Recommended reading for evolution?

[Araceli Cianna]

I was raised with Creationism at a religious school and that's all I know, but I haven't believed the doctrine in years. It never really bothered me much that I didn't really know the science behind evolution before, but now I have a preachy person in my life and I'm hearing arguments that I feel are wrong but I don't know why they're wrong (e.g. I have no knowledge of the science to back it up). Not for the sake of debate with said person but more for my own peace of mind, what books can you recommend to me that come back at common creationist arguments with science-based evolutionary ones? Thanks.

 

[sun rise]

This does not directly answer your request, but I found this article very fascinating

Tracing the tangled tracks of humankind's evolutionary journey

 

[YmirGF]

I found The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins to be literally enlightening.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not a fan of the adversary approach to fundamentalist Creationism I advocate getting a good knowledge in the basics of science, and the philosophy of Methodological Naturalism. Also, a knowledge of the nature of the logical arguments used by Creationists. The most common is the 'Argument from Ignorance' claiming science does not know . . . therefore . . .

An interesting read concerning the geologic history of the earth documenting the step by step evidence One thing this texts does is document the history of glaciation in earth's history, which is something that is lacking in the Bible and Creationist argument for a Biblical Creation. Glaciations is the specialty of Tjeerd H. Van Andel, the author, It is an older text, but deals well with global warming.

Van Andel, Tjeerd H., 1985, New Views of an Old Planet Cambridge Univ. Press UK.


.

 

[Skwim]

Here's a brief video explaining evolution, although it does contain some misleading remarks.

The illustration of speciation using dogs is deceptive. All dogs belong to a single species, in fact, the very same species as wolves, their progenitors, Canis lupus.

The video also suggests that evolution is purposeful, as if it had an agenda or goal. It does not.​

​

Here is a far longer (1:52) video on evolution.

.

.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was raised with Creationism at a religious school and that's all I know, but I haven't believed the doctrine in years. It never really bothered me much that I didn't really know the science behind evolution before, but now I have a preachy person in my life and I'm hearing arguments that I feel are wrong but I don't know why they're wrong (e.g. I have no knowledge of the science to back it up). Not for the sake of debate with said person but more for my own peace of mind, what books can you recommend to me that come back at common creationist arguments with science-based evolutionary ones? Thanks.

Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins is a good introduction to how the idea of "irreducible complexity" is a load of nonsense.

Stephen Jay Gould's stuff is really good, too. I think Dinosaur in a Haystack is the one where he goes through the transitional fossils in whale evolution.

Speaking of Gould, his last book, Full House, is awesome for completely shattering the paradigm that the history of life is a "ladder of progress" at all.

All of these books are decades old so they're quite dated now, but they're still good introductions to the topics they cover. You may just want to supplement them with some Googling to see what advancements have been made since they were written.

 

[Sapiens]

I think Dawkins' best layman's book is The Ancestor's Tale.

Your best source for countering creationism claptrap is:

The Talk Origins Archive:


An Index to Creationist Claims
edited by Mark Isaak

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's New page for the latest changes.

Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.

This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information. These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.

The Complete List
Links to Main Sections

• CA: Philosophy and Theology
• CB: Biology
• CC: Paleontology
• CD: Geology
• CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
• CF: Physics and Mathematics
• CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution
• CH: Biblical Creationism
• CI: Intelligent Design
• CJ: Other Creationism

Expanded Outline

• CA: Philosophy and Theology
  • CA000: Ethics
  • CA100-CA499: Epistemology
    • CA100: Foundation of Knowledge
    • CA200: Theory of Science
    • CA300-CA499: Scientific Method
  • CA600: Theology
• CB: Biology
  • CB0: Abiogenesis
  • CB100: Genetics
  • CB200: Molecular Biology
  • CB300: Physiology and Anatomy
  • CB400: Behavior and Cognition
  • CB500: Botany
  • CB600: Ecology and Population Biology
  • CB700: Developmental Biology
  • CB800: Systematics
  • CB900: Evolution
• CC: Paleontology
  • CC0: Physical Anthropology
  • CC200: Transitional fossils
  • CC300: Fossil Record
  • CC400: Methodology
• CD: Geology
  • CD0: Geochronology
  • CD100: Geological Column
  • CD200: Sedimentation
  • CD300: Evaporation
  • CD400: Glaciation
  • CD500: Mountain Building
  • CD600: Erosion
  • CD700: Geophysics and Plate Tectonics
  • CD800: Climate Change
• CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
  • CE000: Earth
  • CE100: Moon
  • CE200: Planets and Solar System
  • CE300: Sun and Stars
  • CE400: Cosmology
• CF: Physics and Mathematics
  • CF000: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory
  • CF100: First Law of Thermodynamics
  • CF200: Radiometric Decay
• CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution
  • CG000: History
  • CG100: Linguistics
  • CG200: Folklore
• CH: Biblical Creationism
  • CH000: Biblical Creationism Generally
  • CH100: Biblical Accuracy
  • CH200-CH799: Young Earth Creationism
    • CH200: Age of the Universe
    • CH300: Death and the Fall
    • CH350: Created Kinds
    • CH400-CH599: Flood
    • CH700: Miscellaneous Young Earth Creationism
  • CH800: Day-Age Creationism
  • CH900: Geocentrism
• CI: Intelligent Design
  • CI000: ID as Science
  • CI100-CI199: Detecting Design
  • CI200: First Cause.
  • CI300: Anthropic Principle.
  • CI400: Meta-arguments
• CJ: Other Creationism
  • CJ000: Vedic Creationism
  • CJ200-CJ499: Native North American Creationism
  • CJ500-CJ699: Islamic Creationism

Most of the web site is available in book form as The Counter-Creationism Handbook, from Greenwood Publishing Group. The book also contains an introduction on countering creationism, illustrations, and an index.

 

[siti]

I was raised with Creationism at a religious school and that's all I know, but I haven't believed the doctrine in years. It never really bothered me much that I didn't really know the science behind evolution before, but now I have a preachy person in my life and I'm hearing arguments that I feel are wrong but I don't know why they're wrong (e.g. I have no knowledge of the science to back it up). Not for the sake of debate with said person but more for my own peace of mind, what books can you recommend to me that come back at common creationist arguments with science-based evolutionary ones? Thanks.

If its evidence for evolution you need then I reckon the best of Dawkin's books would be The Greatest Show on Earth

 

[Valjean]

There are whole libraries on evolution and its various components right here on the web.
For a large, comprehensive collection of evolution-related subjects, that you can spend hours (days!) browsing through, I recommend: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Warning: It's big; a virtual library.

For a clear, interactive, easy to understand yet pretty comprehensive course on evolution, mechanisms, &c, with lots of pictures, this is great: Welcome to Evolution 101!

You tube is also full of thousands of evolution related videos. Some are quite good.
Try the Crash Course series. Here's one of them, specifically discussing evolution in general. There are dozens more focusing on individual aspects of evolution and Biology in general, if this one piques your curiosity:

Another pretty good You Tube series is Stated Clearly. Here's an intro:

 

[sun rise]

Another approach is to know about Christians who accept evolution. Here's one starting point The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist

 

[Deeje]

There are whole libraries on evolution and its various components right here on the web.

This has all be hashed and rehashed before....

Let's take your first video on the "Crash Course" series....

Like all pro-evolutionary propaganda, you see the things that are provable put up to mask the things that are not.

"Adaptation" is a known scientifically provable fact that some call "micro-evolution"....that is what is highlighted as "evidence" in both of these videos, whist it is only a "suggestion" that "macro-evolution" is somehow possible because they can see small adaptive differences in creatures of the same taxonomic family. This is taken to mean that one species of creature 'can' eventually become an entirely different species of creature, given enough time, but this is not backed up by real evidence....it is pure suggestion masquerading as evidence. It might sound convincing until you really listen to what is NOT said. (read between the lines) Identify a suggestion from a fact.

The truth of the matter is, there is no actual proof that 'macro-evolution' ever happened or is even possible. Every assumption is based on what "might have" or "could have" happened.....not on provable fact. Evolution is, as the fellow said..."a large set of ideas"...not one of them is a fact.

Whale evolution for example is a joke. They find different creatures millions of years apart with similar body structure and make these wild claims of relationship based on nothing but conjecture...or something as flimsy as an ear bone.

Darwin's finches and tortoises and iguanas on the Galapagos Islands were all clearly of the same "family" as their mainland cousins. They had not become different creatures altogether. This was adaptation, not evolution.

In their haste to accept all things "scientific" (humanity's preferred substitute for religion) I believe that a willing gullibility along with a great desire to get rid of an Intelligent Designer has warped the perceptions of a great many people to the point of blindness. Cognitive Dissonance is alive and well in the world of science, especially when the "evidence", though claimed to be "overwhelming" is nothing of the sort.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I honestly did enjoy Richard Dawkins in his book: The Greatest Show on Earth. He has a good sense of humor- if you can identify with his kind of humor.

You can find a YouTube series that pretty well explains evolution, but I forget what it's called. Would you like some of the details of evolution and it's evidences that I remember?

I will say that the evidence of evolution is so concrete and immense- only someone looking to justify scripture literalism would deny it, from sheer bias.

 

[shunyadragon]

This has all be hashed and rehashed before....

Let's take your first video on the "Crash Course" series....

Like all pro-evolutionary propaganda, you see the things that are provable put up to mask the things that are not.

"Adaptation" is a known scientifically provable fact that some call "micro-evolution"....that is what is highlighted as "evidence" in both of these videos, whist it is only a "suggestion" that "macro-evolution" is somehow possible because they can see small adaptive differences in creatures of the same taxonomic family. This taken to mean that one species of creature 'can' eventually become an entirely different species of creature, given enough time, but this is not backed up by real evidence....it is pure suggestion masquerading as evidence. It might sound convincing until you really listen to what is NOT said. (read between the lines) Identify a suggestion from a fact.

The truth of the matter is, there is no actual proof that 'macro-evolution' ever happened or is even possible. Every assumption is based on what "might have" or "could have" happened.....not on provable fact. Evolution is, as the fellow said..."a large set of ideas"...not one of them is a fact.

Whale evolution for example is a joke. They find different creatures millions of years apart with similar body structure and make these wild claims of relationship based on nothing but conjecture...or something as flimsy as an ear bone.

Darwin's finches and tortoises and iguanas on the Galapagos Islands were all clearly of the same "family" as their mainland cousins. They had not become different creatures altogether. This was adaptation, not evolution.

In their haste to accept all things "scientific" (humanity's preferred substitute for religion) I believe that a willing gullibility along with a great desire to get rid of an Intelligent Designer has warped the perceptions of a great many people to the point of blindness. Cognitive Dissonance is alive and well in the world of science, especially when the "evidence", though claimed to be "overwhelming" is nothing of the sort.

Phfffft! Plop!

 

[Phantasman]

Here's a brief video explaining evolution, although it does contain some misleading remarks.

The illustration of speciation using dogs is deceptive. All dogs belong to a single species, in fact, the very same species as wolves, their progenitors, Canis lupus.

The video also suggests that evolution is purposeful, as if it had an agenda or goal. It does not.​

​

Here is a far longer (1:52) video on evolution.

.

.​

There's plenty of video's out there proving that the Earth is flat. In great detail, I might add.

Life goes on. I happen to love Sam's Choice Donut Shop coffee. Can't beat it for $3.88. Saying that, is Starbucks the best? Jamaica Blue Mountain or Kona.

 

[Deeje]

Phfffft! Plop!

And there is your "overwhelming evidence" right there....

 

[Phantasman]

Understanding tRNA is the key. Many scientists do not believe that it just could have "came together".

"Nowadays DNA needs proteins in order to form, and proteins require DNA to form, so how could these have formed without each other? The answer may be RNA, which can store information like DNA, serve as an enzyme like proteins, and help create both DNA and proteins. Later DNA and proteins succeeded this "RNA world," because they are more efficient.

RNA still exists and performs several functions in organisms, including acting as an on-off switch for some genes. The question still remains how RNA got here in the first place. And while some scientists think the molecule could have spontaneously arisen on Earth, others say that was very unlikely to have happened. Other nucleic acids other than RNA have been suggested as well, such as the more esoteric PNA or TNA."

Origin-of-Life Story May Have Found Its Missing Link

The question becomes, is research exposing the possibility of something higher than we can understand that started the cause and effect of life? And again, another split of opinions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I was raised with Creationism at a religious school and that's all I know, but I haven't believed the doctrine in years. It never really bothered me much that I didn't really know the science behind evolution before, but now I have a preachy person in my life and I'm hearing arguments that I feel are wrong but I don't know why they're wrong (e.g. I have no knowledge of the science to back it up). Not for the sake of debate with said person but more for my own peace of mind, what books can you recommend to me that come back at common creationist arguments with science-based evolutionary ones? Thanks.

Wouldn't you agree that hearing both sides of the issue would be advantageous ? Because there are scientists who support ID, with science.

So after you read the information mentioned above, you should honestly consider Dr. Stephen Meyer's "Signature In The Cell"; "Darwin's Black Box", by Prof. Michael Behe; and "Undeniable", by Biologist Douglas Axe. "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, is enlightening, as well. IMO.


Just be open-minded.

Take care.

 

[sayak83]

I was raised with Creationism at a religious school and that's all I know, but I haven't believed the doctrine in years. It never really bothered me much that I didn't really know the science behind evolution before, but now I have a preachy person in my life and I'm hearing arguments that I feel are wrong but I don't know why they're wrong (e.g. I have no knowledge of the science to back it up). Not for the sake of debate with said person but more for my own peace of mind, what books can you recommend to me that come back at common creationist arguments with science-based evolutionary ones? Thanks.

Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" provides an excellent overview of the evidence for evolution. Brilliant writing.
Greatest Show On Earth The Evidence For Evolution : Richard Dawkins (Author) : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Also a very nice book on how your own body evolved over time from our fish ancestors. "Your inner fish" by Shubn. Very cheap in Kindle version. Highly recommend.
https://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-F...p/B002RI9392/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

 

[shunyadragon]

And there is your "overwhelming evidence" right there....

Just waiting for you to present a coherent argument without a religious agenda, and considering science for what it is, and without the recorded repeated response over and over and over again, and over . . .

Ah . . . with meaningless smiley faces

Just for your information, nothing is proven in your world nor mine, and especially science fortunately does not prove anything,

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Well, there is a rule in science that life can only come from pre-existing life. Then they turn around and say the first living thing had to come from non-living matter. And no one wants to explain how this is possible. Both cannot be true but science refuses to admit any other possibility.