From questions about the ozone layer to concerns about endangered species to controversies over new drug treatments, scientific matters demand our attention daily. For all those who want to learn the "whats, hows and whys" behind the headlines, here are 1001 things everyone should know about science. 10 photos; 20 line drawings.
FREE Two-Day Shipping for Students. Learn more |
Book Description
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Sharks Have No Bones,
By Elizabeth Honeycreek (Montana) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Sharks Have No Bones: 1001 Things Everyone Should Know About Science (Paperback)
I have owned this book for a number of years. I keep it in the bathroom and pick it up at least a few times each week. I always learn something new or remember something I'd forgotten. I would love to see this book re-released in a new edition, though most of it will never get old.
The format makes it very easy to read in short sittings or to extend as interest warrants.
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Encyclopedic science and technological review,
By A Customer
This review is from: Sharks Have No Bones: 1001 Things Everyone Should Know About Science (Paperback)
Written for even the casual reader on scientific matters, this volume filters out the redundant and the superfluous, wrings the waste from scientific understanding and allows the reader to digest information in intellectual mouthfuls, rather than being goose-fed with more than can be understood. Exceptionally appropriate volume for secondary students as a supplement to cultural literacy studies. Easily implemented for gifted students.
2.0 out of 5 stars
ok but flawed with evolution garbage,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Sharks Have No Bones: 1001 Things Everyone Should Know About Science (Paperback)
Most of the book is OK but heavily flawed most particularly regarding the subject of evolution. The author often gives his biased editorial opinion and leaves out essential facts, which if known, would change one's whole perspective. For example, item 421: Trefil points out, correctly, that visible light "is only one of many different kinds of electromagnetic radiation, occupying a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum . . ." But then he says, "This is just another reminder of the relatively unimportant role the Homo sapiens plays in the grand scheme of things." This, my friend, is editorial opinion, not fact. I could just as well give you my editorial opinion that the above fact reminds us of just how special humans are to have been created to use a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It's all a matter of perspective. Isn't it? Editorial opinion is one thing, but cleverly (or ignorantly) leaving out facts is much more serious. For example, item 187: He mentions the Stanley Miller experiment in 1953 which supposedly proved that amino acids could form naturally to become building blocks of proteins in living things. He fails to mention a few vital details: 1) Miller produced only a few of the twenty needed amino acids to make a protein. 2) Miller produced a mixture (racemic) of left and right handed amino acids, when in fact only left handed amino acids are a basic building block of proteins in living organisms. All subsequent experiments have demonstrated the same thing. No one has ever been able to produce only left handed amino acid through natural means! And left handed amino acids do not separate themselves from a racemic mixture through natural means either. 3) Miller rigged the device in his experiment to get the desired result of squeezing out this racemic. He used special tubing and a trap to siphon off and catch harmful elements that he knew would destroy the amino acids faster than they would ever be produced. If anything, his experiment and all subsequent experiments proved just how impossible it would have been for natural means to have produced even this racemic mixture (which, remember, is still insufficient, because you need pure left handed amino acids, not a racemic mixture) . It proved the very opposite of what he wanted to prove. It proved the Law of Biogensis, life comes from life, not from nonlife! These aren't editorial opinions. These are facts. Do you think that maybe people ought to know these facts in order to form educated opinions? I do. Trefil himself speaks of the Law of Biogenesis (without calling it that) in items 92, 93, and 94. So why does he conveniently forget about it here? Another example (I could list many): Item 186: It sets the author's teeth on edge when creationists remind him that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy) is incompatible with evolution. First, he tells us that this law of science does not apply to us here on terra firma, because the earth does not constitute an isolated system. This is pure bunk! First, it could be argued that the whole universe is an isolated system. Second, where do you suppose the Second Law of Thermodynamics was discovered and is observed? That's right, right down here on earth, not in fantasy land or on some remote corner of outer space. If this law of science doesn't apply here, it applies nowhere. Third, it's wrong to say that the Second Law applies only to isolated systems. It applies to all systems. It might take longer for an "open system" to wear down, but it will wear down with time. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine! Further, the examples the author gives does not at all support his case. To support the old "open systems" argument, he uses what I call the old "sunshine argument," the idea that the earth is not an isolated system because it has an outside supply of heat energy from the sun. Besides the fact that the sun is itself wearing down daily (a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics), Trefil fails to mention that sunshine destroys everything it comes into contact with. Sunshine (random heat energy) actually increases and speeds up entropy on earth. The only exception to this is when a highly complex mechanism such as photosynthesis captures sunlight and converts it to useable energy. But this begs the question: Where did photosynthesis come from? It cannot be produced in a laboratory or by natural means. So where did it come from? Organisms that use sunlight positively (i.e. slowing down the effects of the second law and turning it into useable energy) are examples of intelligent design mechanisms, not evolution. All that we have ever been able to observe is that only by a highly ordered intelligent ordering of energy can the ravages of entropy be slowed and harnessed. The problem with the ages-old "open system" argument is that "evolutionists confuse quantity of energy (of which there certainly is enormous amounts sent us from the sun) with conversion of energy" The Evolution Handbook(The Evolution Handbook, pg. 789, Vance Ferrell). The second example the Trefil uses to support his case, making ice cubes, does the same thing and is just as ridiculous and is just as much of a red herring argument. Does he not see that "using energy from your local utility" is a testimony of intelligent design? Local utitlities do not build themselves! No one with a brain could deny that things like water can become "more ordered" (be turned into ice cubes). The question remains, what is the highly ordered mechanism that temporarily averted entropy? And in the final analysis, the ice cube, if left to it's own devices will melt (go to a lower from of heat energy). The author fixates on "balancing the books" of energy. This has more to do with the First Law of Thermodynamics, not the Second. The First Law says that amount of energy remains constant. The Second Law says that everything is wearing down to a lower form of heat energy. And finally, "But even if `open systems' negated the Second Law, there could still be no evolution. The problem is how would the sun's energy begin and sustain evolutionary devolopment? How can sunlight originate life? How can it produce a living cell or a living species? How could it change one species into another one?" (Ibid, p. 179). Another example: Item 185: Trefil claims that creationism cannot be an "alternate `science'," because it can never be proven wrong, in other words, be falsified. Unfortunately, he is blind in recognizing that this is exactly true of the evolution hypothesis! Evolution can never be disproved. Whenever an "unexpected" finding comes along that contradicts the fairy tale, it gets simply labeled as an "anomaly" and forgotten. Meanwhile the fairy tale goes on and on like the Energizer Bunny. What experiment could ever disprove evolution under these circumstances? This only goes to prove that evolution is every bit as much of a "religious teaching" as creationism. Therefore, in the tradition of the pot calling the kettle black, what Trefil accuses creationists of doing--using the "tactic" of calling creationism an "alternate science" as a "roundabout way of introducing religious teaching into the public schools"-is exactly what evolutionists are doing. Evolution is a back door approach for introducing religions like Humanism and Athiesm (anything but Christianity) into classrooms! If you're looking for an example, let me give you one: In March of 1979, the Voyager I space probe gave us spectacular photos of Jupiter's moons, including Io. Io was seen to have at least sixty active volcanoes. According to the laws of physics, volcanic activity on Io should have ceased long ago if in fact the solar system were billions of years old. This was labeled as an "anomaly." Meanwhile the fairy tale that the solar system is billions of years old is still loudly proclaimed as if nothing was found! Many more examples like this could be cited not only in astronomy but in all fields of science! Why doesn't Trefil mention any of this? Is he interested in the truth or that we get brain washed with just one side of the story. Another example, item 169: Trefil perpetrates the age old myth that "It is impossible to understand the modern biological sciences without understanding evolution." Of course, this self serving presupposition is exactly what you would expect if someone were feeding you a one sided line of bull and not wanting you to think or see outside of the box. Too many evolutionists live in this self imposed bubble, and obviously Trefil is one of them. He might want to get out more and face reality. Dr. David Menton, a distinguished professor who not only taught medical science for decades at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, but wrote the textbook, would certainly beg to differ. Saying that you can't understand science without evolution is like saying you can't understand geology without believing in a flat earth. Trefil's statement is just further evidence that evolution is a religion that could never be disproved scientifically. Evolutionist Francis Crick appears to have expressed his own cognitive dissonance and inner struggle between seeing biology through the rose colored glasses of evolution versus trying to be unbiased: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust... Read more ›
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
