RSS
It’s Darwin Day. I’m a little ambivalent about the sort of cultishness that sometimes accrues to Charles Darwin. But it is probably a phenomenon that only makes sense in light of the culture war started by evolution-rejectionists. But there is reason to be optimistic on this; according to the GSS young people tend to be more accepting of evolutionary theory. And I was intrigued by these Pew data which indicate that a substantial minority of religious people accept a naturalistic evolutionary model! (Muslims have a high fraction of this element, and, of Creationists, indicating that this is a particularly heterogeneous group)
I’m gratified that ~40 percent of my readers have read The Origin of Species. But, I’m a bit concerned that only ~8 percent have read The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (though one more than The Structure of Evolutionary Theory). Darwin is important, but for the stuff that is more the bread & butter of this weblog, I think R. A. Fisher is probably more relevant. That is, an analytical and formal understanding of evolutionary process. With that in mind I would recommend that if you can afford it, get a hardcover The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection with the forward by J. H. Bennett. Otherwise, read the original version online. Focus on the first half, and understand that Fisher was not God, so it’s how he conceived of a problem, not his particular solution, that’s useful (he was wrong on dominance it seems for example).
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
You shouldn’t necessarily be concerned. I’m guessing you’re making the assumption here that most of your readers are mostly interested genetics in a deep way? That may be the case to be honest but personally I have a lot more interest in your political/cultural and especially historical themes. So I wasn’t likely to be interested in genetics anyway. You could have added a question asking whether the reader was primarily interested in genetics or not to avoid people like me diluting the poll.I may be an exception, I doubt it, but I imagine a good fraction come for your non-genetic posts.
I am here for pure intellectual curiosity (fun). For fun, I might never read articles or books from cover to cover. Once some thing becomes a task, it is boring. I have plenty of tasks in my professional life, which need me to be responsible and study them from cover to cover despite of boredom. My professional mistake can have severe consequence which is the best motivator to be responsible and learn. Fear is the greatest motivator to do thing you might not enjoy very much. Well that is how life is.
Actually I did bought a lot of books (some recommended by Razib). But I only read some of them partially. Well, for fun, that is how fun is.
For example, math question is fun. I really enjoy solve math question. Never felt math is a task for me. History and science are like puzzle solving process which are fun. It is really exciting to figure out on your own without learning any thing first, which is confirmed by evidences and established knowledge. That is how I learn most about history and science. Just put idea and hypothesis first based on rational reasoning, then find both pro and con evidences to test your hypothesis. If not supported by evidences, then figure out where the mistake is and form the better new idea until all evidences fit. Well, that is how science works anyway. If you have PhD training, you know how it is.
For understanding the material discussed here, wouldn’t we be better off reading modern work, rather than Darwin *or* Fisher? Sure, the classics have the occasional gem, and are interesting from an intellectual history perspective; but for content, surely the accumulated wisdom of the last century counts for something?
Following up on my previous comment, do you have any recommendations for a good modern treatment of evolutionary theory? (Math doesn’t scare me — it’s a bonus.)
fisher is short and dense, in for those willing to read PDF/e-text free.
doug futumya’s text is good as a comprehensive account: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0878932232/geneexpressio-20
for ev genetics (where most of the math is): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0981519423/geneexpressio-20
Okay, okay! I’ll read it.
Agree with your point.
I am here for pure intellectual curiosity (fun). For fun, I might never read articles or books from cover to cover. Once some thing becomes a task, it is boring. I have plenty of tasks in my professional life, which need me to be responsible and study them from cover to cover despite of boredom. My professional mistake can have severe consequence which is the best motivator to be responsible and learn. Fear is the greatest motivator to do thing you might not enjoy very much. Well that is how life is.
Actually I did bought a lot of books (some recommended by Razib). But I only read some of them partially. Well, for fun, that is how fun is.
For example, math question is fun. I really enjoy solve math question. Never felt math is a task for me. History and science are like puzzle solving process which are fun. It is really exciting to figure out on your own without learning any thing first, which is confirmed by evidences and established knowledge. That is how I learn most about history and science. Just put idea and hypothesis first based on rational reasoning, then find both pro and con evidences to test your hypothesis. If not supported by evidences, then figure out where the mistake is and form the better new idea until all evidences fit. Well, that is how science works anyway. If you have PhD training, you know how it is.
I’m pretty much in the same boat. I’m a science type, but not a biologist. The genetics stuff is interesting — but not enough for me personally to make the effort to delve into textbooks for fun — it’s the historical stuff that keeps me coming back.
Is Nick Lane’s, The Vital Question, http://www.amazon.com/Vital-Question-Evolution-Origins-Complex/dp/0393088812, worth reading?
If I can join the crowd of fellow non-specialists in biology, I have to say that neither I read most of the scientific books recommended by Razib. I’am a humanities PhD who comes here to see how our host links exact science with historical knowledge. That is, I believe, the real force of this blog, this dialogue of biology and historiography. You don’t find it often on the web or even in print.
This sort of genetics text is more up my alley in terms of my engineering training: http://www.boente.eti.br/fuzzy/ebook-fuzzy-mitchell.pdf
Useful in traffic planning believe it or not.
Read Fisher? Easier said than done. I have a doctorate in a humanities subject and I know elementary statistics, but my mathematical education was limited and it takes me an hour to get through a page of Fisher. I have to work through the algebra before I can even get anywhere near seeing what the actual insight is.
If it comes to that, would Darwin have understood Fisher? I doubt if he was in that league as a mathematician. The Origin of Species is a pleasure to read, but it is not a particularly difficult book in the sense that The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is.
2) darwin was a self-admitted as to his mathematical naivete. he suggested it was an unfortunate lacunae in his education to his cousin galton.
If it comes to that, would Darwin have understood Fisher? I doubt if he was in that league as a mathematician. The Origin of Species is a pleasure to read, but it is not a particularly difficult book in the sense that The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is.Replies: @Razib Khan
1) you aren’t alone, that includes most biologists. i labor over fisher as well
2) darwin was a self-admitted as to his mathematical naivete. he suggested it was an unfortunate lacunae in his education to his cousin galton.
Fixed (soon), just ordered your recommendation. I got The Structure on your last recommendation, and checked “read” because I’m more than halfway thru it, so I cheated a bit, maybe.
I thank you for pushing my lazy butt to fix my background on my work field; I started in computer-medicine cross applications from the computer side (applying AI techniques to selecting MRI protocols for a given set of possible diagnostics), then went full computer industry, then back into computer support for life science research, but somehow never got to formally teach myself some of the basics of what the guys I help work on.
(although biology was always a fascination for me. Less than computers, but I got 21 out of 20 once in high school here in France – we score on a 0-20 scale)
Fisher stated that the development of sexual selection was “more favourable” in humans (Fisher, R. A. (1915). “The evolution of sexual preference”. Eugenic Review 7 (3): 188. PMC 2987134. PMID 21259607.)
Darwin was attracted to understanding human evolution through a sexual selection hypothesis because he felt it upheld the unity of humankind against pro-slavery demagoguery by explaining how black people and white people had come to look unalike, while emphasizing they did not stem from separate original stocks were not separate species.
Was Darwin wrong, and do ideals of beauty, in fact, vary around the world? If so that would certainly explain why sub saharan Africans look so very unlike Europeans.
Happy Galton Day!