Comments on: Nature: The Tangled Bank “Excels”

By: Claire C Smith

Claire C Smith — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:55:58 +0000

Carl,

Well done! (not the blood pressure drop part of course).

Claire

By: fighting for the hell of it « Simon Dosovitz

fighting for the hell of it « Simon Dosovitz — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:30:23 +0000

[...] but darwin’s rottweilers, pit bulls wharever you want to call them hardly even mention them. watch zimmer pick behe apart. behe, as you know, is the phd biochemistry right around the corner at lehigh (i’m in [...]

By: zhaphod

zhaphod — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:32:32 +0000

I second Monado. The triumph of an idea stands out not only for the content but also for the prose.

By: Monado, FCD

Monado, FCD — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:52:57 +0000

Ardi’s the next book. Or perhaps Ardi vs. Flores Woman.

Carl, to me Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea is a textbook that one can read as if it were a novel.

By: Michael Heath

Michael Heath — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:54:48 +0000

I’m currently reading Dr. Dawkins’ TGSOE in light of having recently read Dr. Coyne’s WEIT. I thought Coyne presented a near-flawless argument, lacking only some additional beef regarding the evidence for evolution in our DNA which is easily supplemented with either Sean B. Carroll’s or Daniel Fairbank’s books on the subject. I’m only about 100 pages into Dawkins’ wordier book so no definitive position is yet available though Coyne set a high bar.

I’ve always viewed Mr. Zimmer’s book as a textbook I plan to use more as a reference/tutorial book after reading (though I’m finding that Dawkins does have a tutorial-like format, Coyne’s is more pure report/argument). Prior to this blog post, I never considered comparing Tangled Bank to either Coyne or Dawkin’s books.

I assume Ardi didn’t make it into the Tangled Bank?

[Carl: Only in its earlier outlines. But that's what new editions are for, right?]

By: blueshifter

blueshifter — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:20:53 +0000

hahahahaha

wow, Carl – that was mad funny, son! I had no clue you could bring the comedy like that.

“Ambuloceeeeeeeeeeetus!”

hahahahaha

By: Nature Inspired Jewelry for Her : Splendicity - Fashion Advice … | BeautyBlogr

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:38:41 +0000

[...] Nature: The Tangled Bank “Excels” | The Loom | Discover Magazine [...]

By: Jdhuey

Jdhuey — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:15:15 +0000

Someway or somehow, I will find room on my bookshelf for both books.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:39:48 +0000

Although my sample size is small of Dawkins’ works, I agree with Gustaf. The God Delusion started strong and remained so, and then it just peters out at the end, when he is getting around to more subjective areas. He tends to state his opinion and leave it at that, for example the chapters on comfort & the St. Bernard story/analogy. Is it surprising that Dawkins is strongest when his points are well supported by logic and evidence? Others do the emotional and philosophical arguments better (I’m thinking of Hitchens, Harris, and yes, Maher (for the ‘emotional’ arguments)).

I am looking forward to the Tangled Bank.

By: Gustaf

Gustaf — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:50:20 +0000

I can’t get enough of Dawkins when it comes to his interesting interviews with fellow scientists, and hearing himself respond so eloquently to questions about science and religion. I can’t think of anyone who has aided my own reasoning in these topics as much. But as a writer I’ve always thought he’s uneven. Some parts are brilliant, other parts are rambling, too deep or too shallow. It appears he’s not one of those writers who spends a lot of time crafting the text. And while the constant quips on religion have entertainment value, he’s at his best when he sticks to his profession. Finally, I don’t understand why he insists on presenting hard topics with few or no images. These are all some reasons my expectations are high on The Tangled Bank.

By: NewEnglandBob

NewEnglandBob — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:02:41 +0000

What are the open issues according to Hurst? I can not see the Nature review.

By: Brian Ogilvie

Brian Ogilvie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:19:27 +0000

I agree that Hurst sets up a false choice between the books. Hurst also remarks near the end that neither your book nor Dawkins’s gives much sense of the questions that are still open in evolutionary biology. Not having read either book I have no idea whether that’s fair. What’s your take?