except that they are not. Eye evolution has been understood for a very long time. And we have even found organisms with all sorts of eyes, at all sorts of stages. Dawkin's Climbing Mount Imporbable Address this argument in some detail.

But really this ends up being a race. Every so often ID proponents go and find a new something and aay "Ha this is irreducibly complex". Then biologists come along and show that it is reducable, and the process repeats with ever increasingly obsure examples being proposed and falsified. Meanwhile less informed apoligsts just keep refering to the eye or the Bacterial Flegelum and pretend that its evolution is still not understood, because they don't understand it.

Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0670025437/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_Q6Qzub003NK0X

Comprehensive, current, a generally pleasant read/listen.

It's aimed at physicists, but [Sivia's book] (http://www.amazon.com/Data-Analysis-Bayesian-Devinderjit-Sivia/dp/0198568320) is extremely good.

Otherwise as actual papers http://bayes.wustl.edu/sivia/how.many.lines.pdf or (ahem) something of my own.

Evolution in no way suggests that "humans came from monkeys." That is a common and unfortunate misconception. Though the trail of human development is quite complicated, basically we share a common ancestor with primates (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution for a good basic overview; for a more in-depth exploration, this book (http://www.amazon.com/What-Evolution-Ernst-Mayr/dp/0465044263/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2) is a really good read).

Well, this is aimed at senior undergraduates and research students in science and engineering: http://www.amazon.com/Data-Analysis-A-Bayesian-Tutorial/dp/0198568320

But really everything you learn should result in you realizing what else you want to learn related to it. The same is true for statistics. Learn some, and that should let you think... oh I wonder if I can find any publications on....

I think you mean Climbing Mount Improbable

In any case, yes - the theory of evolution has evolved over time. Darwin didn't have the knowledge of biology (and especially biochemistry) that modern biologists do.

The basic concepts of Darwinian evolution - random variation in populations, natural selection, and speciation over time - are still the same, though.

Sexual Dimorphism is common among many species.

You refer to "gender roles" as the cause, though I don't think that is correct. Gender is a societal construct - it is not societal laws that made women smaller and weaker as sexual dimorphism predates modern society. (It's interesting that some early feminist literature hypothesized that by now women would be physically equal to men, since they too attributed sexual dimorphism to gender roles.) Sexual dimorphism is rooted in biology - it was sexual dimorphism that caused gender roles, not the other way around.

Sexual dimorphism is evolutionarily adaptive. "What Evolution Is" has an interesting chapter on sexual dimorphism as it relates to "harem size". Typically animals that display sexual dimorphism have an uneven mating ratio - the larger the male relative the the female, the more mates he will have in his harem.

Given this evidence, your forth speculation makes sense - that the gap between females and males will diminish with time. But I do not believe it will disappear entirely since much of the female deficit in physical ability can be attributed to sacrifices made in favor of the ability to carry and raise children.

That being said, this is the best book ever written in regards to the cultivation of cannabis.

http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Botany-Advanced-Propagation-Distinctive/dp/091417178X

I love this book.

Here's a very brief rundown of some basic breeding info. It's actually enough to get you started as at it's most basic, you simply have to use pollen from a male plant, apply it to a female plant's buds and you're breeding.

For more in-depth and advanced coverage though, The Cannabis Breeder's Bible and Marijuana Botany are both good books with tons of info to get you started.

This is a bit weird, but there's a fun book about edible plants in the Pacific NW: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1551055309/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_x_CuGiybADGAT2P

A good summary of the origins of Australian Aborigines, as well as much of early human history, can be found in Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade.

Befriend BioQuip and get some good books. Mostly, have fun!

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. https://www.amazon.com/Bear-Attacks-Causes-Avoidance-revised/dp/158574557X

Wow...them you must have been incredibly lucky. Renting from amazon is over $78 and the cheapest used current edition is over $105. http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-Edition-Jane-Reece/dp/0321558235/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345857076&sr=8-1&keywords=Campbells+biology+9th

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).

This was beautifully described and explained by Richard Dawkins in the last chapter of his book Climbing Mount Improbable

Audubon society book on rocks and minerals is an excellent one

This is what i have been reading, unlike most other books this one has excellent photos in it.

Not sure if you've checked it out but the Christian Vegetarian Society has an FAQ' page:

http://christianveg.org/honoring.htm

And Matthew Scully, author of Dominion, wrote a good article geared towards religious (and conservative) people:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359761/pro-life-pro-animal-matthew-scully

this is the correct answer.

along with Robert C Clarkes book, that you already have, are the two most important books in cannabis.

​

Jeff Lowenfels also has "Teaming with Nutrients" and "Teaming with Fungi"

Robert c Clarke also has Marijuana Botany: An Advanced Study: The Propagation and Breeding of Distinctive Cannabis .

At the Bench: A Laboratory Navigator by Kathy Barker is really helpful. I bought this book and read it when I started working in the lab. It is very basic!

The book presents scientific and horticultural principles, along with their practical applications, necessary for the breeding and propagation of Cannabis and in particular, marijuana. It will appeal not only to the professional researcher, but to the marijuana enthusiast or anyone with an eye to the future of Cannabis products.

I believe this book is a sort of abridged version of the authors dissertation on Marijuana botany.

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.

This one is a quite good book: Sivia, Skilling - Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial

It's quite pragmatical, as opposed to the forementioned Jaynes for instance.

I think Physical Biology of the Cell is quite good.

Another book is D.S. Sivia's Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial. It's more expensive than when I first got it, though (sorry I don't have a free reference). The examples in the beginning of the book are easily done in PyMC, as well!

The Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder of Consciousness, by Sy Montgomery

The Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder of Consciousness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1451697724/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_O9CMzbH42J2WS

Get serious about statistics, it's a huge part of astrophysics. This is tricky, because stats / probability is often taught from a terrible, unintuitive, seemingly non-rigorous approach where you learn various prescriptions for different scenarios, like a cookbook.

I've found this text to be perhaps the most broadly useful thing when it comes to really understanding data analysis: http://www.amazon.com/Data-Analysis-A-Bayesian-Tutorial/dp/0198568320

Here's a good read on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Power-Suffering-Animals-Mercy/dp/0312319738/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479745288&sr=1-1&keywords=dominion

link One of the better sources I've seen on the subject.

If you look online you can find pdfs of

"Physical Biology of the Cell"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physical-Biology-Cell-Rob-Phillips/dp/0815344503

This is a book that basically looks at biology through a physicist's lens, rather than a biochemist's.

You could also try "Biological Physics" by Nelson.


These books spend a good chunk of time dealing with topics such as Statistical Mechanics, Self-assembling structures, Polymer Physics, etc...

I bought this book and read it. I feel much better after reading it.

http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Attacks-Causes-Avoidance-revised/dp/158574557X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451582639&sr=1-1&keywords=bear+attacks

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.

I've always liked this one: http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Botany-Advanced-Propagation-Distinctive/dp/091417178X

I've always liked "At the Bench" by Kathy Barker.

It's never all or nothing! Check out Climbing Mount Improbable for an in-depth look at how these sorts of interconnected adaptations could come about through natural selection.

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.

I highly recommend you these books: labmaths and at the bench

No, he is not technically correct and at this point you seem to be too stubborn to see my point. I was explaining the angry mob, I don't think I was especially hostile toward you in this conversation; I myself was trying to explain to you how what the MP said is wrong and why, but I might get there, your tone isn't helping.

We can demonstrate and observe evolution, it doesn't always take a million years for a species to adopt a mutation, be it natural or artificial, read about it. You're looking at evolution like a mathematician look at an equation, biology isn't looking for a formal "proof", biology’s goal is to explain how it all happened. When every single of the thousands and thousands of observations we have all direct us toward the same answer, when every scientific paper written on the subject have the same conclusions and when all the biologists agree on what might be the most important and fundamental discovery of the field, you suck it up and call it a fact, because that's what it is.

Facts don't go away after a debate, theories might change, but the rock will always fall to the ground and species will always evolve according to their environment.

Since you seem to lack in the science department, I'd recommend this read it's all the basics you need to know. There are some big science words in there so you might need a thesaurus though, if you don't know what a thesaurus is, get your dictionary and work your way up.