What is the best book to use as a reference for Physiology subject (M.S Biology)?

Answer 1

I am assuming several things when answering this question. 1) you are enrolled in some type of college/high school physiology course 2) you already have an assigned text book 3) there is a lecture component to this class. In my opinion, as far as physiology class is concerned, there is no such thing as a "good reference book". For anatomy I would reccomend little coloring books or funny little acronym books to remember muscles/nerves/bones/etc., but physiology just uses the knowledge you already posses from anatomy and shows you how everything works and there is really no short way around it. A deep understanding of the text book served me best, also recording the lectures and listening to them numerous times doesnt hurt. The only thing I would have changed if I had to do all thoose Bio classes over again would be to take organic and biochem BEFORE i took these classes, basic chem courses really dont give you a good enough grasp of the subject and then some of what you learn will be lost on you. If you really want a reference book then you can really never go wrong with MOSBY'S...at least thats what ive heard. Alot of med/nursing students use these, but i really prefer the lecture and textbook as that is where the exams come from (you would be suprised how many questions some teachers pull directly from the book).

Answer 2

Either you accept the premise that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, or Jehovah, or Yahweh, or you don't. If you don't accept it, then the biology, geography, etc., errors don't matter, because it is your understanding that you are reading a myth. If you do accept the premise, then you must look at the fact that the living people who physically picked up pen, quill, or stylus and wrote the various parts of it, were (1) writing down information that had been passed down by word of mouth for generations (ever play the party game "Gossip"?), and also (2) filtered through their brains, their existing ideas, knowledges, prejudices, and cultural preconceptions. Suppose for example one of those old sheepherders who was also a rabbi, & therefore in the eyes of his culture qualified to write such things, had heard the story in Genesis from his grandfather, who heard it from the divinely inspired prophet who first received it from God. He decided to write it down. The story described how Noah saved all these animals (giving a list of animal species) from a flood that "extended from horizon to horizon." The rabbi thought, "Wow! Horizon to horizon. That's the whole world. That means Noah had at least a pair of every kind of animal there is in the world today. I'm not going to list all those animals, the way Grandfather would always do when he told the story. That would take too much parchment. I'll just put that Noah took in the Ark at least a pair of every kind of animal. It sounds like it was big enough." Because there are thousands of species our rabbi has never heard of (raccoons, tigers, armadillos, yellow rat snakes, etc., etc.), he doesn't realize he's just described an impossibility. They wouldn't have all fit! The "horizon to horizon" flood was just a local flood covering a few thousand square miles, so there actually wasn't a problem fitting a couple dozen species into the Ark. But since the rabbi knows neither of these things, he never realizes that he has changed Grandfather's account of what the prophet actually said, and introduced an error. See?