Recommended reading for evolution?

[Deeje]

Ah . . . with meaningless smiley faces

No sense of humor.....what is wrong with you people....?

Aren't there enough grumpy old men on this forum already?

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

I think I already said that......and we know science can't prove anything, so why do they give the impression that they can?

We both have a belief system but only one side will admit that its beliefs are based on faith.

Go figure...

 

[Skwim]

There's plenty of video's out there proving that the Earth is flat.

A silly comparison that can be equally applied to videos supporting Christianity. In fact, it's better applied to those videos.

.

 

[Skwim]

Well, there is a rule in science that life can only come from pre-existing life.

Boy, I'm pretty familiar with the biological sciences and can say with certainty that other than mid 19th century science proclamations, I've never heard a reputable modern scientist say any such thing, to say nothing of claiming it's a rule. Care to site your evidence that within modern science this is a rule?


.

 

[Valjean]

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

No, there's not a single one -- zilch, nada, none. Of course, there's no "proof" that the earth is round, either, but there's at least overwhelming evidence.
Yes, there are people posting videos claiming the Earth's flat, but they always have their facts or evaluations of the facts wrong.

Truth, correct knowledge, is a matter of accumulating and evaluating evidence. There's a science to the evaluation of evidence; what is relevant and what is logical.
I get the impression that you don't understand how science works, how scientists think, or how logic works. You seem to lack critical analysis.
In your case, though, as you've already acknowledged that you're not really concerned with objective truth, this is no problem.
But I'm still puzzled by why you keep posting arguments.

 

[Sapiens]

It is , Evolution versus Creationism, but given the nature of the OP, anyone with any class at all and who possessed even an ounce of human decency would treat this thread (and just this thread) as an Evolutionary DIR.

 

[blü 2]

what books can you recommend to me that come back at common creationist arguments with science-based evolutionary ones? Thanks.

It's one of those where-to-begin questions.

And after staring at my library shelf for a few minutes, my recommendation to you is Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything.

I'm recommending it for two reasons. First, Bill Bryson is an intelligent, wonderfully clear writer and a terrific storyteller, and this book is no exception.

Second, it's really a tidy, concise history of our understanding of the earth and life on it and how we gained that understanding ─ an approach that puts everything in context. It covers the origins of the earth, the eons of life, the dawn of modern geology, the discovery of evolution, and for your entertainment, a great deal else as well.

More about it >here<.

 

[sayak83]

It's one of those where-to-begin questions.

And after staring at my library shelf for a few minutes, my recommendation to you is Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything.

I'm recommending it for two reasons. First, Bill Bryson is an intelligent, wonderfully clear writer and a terrific storyteller, and this book is no exception.

Second, it's really a tidy, concise history of our understanding of the earth and life on it and how we gained that understanding ─ an approach that puts everything in context. It covers the origins of the earth, the eons of life, the dawn of modern geology, the discovery of evolution, and for your entertainment, a great deal else as well.

More about it >here<.

It's mostly descriptive though. I prefer popular science books that follow evidence-inference format. That's what makes science more than a just-so story.

 

[blü 2]

It's mostly descriptive though. I prefer popular science books that follow evidence-inference format. That's what makes science more than a just-so story.

Well, yes, but the question is, Where's a good place to start for someone who knows they don't have any of the background.

And Bill Bryson's book suggested itself before my very gaze.

 

[Deeje]

It is , Evolution versus Creationism, but given the nature of the OP, anyone with any class at all and who possessed even an ounce of human decency would treat this thread (and just this thread) as an Evolutionary DIR.

In the interests of balanced information, my "class" and "sense of human decency" prompted me to post some truths that the OP may not be aware of....like the fact that there is no real evidence for macro-evolution. Should that fact be hidden?

The OP may be under the misguided notion that evolution is an established fact by listening to people like yourself, believing that you could not be deluded despite being immersed in that environment for probably most of your life, never even entertaining the other side of the story.....and so I felt it was my duty to provide some balance to their request for information.

As for the "Evolutionary DIR"......you want it treated like a religion? I think we know why....

 

[Father Heathen]

It's adorable when people denounce science just because it conflicts with ancient and primitive fables, yet still have no qualms with using technology or medicine.

 

[Araceli Cianna]

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.

Thanks, but I was raised with all these creationist science books. I'm pretty well versed in all those arguments. I had to study many for my actual science exams in high school. So the problem is my knowledge is already too one sided. I have never been taught evolution. This is exactly why I'm asking.

 

[Araceli Cianna]

It's one of those where-to-begin questions.

And after staring at my library shelf for a few minutes, my recommendation to you is Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything.

I'm recommending it for two reasons. First, Bill Bryson is an intelligent, wonderfully clear writer and a terrific storyteller, and this book is no exception.

Second, it's really a tidy, concise history of our understanding of the earth and life on it and how we gained that understanding ─ an approach that puts everything in context. It covers the origins of the earth, the eons of life, the dawn of modern geology, the discovery of evolution, and for your entertainment, a great deal else as well.

More about it >here<.

Thank you, I was actually wondering whether I should get this book. Many others too that have been suggested. I will start with these

 

[sayak83]

Thanks, but I was raised with all these creationist science books. I'm pretty well versed in all those arguments. I had to study many for my actual science exams in high school. So the problem is my knowledge is already too one sided. I have never been taught evolution. This is exactly why I'm asking.

Also, please know that 99% of all scientists believe evolution to be true. Despite the claims made here, creationism has no credibility in science and among scientists.

Also, if you have specific questions. Please feel free to ask.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the interests of balanced information,

Creationism isn't "balanced" with evolution. The process of evolution is an observed, established, scientific fact.

my "class" and "sense of human decency" prompted me to post some truths that the OP may not be aware of....like the fact that there is no real evidence for macro-evolution. Should that fact be hidden?

That is a lie. Macro-evolution has been directly observed multiple times.

The OP may be under the misguided notion that evolution is an established fact by listening to people like yourself, believing that you could not be deluded despite being immersed in that environment for probably most of your life, never even entertaining the other side of the story.....and so I felt it was my duty to provide some balance to their request for information.

You're not providing balance, you're providing bias by spuriously insinuating about indoctrination and conspiracies. You haven't presented facts, just uncertainties that you spin into narratives.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Take a look at Berkeley universities evolution 101

Welcome to Evolution 101!

Not necessarily arguments but loaded with facts you could lead a discussion with.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

There is no!such rule in science, one guy, Pasteur made a comment base on the understanding and biblical dogma of 150 years ago. And ever since creationists consider it a rule... Not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Actually based on contemporary science there are explanations of how abiogenesis is not only possible, but how it occurred. There are many questions that have yet to be answered, but 'Arguing from Ignorance,' and a religious agenda reflects a serious problem of voluntary (or involuntary?} cognitive dissonance.

 

[shunyadragon]

A silly comparison that can be equally applied to videos supporting Christianity. In fact, it's better applied to those videos.

.

I think flat earthers prove their hypothesis one square yard at a time.

 

[Polymath257]

OP: it all depends on the depth you want to go.

If you want a lay-person's understanding, go for the popular books by Stephen J Gould. Gould was a noted biologist and was one of the originators of the Punctuated Equilibrium model for evolution.

You might also want to look at 'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin.

If you want specific questions answered, others have provided links that can help.

At the next level up, I could suggest 'Embryos, Genes, and Evolution' by Raff and Kaufman. It might be good to have some biology background first, but I don't think it is absolutely required.

If you want to go deeper, the first step is a decent biology textbook. It is good to know and understand the diversity of life and some of the commonalities. Also, learning how biologists classify things is a good thing for deeper investigation.

After that, you can go to texts that are more specific for any particular question you have. Genetics is a good place to go, as is a good zoology or botany book. And, of course, paleontology is good to learn the history of life on Earth.

And, of course, the next step is to look at research papers. A university library is necessary for this, although you can get some online and not through a paywall. To read professional papers, on the other hand, you *must* know the standard terminology and the basics provided in the textbooks.

Good luck! There is a LOT to learn and plenty of levels at which you can learn it. And, if you have questions, just ask.

 

[shunyadragon]

Creationism isn't "balanced" with evolution. Evolution is an established, scientific fact.

Careful with the use of the word 'fact,' because using it this way it is a trip wire of an IED for Creationists, and not really accurate. It is best to use facts as properly defined as pieces of objective verifiable evidence that support science in this case the science of evolution

It is best to say that the science of evolution has been falsified 'beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no comparable hypothesis that can explain the evidence.