Talk:The Ancestor's Tale

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Beaver dam#Dams|beaver dam]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Expansion

I feel that this book differs from all other books by Dawkins in that he tried to present all aspects of evolution in a single volume, in effect creating an encyclopedia on modern biology as a collection of stories which are fascinating to read. See my addition to the lead section just now. I believe that the article can be expanded so that each rendezvous point is associated with a sentence or two describing the aspect of evolution and tools/methods of modern biology illustrated in the chapter. Fredhsu 01:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Done[reply]

ISBN?

Where is the ISBN for this book? I think I want to buy it, or see if my library has a copy, or whatever. Xaxafrad 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN's are on the Richard Dawkins article. By the way, I would strongly recommend that you buy the hardback edition, not the paperback. Laurence Boyce 11:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you recommend the hardback edition? Also, are you talking about the British edition or the US one? 217.155.20.163 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the UK edition; I have not seen any US editions. I recommend the hardback edition because it is a beautiful coffee table book produced on high quality paper and containing numerous illustrations. By comparison, the paperback edition doesn't really come close. It's not simply the difference between a hard and a soft cover is what I mean. Laurence Boyce 08:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, Laurence, I told you we needed to have ISBN numbers on every individual article to make it easy for people to buy these books. I think it is OK to list one arbitrary version (hardback preferred), then another link to a list of editions. Fred Hsu 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding my advice regarding editions, I really don't feel that our purpose here is to sell books. And I don't know about you, but I find the process of looking up books on Amazon to be, well, rather easy! Laurence Boyce 17:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have people search for the book, when you have the ISBN at hand? Besides, the wiki ISBN page allows people to find books at all kinds of places, not just Amazon.com. See the Editions section at I, Robot for a good example. Fred Hsu 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, well please add them if you wish. I'm not against them as such; I just don't see the point. Laurence Boyce 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second edition is revised with updated research and a new rendezvous. I will try to add some updates.--Akrasia25 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why be coy?

"He too seems just as surprised as the reader when he reveals the closest relatives to the hippos." - What is the "too" from? Who is this "the reader", and how do we know what this hypothetical person thinks or doesn't think? What reliable source affirms that "the reader" feels this way? And what's with the coyness in refraining from mentioning the word "whale"? This is an important biological fact, not a plot spoiler! (And even if it was, this coyness is unencyclopedic.) -Silence 05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the sentence. It now clearly indicates that whales are closest living relatives of hippos. I also added this piece of information to the whale article. Fred Hsu 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-religious category

Dawkins is a bright guy who has researched his stuff. This is an excellent book with one exception - He is also a crackpot anti-religious nut. On many occasions he writes stuff like "they better not misinterpret this stuff" and goes on about it. He clearly has an axe to grind against religion. When I entered the category "Books critical of religion", however, an editor deleted it. The book is extremely critical of religion. It did not have to be. The author (and his editors) made a conscious decision to print the book in an uncessary polemical fashion. I think the categorization is accurate. Student7 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins can be pretty unrelenting in his anti-religious ways, but simply stating "Don't misinterpret this" doesn't count as criticism. Considering the amount of misinterpretation Dawkins has received from religious groups, he can probably anticipate which of his propositions are liable to attract further criticism. And so in this book, he points these parts out, then explains the concept in greater depth so the idea won't be twisted by religious nuts (or, at least it will be more of a stretch for them to twist it...). Maybe there are other parts where he actually does criticize them (it's been a while since I've read this), but that example isn't criticism. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How accurate is this book anyway? Were chimps actually the most recent to split? Of the possible origins of bipedalism, Darwin's drawing of the chimp becoming human isn't one of them. Orangutans can walk on two legs far better than chimps can. Does Dawkins include recent discoveries such as the ardi?

Also, I thought whales came from carnivorans, not artiodactyles.

166.217.52.56 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Collin237[reply]

I think the way some of the synopsis is framed is a bit strange, eg. "He claims that biological evolution has no privilege line of descent and no designated end." "Dawkins claims that all species are equal."

'Claims' implies these statements are in any kind of dispute. Mcsteez (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Party column

The chart that lists the various rendezvous is very helpful. I think it would be even better if—next to the Joining Party column—there could be a Combined Party column. For example, when the Strepsirrhini join at Rendezvous 8, the Combined Party would be "Primates". I don't have the necessary education to do this myself. Having the names of all these groups would give me the warm fuzzies. 170.94.105.46 (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ancestor's Tale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622021633/http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2004/Nov/hour2_111904.html to http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2004/Nov/hour2_111904.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second edition

The Second edition is revised with updated research and a new rendezvous. I will try to add some updates. How do we note that the article is right now a combination of both editions?--Akrasia25 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished all revisions to reflect that the article is about the second edition. Whew. I started in February 2019. I think that I made 200 edits over 11 months. I had read both editions and there were numerous changes and even some animals had been swapped as new genetic data became known in the 12 years. It is Dawkins longest book at over 800 pages.--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edition change from 9-14

The second edition breaks out the Colugos (9) and the Tree Shrews (10), so Rodents move from 11 to 12, Laurasiatheres to 13, Xenartharans and Afrotheres are NOW combined into 13 so that 14 comes back as the same as Marsupials. I will be making this change over a number of edits.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]