Useful book, 19 Dec 2007
Its a very good book covering all areas very well.
A good accompanyment to a BA Early Years Education.

First Year Psychology, 08 Sep 2006
Useful for coursework, but other than that pretty boring. It just went on and on!

Psychology Student, 10 Jan 2006
BORING!! My goodness I didnt think that a book could get anymore boring! Don't bother buying this unless its compulsory reading! For such an interesting subject this book has definately fallen below expectations.

Even for those of you that aren't psychologically minded!, 08 Nov 2000
This book is ideal for those people that haven't got a clue what child development is all about, and/or those that need further grounding on it.

The first few chapters build up a little background knowledge to psychology in general and the history of child delevopment, so those of you that know relatively nothing aren't thrown in at the deep end.

It is both comprehendible and quite easy to read. Jargon is explained and psychological models are illustrated clearly and plainly. It lacks nothing. All areas are covered in sufficient depth and reference to interesting research has been included to keep your attention focused.

All in all; worth buying.

Other relevant reads:

Child Developement: Laura Berk

The Blackwell reader in development: Slater and Muirer

Useful book, 19 Dec 2007
Its a very good book covering all areas very well.
A good accompanyment to a BA Early Years Education.

First Year Psychology, 08 Sep 2006
Useful for coursework, but other than that pretty boring. It just went on and on!

Psychology Student, 10 Jan 2006
BORING!! My goodness I didnt think that a book could get anymore boring! Don't bother buying this unless its compulsory reading! For such an interesting subject this book has definately fallen below expectations.

Even for those of you that aren't psychologically minded!, 08 Nov 2000
This book is ideal for those people that haven't got a clue what child development is all about, and/or those that need further grounding on it.

The first few chapters build up a little background knowledge to psychology in general and the history of child delevopment, so those of you that know relatively nothing aren't thrown in at the deep end.

It is both comprehendible and quite easy to read. Jargon is explained and psychological models are illustrated clearly and plainly. It lacks nothing. All areas are covered in sufficient depth and reference to interesting research has been included to keep your attention focused.

All in all; worth buying.

Other relevant reads:

Child Developement: Laura Berk

The Blackwell reader in development: Slater and Muirer

Really good books, Highly recommended, 25 Aug 2008
Lives up to the high standard set by the previous editions & moves on from them. Now in two volumes which means that it is lighter & easier to use. The free extra book is also a very useful resource. I would highly recommend this to any Paramedic students out there.

Useful book, 19 Dec 2007
Its a very good book covering all areas very well.
A good accompanyment to a BA Early Years Education.

First Year Psychology, 08 Sep 2006
Useful for coursework, but other than that pretty boring. It just went on and on!

Psychology Student, 10 Jan 2006
BORING!! My goodness I didnt think that a book could get anymore boring! Don't bother buying this unless its compulsory reading! For such an interesting subject this book has definately fallen below expectations.

Even for those of you that aren't psychologically minded!, 08 Nov 2000
This book is ideal for those people that haven't got a clue what child development is all about, and/or those that need further grounding on it.

The first few chapters build up a little background knowledge to psychology in general and the history of child delevopment, so those of you that know relatively nothing aren't thrown in at the deep end.

It is both comprehendible and quite easy to read. Jargon is explained and psychological models are illustrated clearly and plainly. It lacks nothing. All areas are covered in sufficient depth and reference to interesting research has been included to keep your attention focused.

All in all; worth buying.

Other relevant reads:

Child Developement: Laura Berk

The Blackwell reader in development: Slater and Muirer

Really good books, Highly recommended, 25 Aug 2008
Lives up to the high standard set by the previous editions & moves on from them. Now in two volumes which means that it is lighter & easier to use. The free extra book is also a very useful resource. I would highly recommend this to any Paramedic students out there.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

Useful book, 19 Dec 2007
Its a very good book covering all areas very well.
A good accompanyment to a BA Early Years Education.

First Year Psychology, 08 Sep 2006
Useful for coursework, but other than that pretty boring. It just went on and on!

Psychology Student, 10 Jan 2006
BORING!! My goodness I didnt think that a book could get anymore boring! Don't bother buying this unless its compulsory reading! For such an interesting subject this book has definately fallen below expectations.

Even for those of you that aren't psychologically minded!, 08 Nov 2000
This book is ideal for those people that haven't got a clue what child development is all about, and/or those that need further grounding on it.

The first few chapters build up a little background knowledge to psychology in general and the history of child delevopment, so those of you that know relatively nothing aren't thrown in at the deep end.

It is both comprehendible and quite easy to read. Jargon is explained and psychological models are illustrated clearly and plainly. It lacks nothing. All areas are covered in sufficient depth and reference to interesting research has been included to keep your attention focused.

All in all; worth buying.

Other relevant reads:

Child Developement: Laura Berk

The Blackwell reader in development: Slater and Muirer

Really good books, Highly recommended, 25 Aug 2008
Lives up to the high standard set by the previous editions & moves on from them. Now in two volumes which means that it is lighter & easier to use. The free extra book is also a very useful resource. I would highly recommend this to any Paramedic students out there.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

the new edition is incomplete, 18 Jul 2008
I really liked the Alberts. That's why I bought the new edition, my last edition is now more than 10 years old. What I liked was the coverage of a wide area of cell biology from the basics to developmental biology and immunology. I was therefore very disappointed when I read in the preface that the current paperback edition does not contain all chapters, some chapters are only available on the CD that is included with the book. What am I supposed to do, print the 300 missing pages? If you want the complete book you have to buy the hardback version, currently at about £100- I guess this was a trick of the publisher to rip of libraries, at least our library decided to buy the complete book at twice the price of the paperback...


A must for biology undergraduates., 03 Dec 2005
A really good textbook for all undergraduate biology and biochemistry students. One of the only books I consistently used throughout my course. I am now a teacher, and often use it to help bridge the gap for my students between A levels and university. It is very clear and the diagrams are excellent. If I were a student considering buying this book, I am not sure that I would spend the extra money on buying the latest edition. It costs enough to go to university as it is! If you do buy it used though, make sure it's in good condition as it will be well used.

Not bad! :), 05 Nov 2001
Good chapters on enzyme kinetics. Skips around, but it's all there. Easy reading (for biochem). Better than stryer ;).

Excellent book but out of date, 20 Sep 2001
A wonderfully written and illustrated book, but now totally out of date and in serious need of a new edition. Where is it?!

A foundation Text., 03 Sep 2001
This is an excellent, informative text. I used it extensively through my first degree, my masters and I even refer to it now while I'm doing my PhD. Money well spent.

Useful book, 19 Dec 2007
Its a very good book covering all areas very well.
A good accompanyment to a BA Early Years Education.

First Year Psychology, 08 Sep 2006
Useful for coursework, but other than that pretty boring. It just went on and on!

Psychology Student, 10 Jan 2006
BORING!! My goodness I didnt think that a book could get anymore boring! Don't bother buying this unless its compulsory reading! For such an interesting subject this book has definately fallen below expectations.

Even for those of you that aren't psychologically minded!, 08 Nov 2000
This book is ideal for those people that haven't got a clue what child development is all about, and/or those that need further grounding on it.

The first few chapters build up a little background knowledge to psychology in general and the history of child delevopment, so those of you that know relatively nothing aren't thrown in at the deep end.

It is both comprehendible and quite easy to read. Jargon is explained and psychological models are illustrated clearly and plainly. It lacks nothing. All areas are covered in sufficient depth and reference to interesting research has been included to keep your attention focused.

All in all; worth buying.

Other relevant reads:

Child Developement: Laura Berk

The Blackwell reader in development: Slater and Muirer

Really good books, Highly recommended, 25 Aug 2008
Lives up to the high standard set by the previous editions & moves on from them. Now in two volumes which means that it is lighter & easier to use. The free extra book is also a very useful resource. I would highly recommend this to any Paramedic students out there.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

the new edition is incomplete, 18 Jul 2008
I really liked the Alberts. That's why I bought the new edition, my last edition is now more than 10 years old. What I liked was the coverage of a wide area of cell biology from the basics to developmental biology and immunology. I was therefore very disappointed when I read in the preface that the current paperback edition does not contain all chapters, some chapters are only available on the CD that is included with the book. What am I supposed to do, print the 300 missing pages? If you want the complete book you have to buy the hardback version, currently at about £100- I guess this was a trick of the publisher to rip of libraries, at least our library decided to buy the complete book at twice the price of the paperback...


A must for biology undergraduates., 03 Dec 2005
A really good textbook for all undergraduate biology and biochemistry students. One of the only books I consistently used throughout my course. I am now a teacher, and often use it to help bridge the gap for my students between A levels and university. It is very clear and the diagrams are excellent. If I were a student considering buying this book, I am not sure that I would spend the extra money on buying the latest edition. It costs enough to go to university as it is! If you do buy it used though, make sure it's in good condition as it will be well used.

Not bad! :), 05 Nov 2001
Good chapters on enzyme kinetics. Skips around, but it's all there. Easy reading (for biochem). Better than stryer ;).

Excellent book but out of date, 20 Sep 2001
A wonderfully written and illustrated book, but now totally out of date and in serious need of a new edition. Where is it?!

A foundation Text., 03 Sep 2001
This is an excellent, informative text. I used it extensively through my first degree, my masters and I even refer to it now while I'm doing my PhD. Money well spent.

Superb, 12 Apr 2007
As with all Dummies books, this one is excellent. Covers all areas of Anatomy and Physiology from A'Level and through to at least 2nd Year Degree level. Physiological Systems and Anatomy are explained in a humorous way with many well thought out analigies to really give you a understanding of complex subjects. once again if you are doing A'Level or starting a degree in any human based science then this is a must have. Superb

Ain't the body great?, 21 Dec 2006
This book is really good at getting someone from basic biology to understanding how the body works. The book flows through from cells to organs and then onto how the organs work together, just so that you can still be alive to read this review!

It does try to make light of things, with jokes here and there (you may even giggle at some of them too) and also lots of examples to help things sink-in.


Great book that's really easy to understand., 22 Oct 2004
This is a great book which I highly recommend. It explains everything in very simple terms making it easy to get your head round. I am a nursing student and used it to help me through my anatomy and physiology exam. It was fantastic for helping me to lay the foundations needed to get to grips with some of the more complicated aspects of a&p. That said it was not as detailed as I would have needed to completely get me through the exam. I found it worked well as a book to read before looking at the more detailed and technical text books which are a lot more daunting.

It uses lots of every day examples to make things easier to understand and remember. For example it likens the negative and positive feedback systems within the body to a thermostat like you might have in your home which will only make changes if the environmental temperature changes.

Makes anatomy & physiology very accessible.

It's hard to talk about The Origin of Species without making statements that seem overwrought and fulsome. But it's true: this is indeed one of the most important and influential books ever written, and it is one of the very few groundbreaking works of science that is truly readable.

To a certain extent it suffers from the Hamlet problem--it's full of clichés! Or what are now clichés, but which Darwin was the first to pen. Natural selection, variation, the struggle for existence, survival of the fittest: it's all in here.

Darwin's friend and "bulldog" T. H. Huxley said upon reading the Origin, "How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that." Alfred Russel Wallace had thought of the same theory of evolution Darwin did, but it was Darwin who gathered the mass of supporting evidence--on domestic animals and plants, on variability, on sexual selection, on dispersal--that swept most scientists before it. It's hardly necessary to mention that the book is still controversial: Darwin's remark in his conclusion that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" is surely the pinnacle of British understatement. --Mary Ellen Curtin, Amazon.com

Useful book, 19 Dec 2007
Its a very good book covering all areas very well.
A good accompanyment to a BA Early Years Education.

First Year Psychology, 08 Sep 2006
Useful for coursework, but other than that pretty boring. It just went on and on!

Psychology Student, 10 Jan 2006
BORING!! My goodness I didnt think that a book could get anymore boring! Don't bother buying this unless its compulsory reading! For such an interesting subject this book has definately fallen below expectations.

Even for those of you that aren't psychologically minded!, 08 Nov 2000
This book is ideal for those people that haven't got a clue what child development is all about, and/or those that need further grounding on it.

The first few chapters build up a little background knowledge to psychology in general and the history of child delevopment, so those of you that know relatively nothing aren't thrown in at the deep end.

It is both comprehendible and quite easy to read. Jargon is explained and psychological models are illustrated clearly and plainly. It lacks nothing. All areas are covered in sufficient depth and reference to interesting research has been included to keep your attention focused.

All in all; worth buying.

Other relevant reads:

Child Developement: Laura Berk

The Blackwell reader in development: Slater and Muirer

Really good books, Highly recommended, 25 Aug 2008
Lives up to the high standard set by the previous editions & moves on from them. Now in two volumes which means that it is lighter & easier to use. The free extra book is also a very useful resource. I would highly recommend this to any Paramedic students out there.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

the new edition is incomplete, 18 Jul 2008
I really liked the Alberts. That's why I bought the new edition, my last edition is now more than 10 years old. What I liked was the coverage of a wide area of cell biology from the basics to developmental biology and immunology. I was therefore very disappointed when I read in the preface that the current paperback edition does not contain all chapters, some chapters are only available on the CD that is included with the book. What am I supposed to do, print the 300 missing pages? If you want the complete book you have to buy the hardback version, currently at about £100- I guess this was a trick of the publisher to rip of libraries, at least our library decided to buy the complete book at twice the price of the paperback...


A must for biology undergraduates., 03 Dec 2005
A really good textbook for all undergraduate biology and biochemistry students. One of the only books I consistently used throughout my course. I am now a teacher, and often use it to help bridge the gap for my students between A levels and university. It is very clear and the diagrams are excellent. If I were a student considering buying this book, I am not sure that I would spend the extra money on buying the latest edition. It costs enough to go to university as it is! If you do buy it used though, make sure it's in good condition as it will be well used.

Not bad! :), 05 Nov 2001
Good chapters on enzyme kinetics. Skips around, but it's all there. Easy reading (for biochem). Better than stryer ;).

Excellent book but out of date, 20 Sep 2001
A wonderfully written and illustrated book, but now totally out of date and in serious need of a new edition. Where is it?!

A foundation Text., 03 Sep 2001
This is an excellent, informative text. I used it extensively through my first degree, my masters and I even refer to it now while I'm doing my PhD. Money well spent.

Superb, 12 Apr 2007
As with all Dummies books, this one is excellent. Covers all areas of Anatomy and Physiology from A'Level and through to at least 2nd Year Degree level. Physiological Systems and Anatomy are explained in a humorous way with many well thought out analigies to really give you a understanding of complex subjects. once again if you are doing A'Level or starting a degree in any human based science then this is a must have. Superb

Ain't the body great?, 21 Dec 2006
This book is really good at getting someone from basic biology to understanding how the body works. The book flows through from cells to organs and then onto how the organs work together, just so that you can still be alive to read this review!

It does try to make light of things, with jokes here and there (you may even giggle at some of them too) and also lots of examples to help things sink-in.


Great book that's really easy to understand., 22 Oct 2004
This is a great book which I highly recommend. It explains everything in very simple terms making it easy to get your head round. I am a nursing student and used it to help me through my anatomy and physiology exam. It was fantastic for helping me to lay the foundations needed to get to grips with some of the more complicated aspects of a&p. That said it was not as detailed as I would have needed to completely get me through the exam. I found it worked well as a book to read before looking at the more detailed and technical text books which are a lot more daunting.

It uses lots of every day examples to make things easier to understand and remember. For example it likens the negative and positive feedback systems within the body to a thermostat like you might have in your home which will only make changes if the environmental temperature changes.

Makes anatomy & physiology very accessible.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary works ,that being so it's not quite acurate to todays knowlege so this book is more of a historical book.This particular book is of good quality and structure with detailed image of the different species used as examples.

A FANTASTIC CLASSIC, 05 Jan 2008
Yes, it's dense but a must for evolution buffs. A vastly more entertaining read: NATURAL SELECTION by Dave Freedman, all about the evolution of a new species of flying predator! What makes it fantastic is that while a work of fiction it's brilliantly researched, actually teaches you what evolution really is. It gets into the evolution of the brain, the lung, flight - really cool stuff - but unlike dry textbooks, does it at warp speed. I literally could not put this book down, read it cover to cover in 2 days. A tremendous "fictional complement" to Darwin's master work.

Great Scientist, 29 Dec 2005
Many people assume that Darwin's initial account of natural selection is so out of date that it is to be avoided in favour of more recent text books of evolutionary theory. While it is true that huge gains have been made in the one and a half centuries since the first publication of "The Origin", there is nothing in this work which is wrong. Darwin was too good a scientist and too cautious.

Some claim that Darwin admitted of the possibility of Lamarkian mechanisms. They have not read the original. Darwin knew nothing of the molecular basis of genetics, but knew that natural selection did not need a Lamarkian mechanism. He simply did not rule it out, although he found it improbable. Everything that is stated in this great classic is as true today as it was at the time of first publication.

It is also said that Charles Darwin was a lesser intellectual when compared to most other great names of science; that he was a plodder, a naturalist, a sort of gentleman stamp collector who pressed flowers into his books and barely a scientist in the contemporary sense. This is nonsense. Darwin was one of the giants of rigorous systematic thinking; the kind of rigorous thinking and critical attitude that asks the right questions and provides the capacity to answer them. Let me buttress this claim with one example.

At the end of chapter six Darwin noted that the theory of natural selection could not account for structures or behaviors found in one species that exist solely for the benefit of another unrelated species. In setting out the theoretical terms for the refutation of the theory in this way, he anticipated Karl Popper, that analytical non-nonsense philosopher of science, by more than a century.

I recommend you read this book with an attentive curious analytical mind. You will find yourself walking in the footsteps of an intellectual giant.

Can't tell a book by its cover, 18 Jun 2004
This is a review of ISBN: 0517123207, with a cover that was defiantly made to be provocative. It depicts an (ape) allying view of going from all fours to upright. If this is what you are looking for then you need to read " 2001 : A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Charles Clarke.
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle : Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" ISBN: 014043268X (see my review May 24, 2000). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.
Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).
If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.
In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

Buy this book and decide for your self!!, 18 Mar 2003
The Origin of Species is a great read and of interest to anyone who would like to make there own mind up about Darwinism rather than take for granted some ones else's opinion. Darwin makes this book very readable to the masses I my self am not I Biology student but managed to understand the book with relative ease and Darwin helps this along by using everyday language. This book is also of particular interest to any one who is interested in ideas and philosophies of the period since Darwin frequently referees to the ideas of his peers and fellow "naturalists".

I would also like to say that maybe this book might not have all the up-to-date scientific information in it (after all it was published in the 1850's) and yes it is true we know allot more about evolution than Darwin did but for the average person like my self who has little education the Biology field I can say I learnt allot about evolution, ideas of the time and of Darwin himself.

I urge everyone to read this book whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist or anything else because this book is not the devilish attack on religion it has been distorted to be over the years but simply an ordinary guy who liked to watch his pigeons and flowers grow and change between generations. He then came up with the idea that creatures and plants evolved between generations to suit there environment and were not all created by god in there current forms. I also believe Darwin to be a very tasteful writer who took care to upset as few people as possible and wrote in a very humble way in fact he dedicates a whole chapter to the problems of his theory.

A great read what ever you believe buy this book and make your own mind up about evolution!!

Useful book, 19 Dec 2007
Its a very good book covering all areas very well.
A good accompanyment to a BA Early Years Education.

First Year Psychology, 08 Sep 2006
Useful for coursework, but other than that pretty boring. It just went on and on!

Psychology Student, 10 Jan 2006
BORING!! My goodness I didnt think that a book could get anymore boring! Don't bother buying this unless its compulsory reading! For such an interesting subject this book has definately fallen below expectations.

Even for those of you that aren't psychologically minded!, 08 Nov 2000
This book is ideal for those people that haven't got a clue what child development is all about, and/or those that need further grounding on it.

The first few chapters build up a little background knowledge to psychology in general and the history of child delevopment, so those of you that know relatively nothing aren't thrown in at the deep end.

It is both comprehendible and quite easy to read. Jargon is explained and psychological models are illustrated clearly and plainly. It lacks nothing. All areas are covered in sufficient depth and reference to interesting research has been included to keep your attention focused.

All in all; worth buying.

Other relevant reads:

Child Developement: Laura Berk

The Blackwell reader in development: Slater and Muirer

Really good books, Highly recommended, 25 Aug 2008
Lives up to the high standard set by the previous editions & moves on from them. Now in two volumes which means that it is lighter & easier to use. The free extra book is also a very useful resource. I would highly recommend this to any Paramedic students out there.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

the new edition is incomplete, 18 Jul 2008
I really liked the Alberts. That's why I bought the new edition, my last edition is now more than 10 years old. What I liked was the coverage of a wide area of cell biology from the basics to developmental biology and immunology. I was therefore very disappointed when I read in the preface that the current paperback edition does not contain all chapters, some chapters are only available on the CD that is included with the book. What am I supposed to do, print the 300 missing pages? If you want the complete book you have to buy the hardback version, currently at about £100- I guess this was a trick of the publisher to rip of libraries, at least our library decided to buy the complete book at twice the price of the paperback...


A must for biology undergraduates., 03 Dec 2005
A really good textbook for all undergraduate biology and biochemistry students. One of the only books I consistently used throughout my course. I am now a teacher, and often use it to help bridge the gap for my students between A levels and university. It is very clear and the diagrams are excellent. If I were a student considering buying this book, I am not sure that I would spend the extra money on buying the latest edition. It costs enough to go to university as it is! If you do buy it used though, make sure it's in good condition as it will be well used.

Not bad! :), 05 Nov 2001
Good chapters on enzyme kinetics. Skips around, but it's all there. Easy reading (for biochem). Better than stryer ;).

Excellent book but out of date, 20 Sep 2001
A wonderfully written and illustrated book, but now totally out of date and in serious need of a new edition. Where is it?!

A foundation Text., 03 Sep 2001
This is an excellent, informative text. I used it extensively through my first degree, my masters and I even refer to it now while I'm doing my PhD. Money well spent.

Superb, 12 Apr 2007
As with all Dummies books, this one is excellent. Covers all areas of Anatomy and Physiology from A'Level and through to at least 2nd Year Degree level. Physiological Systems and Anatomy are explained in a humorous way with many well thought out analigies to really give you a understanding of complex subjects. once again if you are doing A'Level or starting a degree in any human based science then this is a must have. Superb

Ain't the body great?, 21 Dec 2006
This book is really good at getting someone from basic biology to understanding how the body works. The book flows through from cells to organs and then onto how the organs work together, just so that you can still be alive to read this review!

It does try to make light of things, with jokes here and there (you may even giggle at some of them too) and also lots of examples to help things sink-in.


Great book that's really easy to understand., 22 Oct 2004
This is a great book which I highly recommend. It explains everything in very simple terms making it easy to get your head round. I am a nursing student and used it to help me through my anatomy and physiology exam. It was fantastic for helping me to lay the foundations needed to get to grips with some of the more complicated aspects of a&p. That said it was not as detailed as I would have needed to completely get me through the exam. I found it worked well as a book to read before looking at the more detailed and technical text books which are a lot more daunting.

It uses lots of every day examples to make things easier to understand and remember. For example it likens the negative and positive feedback systems within the body to a thermostat like you might have in your home which will only make changes if the environmental temperature changes.

Makes anatomy & physiology very accessible.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary works ,that being so it's not quite acurate to todays knowlege so this book is more of a historical book.This particular book is of good quality and structure with detailed image of the different species used as examples.

A FANTASTIC CLASSIC, 05 Jan 2008
Yes, it's dense but a must for evolution buffs. A vastly more entertaining read: NATURAL SELECTION by Dave Freedman, all about the evolution of a new species of flying predator! What makes it fantastic is that while a work of fiction it's brilliantly researched, actually teaches you what evolution really is. It gets into the evolution of the brain, the lung, flight - really cool stuff - but unlike dry textbooks, does it at warp speed. I literally could not put this book down, read it cover to cover in 2 days. A tremendous "fictional complement" to Darwin's master work.

Great Scientist, 29 Dec 2005
Many people assume that Darwin's initial account of natural selection is so out of date that it is to be avoided in favour of more recent text books of evolutionary theory. While it is true that huge gains have been made in the one and a half centuries since the first publication of "The Origin", there is nothing in this work which is wrong. Darwin was too good a scientist and too cautious.

Some claim that Darwin admitted of the possibility of Lamarkian mechanisms. They have not read the original. Darwin knew nothing of the molecular basis of genetics, but knew that natural selection did not need a Lamarkian mechanism. He simply did not rule it out, although he found it improbable. Everything that is stated in this great classic is as true today as it was at the time of first publication.

It is also said that Charles Darwin was a lesser intellectual when compared to most other great names of science; that he was a plodder, a naturalist, a sort of gentleman stamp collector who pressed flowers into his books and barely a scientist in the contemporary sense. This is nonsense. Darwin was one of the giants of rigorous systematic thinking; the kind of rigorous thinking and critical attitude that asks the right questions and provides the capacity to answer them. Let me buttress this claim with one example.

At the end of chapter six Darwin noted that the theory of natural selection could not account for structures or behaviors found in one species that exist solely for the benefit of another unrelated species. In setting out the theoretical terms for the refutation of the theory in this way, he anticipated Karl Popper, that analytical non-nonsense philosopher of science, by more than a century.

I recommend you read this book with an attentive curious analytical mind. You will find yourself walking in the footsteps of an intellectual giant.

Can't tell a book by its cover, 18 Jun 2004
This is a review of ISBN: 0517123207, with a cover that was defiantly made to be provocative. It depicts an (ape) allying view of going from all fours to upright. If this is what you are looking for then you need to read " 2001 : A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Charles Clarke.
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle : Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" ISBN: 014043268X (see my review May 24, 2000). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.
Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).
If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.
In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

Buy this book and decide for your self!!, 18 Mar 2003
The Origin of Species is a great read and of interest to anyone who would like to make there own mind up about Darwinism rather than take for granted some ones else's opinion. Darwin makes this book very readable to the masses I my self am not I Biology student but managed to understand the book with relative ease and Darwin helps this along by using everyday language. This book is also of particular interest to any one who is interested in ideas and philosophies of the period since Darwin frequently referees to the ideas of his peers and fellow "naturalists".

I would also like to say that maybe this book might not have all the up-to-date scientific information in it (after all it was published in the 1850's) and yes it is true we know allot more about evolution than Darwin did but for the average person like my self who has little education the Biology field I can say I learnt allot about evolution, ideas of the time and of Darwin himself.

I urge everyone to read this book whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist or anything else because this book is not the devilish attack on religion it has been distorted to be over the years but simply an ordinary guy who liked to watch his pigeons and flowers grow and change between generations. He then came up with the idea that creatures and plants evolved between generations to suit there environment and were not all created by god in there current forms. I also believe Darwin to be a very tasteful writer who took care to upset as few people as possible and wrote in a very humble way in fact he dedicates a whole chapter to the problems of his theory.

A great read what ever you believe buy this book and make your own mind up about evolution!!

An excellent text!, 22 Jan 2008
I found this text brilliant for a module in my second year of a Biology degree; the information is concise and to the point, the multimedia disk is brilliant and the questions helped to prepare me for my exams and had me thinking more outside the box. There are many wonderful diagrams, but the CD reminds a student that cells are 3D, dynamic entities and not flat and lifeless on a page.

A wonderful resource!

Well written and concise, 24 Apr 2007
As an A level Biology teacher I bought this book to better teach the subject. It is very easy to read and the diagrams are very clear. It covers material in more detail than required for an A level student but would prove ideal for a first year biology or biochemistry course or any A level Biology teacher.
It does what it says in the title covering most aspects of cell physiology, I particularly liked its clear treatment of DNA replication and basic biochemistry. The book comes with a CD Rom containing stills and short animations some of which are superb teaching material, I particularly enjoyed the ATPase movie. On the downside some of the CD Rom files seemed empty of content but that is my only gripe, overall a great book.

Useful book, 19 Dec 2007
Its a very good book covering all areas very well.
A good accompanyment to a BA Early Years Education.

First Year Psychology, 08 Sep 2006
Useful for coursework, but other than that pretty boring. It just went on and on!

Psychology Student, 10 Jan 2006
BORING!! My goodness I didnt think that a book could get anymore boring! Don't bother buying this unless its compulsory reading! For such an interesting subject this book has definately fallen below expectations.

Even for those of you that aren't psychologically minded!, 08 Nov 2000
This book is ideal for those people that haven't got a clue what child development is all about, and/or those that need further grounding on it.

The first few chapters build up a little background knowledge to psychology in general and the history of child delevopment, so those of you that know relatively nothing aren't thrown in at the deep end.

It is both comprehendible and quite easy to read. Jargon is explained and psychological models are illustrated clearly and plainly. It lacks nothing. All areas are covered in sufficient depth and reference to interesting research has been included to keep your attention focused.

All in all; worth buying.

Other relevant reads:

Child Developement: Laura Berk

The Blackwell reader in development: Slater and Muirer

Really good books, Highly recommended, 25 Aug 2008
Lives up to the high standard set by the previous editions & moves on from them. Now in two volumes which means that it is lighter & easier to use. The free extra book is also a very useful resource. I would highly recommend this to any Paramedic students out there.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

the new edition is incomplete, 18 Jul 2008
I really liked the Alberts. That's why I bought the new edition, my last edition is now more than 10 years old. What I liked was the coverage of a wide area of cell biology from the basics to developmental biology and immunology. I was therefore very disappointed when I read in the preface that the current paperback edition does not contain all chapters, some chapters are only available on the CD that is included with the book. What am I supposed to do, print the 300 missing pages? If you want the complete book you have to buy the hardback version, currently at about £100- I guess this was a trick of the publisher to rip of libraries, at least our library decided to buy the complete book at twice the price of the paperback...


A must for biology undergraduates., 03 Dec 2005
A really good textbook for all undergraduate biology and biochemistry students. One of the only books I consistently used throughout my course. I am now a teacher, and often use it to help bridge the gap for my students between A levels and university. It is very clear and the diagrams are excellent. If I were a student considering buying this book, I am not sure that I would spend the extra money on buying the latest edition. It costs enough to go to university as it is! If you do buy it used though, make sure it's in good condition as it will be well used.

Not bad! :), 05 Nov 2001
Good chapters on enzyme kinetics. Skips around, but it's all there. Easy reading (for biochem). Better than stryer ;).

Excellent book but out of date, 20 Sep 2001
A wonderfully written and illustrated book, but now totally out of date and in serious need of a new edition. Where is it?!

A foundation Text., 03 Sep 2001
This is an excellent, informative text. I used it extensively through my first degree, my masters and I even refer to it now while I'm doing my PhD. Money well spent.

Superb, 12 Apr 2007
As with all Dummies books, this one is excellent. Covers all areas of Anatomy and Physiology from A'Level and through to at least 2nd Year Degree level. Physiological Systems and Anatomy are explained in a humorous way with many well thought out analigies to really give you a understanding of complex subjects. once again if you are doing A'Level or starting a degree in any human based science then this is a must have. Superb

Ain't the body great?, 21 Dec 2006
This book is really good at getting someone from basic biology to understanding how the body works. The book flows through from cells to organs and then onto how the organs work together, just so that you can still be alive to read this review!

It does try to make light of things, with jokes here and there (you may even giggle at some of them too) and also lots of examples to help things sink-in.


Great book that's really easy to understand., 22 Oct 2004
This is a great book which I highly recommend. It explains everything in very simple terms making it easy to get your head round. I am a nursing student and used it to help me through my anatomy and physiology exam. It was fantastic for helping me to lay the foundations needed to get to grips with some of the more complicated aspects of a&p. That said it was not as detailed as I would have needed to completely get me through the exam. I found it worked well as a book to read before looking at the more detailed and technical text books which are a lot more daunting.

It uses lots of every day examples to make things easier to understand and remember. For example it likens the negative and positive feedback systems within the body to a thermostat like you might have in your home which will only make changes if the environmental temperature changes.

Makes anatomy & physiology very accessible.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary work