På dette site bruger vi cookies til at levere vores ydelser, forbedre performance, til analyseformål, og (hvis brugeren ikke er logget ind) til reklamer. Ved at bruge LibraryThing anerkender du at have læst og forstået vores vilkår og betingelser inklusive vores politik for håndtering af brugeroplysninger. Din brug af dette site og dets ydelser er underlagt disse vilkår og betingelser.
LIFE ON EARTH by David Attenborough (and read by him as well) was a good pick to listen to during finals week - not so engaging that I keep listening to find out what happens next at the expense of getting my grading done, but engaging enough to take my mind off my grading and other responsibilities when I needed a break, or was cooking, etc. I will say that I found it more relaxing to listen to in the chapters when he's describing things that I'm somewhat familiar with, but don't know well (i.e. the chapters on plants and invertebrates.) The chapters on vertebrates, however, were somewhat less relaxing to listen to, as I spent the whole time listening very carefully for any mistakes.
One thing Attenborough does very well in this book is connect the evolution of traits together, helping explain why certain traits evolved when they did. For example, as vascular plants evolved, there was a selective advantage for getting taller in order to better compete for light. But then, once plants started getting taller, there was a selective advantage to herbivores that could reach the tasty parts of the plants, which led to the evolution of flying insects, which in turn contributed to the evolution of the flowering plants to use those insects as targeted pollinators vs. relying on wind pollination. Some of it is almost certainly adaptationism / just-so-story-ism, but he does an excellent job of connecting various pieces together into a coherent whole.
He does get some stuff wrong -- some factual details that may have just gotten missed in the 40th anniversary update of the text, but also other places where the way he frames evolutionary history is... antiquated at best. The most egregious (in my opinion) is that he repeatedly refers to various living organisms as "primitive", and refers to non-mammalian synapsids (everything that is more closely related to mammals than any other living organism, but is not technically a true mammal -- includes things like Dimetrodon, the sail-back "dinosaur") as "reptiles". Which: No. Absolutely not. Synapsids split from the branch that would become reptiles over 200 million years ago. (He also calls early tetrapods like Tiktaalik "amphibians", which: they were almost certainly amphibious, but they were absolutely not the same as modern amphibians.)
But overall: Enjoyable to listen to Attenborough's narration even without the amazing visuals of a nature documentary. ( )
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen VidenRedigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
"Discovering life on earth" by David Attenborough is a shorter, juvenile version. "Life on Earth: Augmented and Enlarged Edition" should also not be combined with "Life on earth".
Forlagets redaktører
Bagsidecitater
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen VidenRedigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Google Books — Indlæser...
(4.19)
1
One thing Attenborough does very well in this book is connect the evolution of traits together, helping explain why certain traits evolved when they did. For example, as vascular plants evolved, there was a selective advantage for getting taller in order to better compete for light. But then, once plants started getting taller, there was a selective advantage to herbivores that could reach the tasty parts of the plants, which led to the evolution of flying insects, which in turn contributed to the evolution of the flowering plants to use those insects as targeted pollinators vs. relying on wind pollination. Some of it is almost certainly adaptationism / just-so-story-ism, but he does an excellent job of connecting various pieces together into a coherent whole.
He does get some stuff wrong -- some factual details that may have just gotten missed in the 40th anniversary update of the text, but also other places where the way he frames evolutionary history is... antiquated at best. The most egregious (in my opinion) is that he repeatedly refers to various living organisms as "primitive", and refers to non-mammalian synapsids (everything that is more closely related to mammals than any other living organism, but is not technically a true mammal -- includes things like Dimetrodon, the sail-back "dinosaur") as "reptiles". Which: No. Absolutely not. Synapsids split from the branch that would become reptiles over 200 million years ago. (He also calls early tetrapods like Tiktaalik "amphibians", which: they were almost certainly amphibious, but they were absolutely not the same as modern amphibians.)
But overall: Enjoyable to listen to Attenborough's narration even without the amazing visuals of a nature documentary. (