(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best books about evolution

Hello! I have lots of recommendations for you, though, I can't think of much for ethics off the top of my head, except for textbooks. I did take an online class that teaches students about genetic counseling offered by South Carolina and some ethical issues were discussed there. Like you, I also love reading and have found a variety of resources. For starters, this subreddit posts decent articles from time to time, so lurk here!


Textbooks
A Guide to Genetic Counseling: This is like the book for genetic counseling programs. It offers a comprehensive overview of counseling and most ethical things I've read about are through this text.


Facilitating the Genetic Counseling Process: This book is designed to help you learn how to communicate effectively with clients/patients.


There are more textbooks to read about genetic counseling that you can find via Amazon. If you want to learn more about diseases, maybe check out Smith's Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation.


Online
I have found a few things to read online. In case you haven't heard of it The DNA Exchange is excellent. The writers are great and they tackle a whole host of issues. Two magazines I really enjoy are Genome and Helix.


Also, if you're not familiar with GINA, the National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics (NCHPEG) has a web page that explains it nicely.


Also, Unique has the cutest comic ever that explains rare diseases to siblings. Not to mention, that website has a lot of handouts on rare disorders!


Books
I found out about 90% of these books through the online class I took, which I mentioned at the beginning of this comment. I decided to link and give a few lines of each Amazon description to you so you don't have tab fatigue. Of these books, I have read Waiting with Gabriel and Before and After Zachariah. Both are excellent and raise great discussion points.


Choosing Naia: A Family's Journey by Mitchell Zuckoff - A dramatic and carefully detailed account of one family's journey through the maze of genetic counseling, medical technology and disability rights.


Babyface: A Story of Heart and Bones by Jeanne McDermott - When Jeanne McDermott's second child, Nathaniel, was born with Apert syndrome-a condition that results in a towering skull, a sunken face, and fingers webbed so tightly that hands look like mittens-she was completely unprepared for it. In this extraordinary memoir, McDermott calls on her dual roles as science journalist and mother to share her family's traumatic yet enriching experience.


Waiting with Gabriel by Amy Kuebelbeck - This memoir is the true story of parents who were told that their unborn baby had an incurable heart condition, confronting them with an impossible decision: to attempt risky surgeries to give their baby a chance at a longer life, or to continue the pregnancy and embrace their baby's life as it would unfold, from conception to natural death.


Expecting Adam: A True Story of Birth, Rebirth and Everyday Magic by Martha Beck - Expecting Adam is an autobiographical tale of an academically oriented Harvard couple who conceive a baby with Down's syndrome and decide to carry him to term.


Spelling Love with an X: A Mother, A Son, and the Gene that Binds Them by Clare Dunsford - Spelling Love with an X is the first personal memoir about living with fragile X and a reflection on the fragility of human identity in the age of the gene. Recalling the psychic wound of learning that she is genetically "flawed," Dunsford wonders: What do you do when you discover that you are not who you thought you were?


The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman - The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down explores the clash between a small county hospital in California and a refugee family from Laos over the care of Lia Lee, a Hmong child diagnosed with severe epilepsy. Lia's parents and her doctors both wanted what was best for Lia, but the lack of understanding between them led to tragedy.


Give Me One Wish by Jacquie Gordon - This is the story of a remarkable mother and daughter and their love as they make sense of life, and their relationship, in the face of a deadly disease. Jackquie Gordon cannot cure her daughter Christine's cystic fibrosis, but she can teach her to follow life's gifts wherever they lead so that she grows up eager to discover the world and her place in it.


Before and After Zachariah by Fern Kupfer - The heart-wrenching story of one couple's courageous decision to have their severely brain-damaged son cared for in a residential facility.


Anna: A Daughter's Life by William Loizeaux - Born with a number of birth defects known as VATER Syndrome, Anna Loizeaux’s chances for survival were uncertain.


Old Before My Time by Hayley Okines - In medical terms her body is like that of a 100-year-old woman. Yet she faces her condition with immense courage and a refreshing lack of self-pity.


Pretty is What Changes: Impossible Choices, the Breast Cancer Gene, and How I Defied my Destiny by Jessica Queller - Eleven months after her mother succumbs to cancer, Jessica Queller has herself tested for the BRCA gene mutation. The results come back positive, putting her at a terrifyingly elevated risk of developing breast cancer before the age of fifty and ovarian cancer in her lifetime.


There's also Lisa Genova's books. You've probably heard of Still Alice, which is about a woman who is diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's. That was a good read! Her other books also deal with various medical diagnoses and I've heard Inside the O'Briens is quite good as well.


I hope this all helps. I apologize for the length, but I really wanted to share what I could! If you're interested, I could give you some ethical dilemmas to think about. I remember a few from interviews and reading about genetics. Good luck. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about applications/interviews!

Okay, I've been thinking about this and have many things that have influenced me but here's a few!
this book was wonderful for understnaing the basics of cell biology when I began my journey. It's also a great reference.
For fun reading really enjoyed survival of the sickest and Sharon Moalem's other books as well. He's a medical doctor who also does genetic disease research.
For concepts I struggled with I would find academic videos on you tube. There are some really great resources out there for quick refreshers! I don't have specific channels to recommend though, it just depends on the topic.
After having a good foundation and starting to ask more specific questions it's time dive in to scientific literature! I started out with review articles in my field (membrane trafficking). These are great because they summarize years worth of discoveries in a few pages, and also cite the original papers where you can go to learn more!
After having a good grasp on the past research in order to keep me up to date I use PubCrawler. Its a website that automatically searches pubmed for all of the things you are interested then sends you a list of new papers to dive in to. I have mine delivered to my inbox every monday morning.
Academic papers have a bit of a learning curve before you really begin to digest them, but once you get the hang of it it takes you to literally the edge of current human knowledge (how cool!), and is more real than a polished textbook which is just trying to get the main idea across.
I hope that helps!

>Nah, not really though . Maybe you should read .

The link doesn't work, but I think we can throw studies, books, and essays at each other forever, we both obviously have an established opinion on the matter. I might tell you to read Richard Dawkins, but what use is it?

>There isn’t a human nature and science supports that fact

**sharp exhale through my nose signifying disagreement**

>Humans are a product of their environment as much as their genes.

Eh? Yes, humans are shaped by our environment, which only sometimes encourages true altruism. (Which I don't believe exists, but that's beside the point).

>The “modern denial” is actually the advancement of our understanding, not some conspiracy to undermine white male hegemony. I’m sure that’s terrifying for you, but that’s how it is.

We may understand better, but that doesn't change to underlying truths that evolution has ingrained into our genes. Whatever you may do, it's motivated by what evolution has spent millennia sculpting. Human Nature.

>What you have in your brain is a delusion that you were raised with to help you succeed in the specific conditions you were born in.

And I might say what you have in yours is a delusion to justify yourself. I'd love to be able to just blame the 1% for my shortcomings instead of acknowledging them and working towards bettering myself but doing so would be utter lunacy, regardless of how good it feels to validate yourself. No, people like me aren't stealing from the poor or oppressing anyone.

>It’s no different than the divine right of kings, or sacrificing villagers to a volcano god

Very good argument, very good, indeed. What makes you think your beliefs are any different?

>Capitalism isn’t some natural state of humanity, and it certainly is not the final form society will take.

Sure, I'll give you that. Would you suggest not having a system at all then?

> That idea is just your faith.

I'm open to new ideas. Ex. I used to be a Christian. I am an Atheist now. I try to keep as open a mind as possible.

>So because you can logically deduce altruism that cannot be the law of God? I don't quite understand what you're getting at. My point, and the point of C.S. Lewis is that people can follow the law of God, love your neighbor and love God, without implicitly knowing Christian law. Regardless of if you can logically deduce morality or not, I don't see how that invalidates the main point.

Because there is ZERO reason to believe there IS a "law of God" or that the phrase "law of God" means anything.

>without implicitly knowing Christian law.

There is NO reason to believe "the law" is "Christian".

As I've said, cooperation and altruism occurs in nature and tying it to anything supernatural is superfluous. What seems more likely is that the authors of the Bible observed cooperation and altruism and then attributed it to their conception of their deity.

Check out The Selfish Gene. If natural selection occurs at the replicating gene level, then altruism at the organism level isn't a mystery at all...nor, again, does it require any divine explanation.

> if you can logically deduce morality

I suppose you may be saying God created the material process by which organisms become altruistic in more evolved species (i.e. humans). Okay. That's more deism, but okay. Not really falsifiable. And not terribly parsimonious as an explanation. But, okay.

>I don't know if you're familiar with the differing sects of Christianity

Abundantly. Familiar.

> The ideals I strive to live by are love, mercy, forgiveness etc... But it all basically falls under the umbrella of love. Do I live by these ideals perfectly? Absolutely not, we are all sinners, even the saints, that doesn't mean that I flippantly ignore my ideals, it just means that even the best of us stumble.

Here. This will help you. Words don't inherently mean something, and you can use them in ways that make it seem like there are distinctions when there aren't.

I was speaking about the relationship between philosophy and science in general, and I didn't intend to say anything directly about the status of philosophy of science. It's worth noting, though, that philosophy of science as such (as distinct from epistemology) is really a new subdiscipline born of the work of Popper, Hempel, Kuhn, Quine, Sellars and other mid-20th century thinkers. And as a subdiscipline, I think it's doing great, although (like other areas in philosophy) it's becoming more specialized. For an example of a recent brilliant (and highly praised) philosophy of science book, see Peter Godfrey-Smith's book Darwinian populations and natural selection.


Your point that science and philosophy were once continuous disciplines is certainly true for the ancients and somewhat true as recently as Descartes (whose contributions to physiology were significant), but had ceased to be true by the 19th century. Additionally, I don't think it has much to do with philosophy and science per se, just the specialized branching of human knowledge, as you mention. For example, scientists who worked in areas like human anatomy or early chemistry in the 17th century were also still able to do good work in pure mathematics (like Descartes). But again, by the 19th century, pure mathematics was almost entirely being done by specialist mathematicians, rather than generally well-rounded thinkers who dabbled in a bunch of areas (though of course, the deep connection between physics and mathematics was still in place).

The Less Wrong piece you linked to makes some interesting points, but it also paints a misleading picture of contemporary philosophy. For example, Luke Muehlhauser (the writer) says "if you're looking to solve cutting-edge problems, mainstream philosophy is one of the last places you should look. Try to find the answer in the cognitive science or AI literature first." Well, if you take a look at a journal like Trends in Cognitive Science, you'll see that many of the contributors are philosophers. Or look at some of the most exciting models of cognition and thought, you'll see that they're pioneered by philosophers working in cognitive science - the predictive coding models of Andy Clark and Jacob Hohwy for example. It also mentions people like Dennett, but doesn't dwell on the huge contributions of philosophers Chalmers, Block, Searle, Fodor, and so on, all of whom have played a major role in the development of contemporary cognitive science. Of course, it can't mention EVERYBODY, but by singling out Dennett, it makes it sound like he's radically different from all his peers, when in fact his methods are pretty representative of the way all philosophy of mind works these days.


There are, of course, philosophers who do more traditional work, like analytic metaphysics or the history of philosophy. For what it's worth, I think those are things worth studying, although I can see why sites like LessWrong would be more skeptical of their utility. But in any case, in my experience as a professional philosopher working in the United States, that kind of pursuit isn't front and center of philosophical enquiry any more - empirically informed epistemology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language are the dominant interests of the majority of my peers.

I would emphasize the importance of her respecting your right to be an atheist. "If I'm old enough to be a Christian, I'm old enough to be an atheist."

If she would like to understand evolution and the evolution of morality, I would give her a biology textbook and some articles. Suggest that she read The Evolution of Morality by Richard Joyce. If she really wants to understand these questions, she should come with an open mind and learn from scientific experts rather than come in with the perspective of trying to doubt evolution (which is accepted by 99% of biologists. These biologists are also largely religious as well. http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Morality-Life-Mind-Philosophical/dp/0262600722

I would challenge her to consider that people believe in the religion that is popular in their country, the religion of their parents. People in Ancient Greece believed in polytheism. The ancient Canaanites had many gods, as did Native Americans, and the Norse. If your mother were born in Pakistan, she'd believe that Jesus were just a man and she would read the Qu'ran instead of the bible. She would be just as confident about the history of the Qu'ran and the miracles of the Qu'ran. In the face of all these realities, you are much more skeptical about the truth of any one religion.

Ask whether she thinks the Hindu Vedas or the Buddhist Bhagavad Gita were written to "fool all peoples throughout the generations." Or are they just local stories that people use to try to explain things, to promote some sort of society.

Speak from your heart, and be gentle. You know why you don't believe in these claims. Feel free to respond or PM me if you want help with any drafts or want more robust rebuttals. I suggest staying away from rebuttals and seeking common ground.

"I know my atheism concerns you; I want you to know that I still love you and that morality is still important to me. People around the world have many different beliefs, and I think it's important to respect and love one another regardless of these differences. I hope you come to respect my right to believe, even if you don't understand my reasons."

> How do you rebutt Christians who claim that prophecies like [Isaiah 53] predicted Jesus and his death?

This is a very, very complex passage. There are literally entire books about proper interpretation of ancient texts; say what you want about the legitimacy of OT scripture, it is a historical document that requires an understanding of the context and culture of its writing. For a brief primer, check this out.

>I have parents that are anti-evolution but know nothing about it. What can I do (if anything) to show them that evolution is fact.

You can do nothing if they are unwilling to investigate it on their own. Being against something you are (willfully) ignorant of is, with all due respect, the epitome of ineptitude.

>Not some wacky theory that some drunken scientist came up with after beating his wife, but fact.

I'm honestly not aware of any well publicized scientific theory that originated from a drunken, wife beating scientist, so there's nothing I can contrast this with. (However, I'm convinced John was on shrooms when he wrote Revelation) If there is any hope, I would begin with the proper explanation of what a "theory" is in the scientific perspective. To simplify (and probably over-simplify), something can still be a theory, scientifically, but also be a fact.

As a demonstration, I would tell them to jump off a bridge. After all, gravity is only a theory.

>Have a favourite Dawkins quote? :)

Yup.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

>What single argument was the single greatest point in debunking your creationism? (I ask because I often debate creationists).

Genetics. By far. The DNA evidence is astounding. I highly suggest The Relics of Eden and The Making of the Fittest.

>f I have any questions about the Bible I'll be sure to message you. You sound quite knowledgable on it. Cheers!

I would welcome it. At least I could now put some practical use to all this knowledge in my head. :)

You are probably going down the same route I did. I grew up in a very conservative Baptist home. Bed time stories were from the bible, went to youth camps every year, went as a missionary all over Europe, played piano in worship teams and so on. But over time I got more questions than answers.

God never answers my prayers, what am I doing wrong? How can all the people around me speak in tongues? Is evolution actually right? Gays getting married doesn't seem very wrong. And so on. It's a journey ultimately only you can go on and discover what's at the end. Maybe you go back to faith, maybe you don't. I became an atheist last year and haven't looked back since.

However, if you want some good resources I'd recommend the Skeptics Annotated Bible to cover the bible and if you haven't definitively watch Evid3nc3 Why I am no longer a Christian. As for creation, Richard Dawkins' books are usually good introductions if you can stand him, otherwise I'd recommend Why Evolution is True.

My two favorite books are Why We Believe in God(s) and 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian. The first was what made me really question everything I believed in and the second was the nail in the coffin, the question he asks are good and his tone is very nice. Highly recommended reading if that's you thing.

If you need anything more feel free to ask, we're here to help.

Michael Sandel's The Case against Perfection {http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-against-Perfection-Engineering/dp/0674036387} is only 100 pages and touches on Eugenics of the Nazi's. Brief Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFcfygkMM0I

The counter is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVsnkRoYfX0 Dr. Gregory Stock To Upgrade is to be Human is only 17mins, he also has a book on it: Redesigning Humans.

The former takes a more philosophical view while the latter is more scientifically inclined.

If I recall correctly there was a debate on the bioethics between the two on a radio station I'll try to find it in the morning.

If you want to tie it to something modern President Bush had a bioethics committee of philosophers and political theorist to debate the subject (stem cells in particular but they touch on the same principles. I'm sure you can find a treasure drove of stuff

Hope I was of some assistance best of luck in teaching the class!

sorry if there are typos/syntax errors/bad writing it's late :)
also none of the aforementioned things are Kantian :x

Oh yeah, there's a ton of stuff out there about natural selection (and evolutionary theory more broadly). You might want to start with the SEP entry on natural selection, which will give you a feel for some of the issues. Beyond that, here are a few things I'd recommend reading:

• Eliot Sober's The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus
  
  
• Peter Godfrey-Smith's Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection
  
  
• Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype (this is from back when he was still doing good science, and before he went sort of nuts)
  
  
• Samir Okasha's Evolution and the Levels of Selection
  
  
• Matthen & Ariew's "Two Ways of Thinking About Natural Selection"
  
  That should give you some pretty solid places to start reading. I've read all of those things, and I'm pretty comfortable recommending each of them as worth your time.

No problem! There was a reprint of After Man in 2018, and it's affordable under $40. Man After Man has indeed been out of print since 1990 and is fairly pricey between $100-300. Dougal Dixon has many other books too such has The New Dinosaurs, If Dinosaurs Were Alive Today, and many other dinosaur related books (many for children.) Most of these are out of print as well and are expensive, but worth it if you're really interested. Maybe you could luck out at your local library and just rent them.

There is however a rare book he made that was only released in Japan for some reason (and of course it's the most badass one) called Greenworld (グリーン・ワールド) about humanity colonizing an alien world and taming certain inhabitants. Although I've never seen Greenworld for sale on English sites, if you know how to order from Amazon Japan you can find the two books in the series for less than $20 a piece.

I linked to some PDF's in my original comment if buying isn't an option.

You put your finger on a subject I've been entertaining for some time now. Here are some of the web resources I cumulated over time related to this very specific idea:

• Kevin Kelly -- The Technium - Global SuperOrganism
  
• Kevin Kelly -- The Technium - One Machine (not online anymore but I saved it)
  
• Wikipedia Superorganism
  
• The Substance of ‘WE’, Polytopia
  
• The Lucifer Principle Volume 1 and 2
  
• Global Brain
  
• Bio-mechanical Global Mind
  
• Nova Spivack - My Best Interview: About Global Brain, Consciousness and AI
  
• Nova Spivack - The Global Brain is About to Wake Up
  
• Actually, look at this Nova Spivack stuff
  
  Have fun! :-)

> We work together for selfish reasons. We are altruistic for selfish reasons. Read.

Nah, not really though . Maybe you should read .

>You are the epitome of the modern denial of human nature.

There isn’t a human nature and science supports that fact. Humans are a product of their environment as much as their genes. The “modern denial” is actually the advancement of our understanding, not some conspiracy to undermine white male hegemony. I’m sure that’s terrifying for you, but that’s how it is.

What you have in your brain is a delusion that you were raised with to help you succeed in the specific conditions you were born in. It’s no different than the divine right of kings, or sacrificing villagers to a volcano god. It seems so real and obvious, but any kind of actual object look shows the holes instantly. Capitalism isn’t some natural state of humanity, and it certainly is not the final form society will take. That idea is just your faith.

Sexual selection can lead to a trait that makes genes more likely to be passed on, but doesn’t help an individual’s survival.

For example, a peacock’s tail improves his chances of finding a willing peahen and passing on his genes, but the vibrant plumage may put him at greater risk of being caught by a predator.

It makes sense to think of it from the gene’s point of view. “What would make a gene more likely to be passed on?” is a better question than “What would make an individual animal survive.”

> Detailed balance only applies to individual games. It makes no statement at all about the collective pool of players.

Detailed balance is a property of the system as a whole. The Elo system is based on the principle that you can define a means of exchanging points that leads to an equilibrium distribution of ratings, where differences in ratings correspond to expected outcomes of games.

> Additionally, I've already proven to you, via the actual FIDE rules, that this condition doesn't always hold.

You've shown that FIDE imperfectly implements the Elo system, and that in absurd situations (e.g., Magnus Carlsen playing a 101-game match against a player ranked more than 1000 Elo points below him), FIDE ratings would be affected by these implementation details.

> Additionally, I've already shown via the rules that detailed balance falls apart with the FIDE implementation (which is actually the real world implementation, hence, rating inflation is guaranteed)

Only in situations where players play huge numbers of games against opponents who are rated more than 400 points above or below them. That doesn't happen in the real world.

> The lower rated players contribute to the higher rated players ratings, either directly (i.e., Caruana, So, Kramnik playing 1800 rated players in a few Open tournaments last year) or indirectly (1800's playing 2400's in an open, and the 2400's playing 2600's, and the 2600's playing 2700's).

What percentage of games are between players that are more than 400 rating points apart? The FIDE implementation works just fine if an 1800 player plays a 2200 player, who plays a 2600 player, who plays Carlsen. In that case, FIDE's rules implement Elo almost exactly. The only inaccuracy is in circumstances like an 1800 player playing Carlsen directly, and even then, the impact on FIDE's Elo system is minimal (one Elo point might be generated, which will quickly get dispersed throughout the entire pool of players worldwide).

> So, again, you don't have a clue about what you're talking. Literally everything you've written has been wrong, especially your assumptions.

Except that between us, I'm the only one who's actually demonstrated that I know how the Elo system works. I don't think you know what "detailed balance" means, or that you understand what it means for the Elo system to be an equilibrium process. If you had studied physics at university, you'd know these concepts.

> This is why you're a 1200 rated liberal arts student with a bachelor's degree and not someone who does more important things. You are incapable of understanding relatively simplistic concepts. Stick to reading blogs and wikipedia pages.

It's funny that you keep falling back to this supposed insult. First of all, I have nothing against liberal arts students with a bachelors degree. But most smart liberal arts students I know would have recognized long ago in this conversation that the person talking about stat mech and detailed balance probably isn't a liberal arts major. I cited Wikipedia to you because that's more useful than telling you to go read Kittel and Kroemer. But by all means, if you really want to jump from this Reddit thread into a full-blown study of thermodynamics, read the latter.

It’s only evidence that we evolved eating meat regularly. Which no one serious, or in the anthropology field, is actually trying to dispute. The idea that we were “made” to be anything or that it means we “should” be a certain way now is the naturalistic fallacy.

Evolutionarily, a long time ago we were primates related to today’s chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. We were herbivores and likely shared their ability to ferment and absorb B12 in our guts. Our diet changed to include both cooked starches, and more animal products over time. We became used to highly absorbable calories from both these sources and our intestines shrank and lost the ability to ferment. We stopped being able to make our own B12 and were fine because in the paleo days we did hunt (and scavenge) and eat meat regularly.

The evolutionary perspective should be considered, but not above more rigorous types of research that show, as you mentioned, that a plant based diet is optimal for long term health (which has little to do with our evolutionary diet as evolution only selects for traits that are beneficial for reproduction and child rearing). The near-historical cultures that ate mostly plant based diets, ate around 10% animal products, which provided sufficient B12 and were otherwise functionally similar to a 100% plant based diet.

If you want to learn more of the anthropology, there are some good papers, books, and blogs:

Paleofantasy by Marlene Zuk (or free Scientific American article)

Plant foods and the dietary ecology of Neanderthals and early modern humans

Paleovegan - blog by a vegan anthropologist it's defunct, but you can read it on the Wayback machine

The Paleoanthropology and Archaeology of Big-Game Hunting: Protein, Fat, or Politics?

Deconstructing the Paleo Diet- by vegan dietician Brenda Davis

Loren Cordain's original works are very illustrative as well - and for one, show that the majority of near-equatorial hunter gatherers ate diets low in fat and saturated fat - after all, wild game animals are very lean. Also, we have a functional upper limit on protein intake (50% at the absolute most, but under 20% is very typical for all human societies) that prevent us from getting too many of our calories from animal sources when they are low in fat. Paleo diet proponents typically ignore this.

You said in another comment below that others were treating you as a troll or an idiot. I don't think that's necessarily the case: many of us are just trying to present the facts, and may be a little bit frustrated due to how YECs typically react. For example, my earlier comment about how creation science does not count as science, and how Geocentrism is incorrect, I did not set out to treat you like an idiot (and if I did, I'm sorry). I did treat you as ignorant, which isn't as bad as it sounds. I'm ignorant to a lot of things. Everyone is. But I love to learn, because I love to expand my knowledge.

Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can't. We encounter wilful ignorance a lot, and it gets very frustrating, so that colours what we say.

If you're genuine about your desire to learn more, I'll drop some suggestions for further inquiry. Some of the language may be abrasive, but please keep an open, skeptical mind:

• AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, a 17-video series just shy of 3 hours in total.
  
• potholer54's Our Origins Made Easy, 14 videos, about two hours. Includes the history of the universe, origin of life, the age of our world, natural selection, human evolution, and more.
  
• AndromedasWake's Creationist Astronomy Propaganda Debunked, just over an hour.
  
• Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing
  
  I'll give you fair warning on this next one: it may have a profound effect on you. At the very least, it will help you understand our philosophical position better as atheists.
  
  
• Evid3nc3's Why I Am No Longer A Christian, 22 videos, 3 hours and 45 minutes. Describes his journey from an evangelical Christian to atheist.
  
  For reading:
  
  
• Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution is True
  
• Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True
  
  Hopefully that gets you started.

I’m super excited to learn about the holometric super conducted project. This wasn’t as difficult to read as it looked at first glance. I think I’m on the same page about a lot of this, and will sometime soon, read the whole thing. But for now I sleep. Hope you’re well until then.

Edit: recently came across the book [Global Brain] (https://www.amazon.com/Global-Brain-Evolution-Mass-Century/dp/0471419192) by Howard Bloom in a bout of synchronicity. Literally wandering through the library. It’s basically about the meta personality. He’s a fascinating guy, the philosopher at the end of the universe.

I am using Conquering the Physics GRE as an overview, but I really enjoy anything from David Morin and David J. Griffiths for the level of questions and explanations (and in-book/online solutions manuals that go a long way towards showing you how to think like a physicist). But my "library" for preparing for the physics GRE is:

CM: Morin, Problems and Solutions in Introductory Mechanics and Introduction to Classical Mechanics

Gregory, Classical Mechanics for extra explanations and problems

EM: Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics 3e

QM: Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 3e

Thermo/Stat.Mech: Schroeder, An Introduction to Thermal Physics

Kittel and Kroemer, Thermal Physics

Waves: Morin, on his website are ten chapters to what appears to be a Waves book in the making

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/

Atomic, Lab Methods: Conquering the Physics GRE and any online resources I can find.

​

If you email Case Western, they send a link to some amazing flash cards!

Specifically, it shows that there is a qualitative difference between those with and without the disorder, both physiologically and in drug response; thus, whether you want to call it a disorder or not, it does describe a distinct subpopulation that it is meaningful to discuss as a group, distinct from other individuals who may share some traits with members of the group - that is, that it exists. You say that we know it exists (which is true!) and suggest that the debate is on classification of that subpopulation (reasonable!), but I don't think that's universally true. I don't really have any evidence to offer other than anecdotes, so take that as you will.

Incidentally, the question of "is it really a disorder or just a normal variation, possibly with a purpose?" is really, really interesting. There's a book called Survival of the Sickest that makes some very interesting connections between ostensibly-harmful disorders and possibly historical (or current!) benefits that derive from the same trait/gene/what have you.

I'm an MD in emergency medicine. Here is a broad list of things to choose from since your post is somewhat vague and I don't know your educational background from general public education (top of list) down to ultra detailed pathology textbooks and texts designed for specific specialties (which is like 12-16 years after high school)....

If you can give me an idea if any of this is near what you're looking for, I can expand that area x 10 easily. Off the top of my head:

1)There is a group who has created what is essentially some of the first medical podcasts and has grown into a massive platform. The original creator has since created a fairly casual podcast called "this won't hurt a bit" - it's an "edutainment" podcast around medical stuff.

http://www.wonthurtabit.com/season-one

2) This is a human physiology textbook (but kind of applies to animals as well), it's basically like a middle-college/university level knowledge base and provides fundamentals of how the body works, I actually used a version of this in my 2nd year of college in a class full of pre-med/vet/biomed researchers

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Human-Physiology-Lauralee-Sherwood/dp/0840062257/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2B3Q8XWOX2KJ2&keywords=fundamentals+of+physiology+sherwood&qid=1566022964&s=gateway&sprefix=sherwood+fundamental%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1

​

3) If you're looking for a 1st/2nd year medical student level information in video review format (this is like a review format of the text below in #4):

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-oN4AbdB4jdbFVCHMSrxNg/videos

​

4) If you're looking for seriously intense detail at a medical school level (this would be seriously overkill and probably difficult to digest without a college background but you mentioned textbook that goes into specific things):

https://www.amazon.com/Robbins-Cotran-Pathologic-Disease-Pathology/dp/1455726133

This textbook basically explains the basis of most diseases from a pathologic basis. You essentially have to memorize most of this textbook in med school. This is the basis for every specialty of medicine.

5) for your own curiosity, then every specialty basically has one or two major texts for their education, one of EM's happens to be (I do not remotely recommend buying this but if you find something to preview or such it gives you an idea of how far the info wormhole goes): https://www.amazon.com/Tintinallis-Emergency-Medicine-Comprehensive-Study/dp/007179476X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=21G3EWBKYQ2PO&keywords=tintanelli%27s+emergency+medicine&qid=1566022753&s=gateway&sprefix=tintanelli%27s%2Caps%2C153&sr=8-2

​

6) Here is an EM youtube person who has been putting out really high quality educational content for years, lots of actual video from patients and explanations of what is going on if you're interested in just like... general random medical stuff in an educational entertainment video format:

https://www.youtube.com/user/lmellick

​

Also don't forget there are other fields in medicine such as nursing, paramedic, PAs, bio-med research but I can't really speak towards those well.

I found The Tangled Bank is an excellent introductory college-level textbook. Easy reading, with lots of nice diagrams, pictures and data!

Also, Relics of Eden is a great book, which focuses on the genetic evidence that shows how humans are undeniably linked to other primates (e.g. shared mutations etc), it is kind of narrowly focussed on that side of things, but worth reading, and interestingly written by a Mormon academic (so goes against their general belief).

Nah, not really. It's definitely an important lens to view evolutionary processes, still useful, but in most studies, it's not as applicable. People generally look at organismal evolution in the most part, unless you're a geneticist. Group selection is DEFINITELY real, btw, though inherently harder to experimentally verify (but duh). Alot of good stuff in (this book)[https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Levels-Selection-Samir-Okasha/dp/0199556717]. Wish I could say more, but I'm currently drunk in the rainforest in Panama (studying the evolution of fertility signals in carpenter ants here). P.S. myrmecologists know all about dat group selection. P.P.S. gene's eye view probably varies in usefulness according to your subfield. Most people still at da modern synthesis, yo.

The fact that we can have this discussion and debate over reason and primal urges is to me proof of the power of our reasoning. That does not mean it is absolute nor are we never incorrect. Fundamentally, we may be disagreeing about human nature. There was and still is a debate on whether human nature is greedy, selfless, or a mixture. I tend to side more on humans, on average, being good. There is a recent book by Yale professor Nicholas A. Christakis titled Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society, which attempts to argue that natural selection pre-wires us for peaceful co-existence.

As for the desire to eat, as I mentioned, humans are able to choose not to eat. They, of course, cannot suppress the desire. You may have heard of the event that occurred in Pavlovsk Experimental Station during WWII. 12 scientists died of starvation while being surrounded by edible berries and seeds in order to protect the valuable collection for genetic variation and scientific knowledge. By explaining greed as genetics and protective nature as genetics, this explanation has explained nothing at all, at least to me. In other words, for genetics to be both altruistic and selfish does not get into the underlying substance. Again, this is the tendency towards over-reduction. I believe inexperienced researchers and scholars tend to over-reduce the world down to their respective fields, viewing the world in overly chemical terms, economics terms, biological terms, historical terms, and etc.

We are also dancing around the topic of free will. If I have gathered correctly, we disagree on this topic as well. For me, as long as a being is sentient and can choose between various actions, then it has free will. Just because there are physical limitations does not mean there is no free will. You may believe the opposite. That is, you may be firmly in the deterministic camp--at least biological determinism.

Woah woah woah... there is a long and rich history of animal behavior and computer science. Decision making, optimality, and the use of Game Theory to model evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS) is a huge part of the field. When I was in graduate school I took a course that focused on a book (can't remember the exact book right now) and had to build our own models in C++. Do note that this is all heavily mathematical.

Here are some books that show what i'm talking about:

Game-Theoretical Models in Biology - https://www.amazon.com/Game-Theoretical-Biology-Chapman-Mathematical-Computational/dp/1439853215

Game Theory and Animal Behavior - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/game-theory-and-animal-behavior-9780195137903?cc=us&lang=en&

Here is a link to some research programs the professor I took the course from studies https://www.bio.purdue.edu/People/faculty/lucas/decision-making.html

Edit: I remembered the book! "Models of Adaptive Behaviour: An Approach Based on State" -
https://www.amazon.com/Models-Adaptive-Behaviour-Cambridge-Mathematical/dp/0521655390

Well, unfortunately it sounds like you want two different things -- a "deeper" dive into thermo with more abstraction, and an elaborated look at applications to biology. It would be hard to find a text that really gets you both, I think.

I can't help with the biology thing, but a deeper abstract look at thermo would definitely be covered in Thermal Physics by Kittel: https://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Physics-2nd-Charles-Kittel/dp/0716710889

This book starts from the deepest most abstract foundation of thermodynamics, a field called Statistical Mechanics. Are you familiar with that topic at all? If not this text may be a tad challenging. It is also very abstract. Many find it to be a boring book but I find it challenging, interesting, and rewarding.

My 2 cents:

1. What humanity needs is better and more devoted parents, not genetic manipulation. We know that good parenting is more apt to produce good kids, and bad parenting is more apt to produce bad kids; moreover, this has the added benefit of avoiding all the tricky ethical and metaphysical dilemmas involved in this prof's plan.
   
   
2. The position that we ought to genetically modify future generations has a certain prima facie intuitiveness to it. For that reason, any discussion of it should include the best arguments against, which imho include Jurgen Habermas' The Future of Human Nature and Michael Sandel's The Case Against Perfection.

link studies on what...genetic component to altruism? here, read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1491514507

IQ and genetics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html
Deary IJ, Johnson W, Houlihan LM. Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Hum Genet2009; 126: 215–232. | Article | PubMed | ISI |
Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM. Behavioral genetics, 6th edn. Worth Publishers: New York, 2013.
https://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002150027.htm

I dunno...do you need more sources? This is a good intro reading, there are many thousands more studies...

they all contradict the politically correct narrative, and they all suggest that importing 3rd world immigrants into wealthy nations is an excellent way to destroy those nations. This is not controversial speculation...for actual scientists it is a known fact. This should make you feel a bit uncomfortable...unless you live in israel or china of course.

In the episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Nicholas Christakis about his new book, Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society.

Nicholas Christakis is a sociologist and physician known for his research in the areas of social networks and biosocial science. He is the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science at Yale University, where he directs the Human Nature Lab. His books include Death Foretold: Prophecy and Prognosis in Medical Care and Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives (coauthored with James H. Fowler). He was on Time magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2009.

Website: humannaturelab.net

Twitter: @NAChristakis

Richard Joyce is the probably the best and most readable error-theorist alive today (imo), so his book Evolution of Morality would be a good kicking off point.

My favorite running books are Running in the Clouds (which is about trail running in England) and Running with the Kenyans. Neither is likely the kind of fiction that she prefers, but both are full of helpful tips. Both books depict regions where running is a way of life and embedded in the local culture. Both books emphasize that the key to becoming a good runner is simply the movitation to run.

A lot of the GC textbooks will be pretty pricey, since they're textbooks lol.

A Guide to Genetic Counseling, is like the Genetic Counseling bible. It's pretty expensive, but I think a lot of programs use it, so it probably wouldn't go to waste. I think it's also available online in a journal, but I don't remember which one since I have the physical copy.

Ethical Dilemmas in Genetics and Genetic Counseling, I read this before interviewing and found it really interesting. It's only $40 and has some case examples and makes you think a lot about how the field functions. I haven't taken the ethics course yet, so I'm not sure if my program uses it.

Facilitating the Genetic Counseling Process: A Practice Manual, we also use this one a lot. It's available online from Springer if you have access to a journal subscription.

If you want a really good read on the diet from a scientific point of view, look at the book titled 'Paleofantasy' by Marlene Zuk. It is a fantastic book full of interesting info.

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B007Q6XM1A

Interested in fine-tuning arguments? Luke Barnes is The Dude.


The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos

Why science cannot explain why anything at all exists




One of the Big Issues between them concerns the possibility of "brute facts." When do why questions come to an end?

Can you explain something by appealing to a “brute fact”? by Ed Feser

Parfit on brute facts by Ed Feser



@ 50 minutes, Carroll argues that this universe isn't what we should expect if G-d exists. It's too big and too finely tuned. I don't know what to make of this argument. What should we expect?! (If it were up to me the universe would consist of nothing but tropical fish. You're lucky I'm not in charge!)

Carroll considers the fine-tuning argument to be the best argument for Theism, but considers the multiverse a better explanation. No one brought up the notorious BBP:

>To bolster the argument against a multiverse, consider the Boltzmann Brain paradox. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical state in which something like a brain fluctuates into existence, and back out again. However, it is by chance self-aware and thinks it has a memory. The odds of this can be calculated to be a very small fraction of the odds of the initial condition. The odds of an observer being a Boltzmann Brain is inconceivably higher than being a person in a well-ordered universe. The anthropic principle therefore appears to demand that we would observe ourselves to be Boltzmann Brains. With that in mind, we can propose an experiment to test the anthropic principle.

>1) If we are in an extremely improbable state of low entropy, then we require a causal explanation for order. This is necessary for daily deductions and is built into the laws of thermodynamics.

>2) Either we are in a relative state of high entropy, or we are in a relatively low state of entropy.

>3) The null hypothesis is that which is more probable.

>4) Comparing the relative states of entropy of the big bang and Boltzmann Brains, the Boltzmann Brain is more probable.

>5) We are not Boltzmann Brains, so the null hypothesis is rejected.

>6) Therefore, we are in relatively low state of entropy.

>7) Given the degree of entropy, it is improbable to the point of borderline impossible that the universe could have arisen by chance. So following from 1, it requires causal explanation for order. ShamanSTK



The multiverse seems like a means of artificially inflating one's probabilistic resources. If we're playing poker and I get three consecutive royal flushes, you'll demand an explanation. "Millions of people are playing poker, so somebody is bound to get three consecutive royal flushes," won't satisfy you. There's a better explanation involving my (non-benevolent) design.



@ 1:14 Again with the "brute facts"! Carroll insists they're the Bottom Line and he's comfortable with them. How is this not special pleading?

I have another book I would recommend to you. It's called Man After Man. It's pretty pessimistic, suggesting a divide between rich and poor that leads to evolutionary divergence, and also fairly extreme genetic engineering.

http://www.amazon.com/Man-After-Anthropology-Future/dp/0312035608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422719295&sr=8-1&keywords=man+after+man

I'm not sure how plausible the forms mankind takes in the book are, but you'd probably find it interesting.

Actually, for that matter, you might also read The Time Machine. Probably the earliest book to tinker with the idea (even if the timeline isn't probable). I do think you should be aware that people are starting to tamper with gene therapy and other genetic treatments - if such things ever become advanced enough and commonplace enough, you wouldn't have to worry about a proliferation of such issues in the extreme long term of humanity's future.

Kittel - Thermal Physics.

My favorite undergraduate physics text, is beautifully and simply written with intuitive examples and problems that are easy to relate to. Explains entropy (from a quantum POV) on the first page. You don't need a teacher (my prof at berkeley who taught this class was god awful) for this subject: you need to be open-minded and patient. Work your way through with discipline and you'll see the pay-offs.

Remember that there are a few interpretations of entropy: ask a chemist and you'll initially get a different answer than a classical physicist, who will initially give you a different answer than a quantum physicist. Eventually, they will all agree that they are saying the same thing, but it takes some working.

http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Physics-2nd-Charles-Kittel/dp/0716710889
Note, you don't need to get the second edition, or a new book. Go pick your self up a nice used copy of the first edition for like 25 bucks, or the second (if you want) for like 60.

Alternatively, you MAY be able to find it here in the first two non-sponsored links on this page: http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=kittel+thermal+physics+solution

BUT that is probably piracy or evil or something and I don't condone or suggest you do it at all. I just put the link there for your information, so you know.

"Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne (who is also a doctor) gives a pretty comprehensive and concise account of all the evidence for evolution from fossils to genetics. Amazon link here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0199230854

if you have the time you could read Adharanand Finn's Running with the Kenyans. I just finished reading it and it has some pretty detailed accounts of life in an elite training camp. I'm pretty sure they all eat a kind of rice dish all the time and not too much else.

So first with the ad hominem, now with the straw men. And you want to bitch about someone not arguing honestly? Hello pot, let me introduce you to kettle...

> If there are finitely many pure strategies, given by the set {S1, S2,..., Sn}, then a mixed strategy is defined as a probability vector p=(p1, p2,..., pn) where pi is the probability that in the current game the player will choose pure strategy Si. For example, in the Rock-Scissors-Paper game, a player may choose to play each of Rock and Scissors half of the time, but never play Paper, which would be represented by the vector (1/2, 1/2, 0).

https://www.amazon.com/Game-Theoretical-Biology-Chapman-Mathematical-Computational/dp/1439853215

Your biggest issue is that you think individuals act for the fitness of the group. That's an entirely ignorant view of organismal behavior and evolution. Individuals act to maximize their own fitness. If maximizing individual fitness leads to greater group fitness, then cooperation might evolve.

Go check out this book. It's pure speculation and somewhat dated at this point, but is pretty cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_After_Man:_An_Anthropology_of_the_Future

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg562rU4sBc

http://www.amazon.com/Man-After-Anthropology-Future/dp/0312035608

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0199230854 I recommend reading this if you're honestly interested.

Give Black Swan a try. It's an "exploration of randomness". Says one reviewer, "Our brains are wired for narrative, not statistical uncertainty. And so we tell ourselves simple stories to explain complex thing we don't--and, most importantly, can't--know."

And if you're interested in "The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century", then have a look at Global Brain.

Both are fascinating books that may change your perception of the world.

You're thinking the exact thing as most prominent astronomers! The "fine tuning problem"* notices that if the universe's constants like the electron mass, the gravitational constant, and the cosmological constant were even SLIGHTLY different then life wouldn't have been possible. Suggests something deeper...

Sources for more information **
https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe?wprov=sfla1

Bullshit, the evidence is overwhelming, you are looking like a liar and a troll for not admitting it after seeing that set of papers. Any decline is the fertility rate of a group has significant long term consequences. The environment has changed, again, and as it has always been those humans best able to adapt will prosper.

And for a good explanation of how active and rapid evolution still is even in modern humans you should read this,

http://www.amazon.com/Paleofantasy-Evolution-Really-Tells-ebook/dp/B007Q6XM1A

A reasonable reply. Why don't you learn a bit more about evolution before trying to use it in an argument. Try these....Why Evolution Is True - Jerry Coyne or The Greatest Show On Earth - Richard Dawkins

I enjoyed the book Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem. It's all about the evolution of diseases and using that information to diagnose and cure them. It was surprisingly gripping!

The gold standard in emergency medicine is Tintinalli's (https://www.amazon.com/Tintinallis-Emergency-Medicine-Comprehensive-Internal/dp/007179476X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504698322&sr=8-1&keywords=emergency+medicine+study+guide) although it is a massive book both in size and in depth.

Physiological medicine (https://www.amazon.com/Physiological-Medicine-Clinical-Approach-Physiology/dp/0070381283/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504698440&sr=1-1&keywords=%22physiological+medicine%22) is amazing.

Pathophysiology of Disease is also good (https://www.amazon.com/Pathophysiology-Disease-Introduction-Clinical-Medicine/dp/0071806008/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504698512&sr=1-1&keywords=pathophysiology+of+disease).

Check out this book. It is fascinating and one of my faves of all time. Easy to read and understand too if you aren't very keen on science speak. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060889667 sorry for the long link, I'm on mobile.

It's symbolism. Period. Did God actually remove a physical rib and mold it like silly putty into the shape of a woman? That's just ridiculous. There are plenty of faithful mormons who "believe" in evolution. Check our Relics of Eden by Daniel Fairbanks. Fairbanks is the former dean of undergraduate education at BYU. In his book, he doesn't talk at all about mormonism, but he basically shows, using DNA evidence, that evolution of man is supported by science.

Kittel and Kroemer! This is a great Stat Mech book starting from first principles that I just had a semester of. You'll be able to derive all sorts of gas laws.

http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Physics-Edition-Charles-Kittel/dp/0716710889

Now read Running with the Kenyans and you'll see that the other 'best runners in the world' train wearing the biggest soled shoes they can find.

It's all about form.

You're on to something but philosophers of religion take it a lot further. Check out the argument from fine tuning. The general argument is that basic irreducible constants relating to natural law - eg. the constant of gravity, the mass of an electron, the strength of electromagnetic force - are such that if they were any other value, any sort of complexity in the universe (let alone life!) would not exist at all - usually this alternative universe would be a soup of helium or hydrogen, etc.

Check out this book

https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610

Sorry, I'm not a deist at all, just randomly decided to come in here.

"Rosenallie" as FOAMcast suggest it :)
Start with https://www.elsevier.com/books/rosens-emergency-medicine-concepts-and-clinical-practice/walls/978-0-323-35479-0
And then proceed to Tintinalli's book
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/007179476X/ref=pd_aw_sbs_14_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8JGCGZ3GQVR3DWPBQSM7&dpPl=1&dpID=51o4olrw4hL
Your library must have access to one of those.

https://www.amazon.com/Relics-Eden-Powerful-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1616141603

This is one of my favorite books on evolution. It is written by a Genetics professor who is also a Christian.

Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA written by Daniel J. Fairbanks formerly a dean of Undergraduate Education at BYU.

first heard about it here. Interesting book and ideas.

Survival of the Sickest is a surprisingly accessible piece of non-fiction that covers a lot of modern diseases and their connections to increased survival rates. Two conditions it covered that I remember off the top of my head are cystic fibrosis and hemachromatosis. Some of the conclusions in the book seemed flimsy, but I believe it had a bibliography in the back for further research and fact-checking.

In Howard Bloom's book Global Brain, he talks about an experiment someone did with bees. They put a bowl of sugar water a certain distance from the hive, and the bees congregated on it. For the next several days, they put the bowl out again, at exactly twice the distance as the day before. Then one day they didn't put the bowl out...and the bees congregated at the exact spot where they would have put the bowl, twice as far out as the previous day.

You should read Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem and Jonathan Prince. It has other explanations of how certain genetic variations helped populations survive.

You should read the thermal text written by Kittel and Kromer
http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Physics-2nd-Charles-Kittel/dp/0716710889

This is the book my program requires https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/007179476X/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile

Along with recommending the ACLS handbook

Interesting reading on the same topic.

There's a book called Running With the Kenyans https://www.amazon.com/Running-Kenyans-Discovering-Secrets-Fastest/dp/0345528808 that goes into a personal endeavor to figure out why this is. Good read.

It looks as though the image was originally from this book

You should totally check this book out, Running with Kenyans

I suggest reading this

From the book Man After Man

And that's for the paperback!

Edit: oddly, the hardcore hardcover is a lot less valuable

Caveman or paleo diets are about as half-baked as any diet out there. Advising someone to go to a meat-based diet from a vegetarian one without considering the reasons for their vegetarianism is rather presumptuous.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat

http://www.amazon.com/Paleofantasy-Evolution-Really-Tells-ebook/dp/B007Q6XM1A

There is a book about diseases and how they benefitted humans throughout history.


Survival of the Sickest

From one of the comments:
Dr. Moalem elegantly explains why medical conditions that are deemed to be diseases today often helped our ancestors survive and reproduce in difficult environments. Take hemochromatosis, a hereditary condition that causes iron to accumulate in a person's internal organs, eventually leading to death. Although the gene that causes hemochromatosis was once thought to be rare, research completed in 1996 found that it's actually surprisingly common. Why wouldn't such a terrible disease have been "bred out" of our species long ago? The answer is that hemochromatosis reduces the amount of iron available to iron-loving bacteria, such as the bubonic plague that depopulated Europe in the mid-1300s. A person living in the Middle Ages with the hemochromatosis gene would have eventually died from iron build up, but in the meantime would have have had a smaller chance of dying from the plague and other iron-loving infections--in an age when few people lived past the age of 50, the disease resistance conferred by hemochromatosis far outweighed the disadvantage that would have materialized if the person carrying the gene had lived to old age. People with hemochromatosis reproduced and passed the gene one to their heirs; those without it died of the plague, without children.

I am not responsible for the nightmares you're going to have. Let's just get that straight.

The art comes from a book called Man After Man, a horrifying experiment in creativity and futurism. Basically an insane person tried to imagine our next five hundred million years of evolution, spiced up with a few nightmarishly strange choices made by human scientists.

My personal favorite scene is when two Hitek, the near-future human variants who spend 99.99% of their time in life-support creches, attempt to mate.

You should never have asked.

http://www.amazon.com/Man-After-An-Anthropology-Future/dp/0312035608

Reminds me of one of these freaky dudes from the evolutionary futurist picture book, "Man after Man"

If you look at the link I gave, there's a number of specific studies where they look at one specific problem in college-level physics. If you look at the one of your choice, you'll likely see that after they studied the problem and how students respond to it, the approach changed substantially. The careful studies they do requires a lot of time, so they don't come out with new editions of their text every year. In the case of the University of Washington, once they have a new version of their material, they supplement the classroom with handouts of the new text.

There's no need for hyperbole. Yes, new textbooks in the US are quite expensive. Do you have any source for the claim that any substantial amount of textbooks which are used at the college level publish new editions every year? That frequency disagrees with my experience.

I can name some texts which have had absurdly small changes to them. E.g. Statistical Physics by Kittel and Kroemer. They released a 2nd version of their second edition with only a couple pages about BEC and the Greenhouse Effect. But I have also seen textbooks which vary greatly between editions and have a long shelf lifetime.

You appear to neither be aware of this book (http://www.amazon.de/The-Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1491514507) nor the definition of a meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme).

Furthermore, which right would that be? The right to lie in public with the intent to mislead people? I am sorry, this right does not exist in Europe, therefore this also no rights violation.

There is a book called Survival of the Sickest I think would interest you.

The tl;dr is that in populations that are under constant pathogen challenge (think malaria in Africa, or tuberculosis in Europe) you do see changes in the genome to reflect it.

But the changes are not 'for the better'. What is selected for is surviving long enough to pass on your genes. So what we wind up with is sickle-cell anemia, which kills its homozygous carriers, and can cripple its survivors and shorten their lifespans, but also conveys resistance to malaria. Or, in the case of tuberculosis, the cystic fibrosis gene does the same- kill its homozygous carriers, allow its heterozygous ones to live long enough to have children and avoid tb.

In both cases, the populations are more suited for living in their conditions than an outsider would likely be. But (unfortunately for us), 'more suited' does not imply 'more robust'.

Evolution is not a one-way street of "progress to better". It is just adaptation, nothing more. Yes you know, you think. But adaptation works equally way in the other direction.

The consequences of "all out war" among species is a full concentration of all efforts on just that "war". You will NOT get better. You may actually LOSE. Sure, you'll be able to withstand some diseases. I recommend the book "Survival of the sickest" (#). Each time you gain something, you lose something else in the process! If your body needs to fight diseases much harder other things will suffer. The result of such selection will NOT be some "super-man". Look around you - we ARE the result of such ruthless selection.

And by the way (an aside), if you believe the fairy tale that selection has stopped and we now live much longer because of medicine in his lecture "Return of the Microbes" Professor William Ayliffe, he made an aside about life-expectancy in 19th century England:

> Now, look at the modern day. Look where cancer is now. But, guess what? We still die! And what is interesting, if you take out the childhood mortality, the Victorian person between 1850 and 1880 lived slightly longer, if he was a male, than you do today. So, your life expectancy at five, in England, as a male, in 1870 was slightly longer than it is now, which is an extraordinary statistic, slightly shorter then if you were a female.

So our biggest achievement for life-expectancy is lowering child mortality. The pills for the older generation don't seem to do that much (for life-expectancy, they may still be good for quality of life).

---
(#) I have read the most highly rated negative review on that page and I have no idea what book it is talking about. It seems the reviewer has taken issue with some minor side-issue that I can't even remember having read. So he may be right about that, but as I said, I can't even remember it was in the book. So while I usually like those negative reviews more, this one is completely bogus. So read the book and decide for yourself based on its actual contents. The comments to that review are completely insane, they have nothing at all to do with the book. People are just going off on their own discussions, ignoring that it's supposed to be about that book. And I followed that review's advice and googled tha author. The anti-blog posts I read had not a single substantive argument, they were all ad-hominem attacks. So the author may be all they call him, but none of the links I followed to see their prove bothered to show any. Besides, having read that book some time ago I'm quite baffled what the big deal is? Those "anti" voices are so extremely venomous, I have no clue what got under their skin. It doesn't look like scientific well-reasoned argumentation is their strong suite.
Here's one of those anti-voices. What am I supposed to make of that??? And again: The things they criticize may be right, but they are no substantial part of that book (hey, I read it). So if something is substantially wrong with it, why do they attack points I can't even remember he made?