The best
Organic Evolution books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Organic Evolution books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Organic Evolution books:
> i want to see a fosisil of bird with an arm
Why would you want to see such a thing? Evolution doesn't predict one, so what would finding one show you?
Stop listening to idiots like Ken Hamm or whoever convinced you this was a good line of reasoning. It isn't.
I absolutely encourage you to be skeptical about evolution, but it isn't skeptical to just blindly believe anything that seems to support your assumptions. Evolution is really quite simple to understand, and overwhelmingly well supported by the evidence.
If you are genuinely interesting in understanding it, the book Why Evolution is True goes over all the evidence, as well as addresses most of the arguments against it-- including the one you are making here. It might not convince you, but if you read it you will at least be able to make intelligent arguments on the subject, unlike the one you are making here.
Good for you! It's funny that what you're saying can even be understood as a joke, when reading those books should be utterly unremarkable.
BTW, since you seem to be interested in reading about evolution you should definitely check out Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It's the single best popular book I've read on evolution -- clear and well-written, and really makes the case in an irrefutable way. It's worthwhile on its own, but if you're dealing with skeptics it'll also give you plenty of ammunition.
> I understand how you might think this, however, it simply isn’t true.
You are welcome to disagree, but you can't just ask a question here, then blindly assert "that simply isn't true". You need to provide evidence.
> There’s a reason it’s called the “missing link”. It hasn’t been found!
This one one of the most ignorant statements you could make on the subject. Before speaking with certainty about what is or isn't true, you should educate yourself. Stop listening to creationists and actually do some research. I suggest reading the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne for a complete refutation of this argument and pretty much every other argument the creationists throw up. (Disclosure: I know you won't actually read it, but that just shows you don't sincerely want to learn the facts.)
I read,”Why Evolution Is True “ by Jerry Coyne.
It’s an easy read and lays out an argument that I can’t find flaw with.
Only the most obtuse could peruse this scientific aggregate and still try to deny the age of the earth and evolution.
I highly recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It's really easy to read and understand, lays out all the evidence in a very compelling way, and is just generally fascinating. That isn't exactly a deep dive, but it will get you a solid grounding and an introduction to most of the relevant topics. from there you will be better equipped to dive deeper into the various specific topics..
> If you want a good, strong summary of some of the best evidences against Darwinism, I suggest you start by watching Evolution's Achilles Heels, available at creation.com/store. To go into greater detail, read the book.
Got a youtube link for it? It's kind of asking a lot to argue that we don't give your arguments eough respect, then ask me to pay you so you can convince me I am wrong.
But I am curious... Have you ever read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne? Are there any arguments in your video that are not thoroughly rebutted in that book?
Again, you are here arguing that we don't treat your arguments with respect, so you really should treat the arguments on the other side with the same respect. Funny how you have shown throughout this thread that you don't. For someone complaining about how we live in an echo chamber, your arguments have been ridiculously disingenuous.
Edit: And I told you I would review read and respond to your creationist material if you responded to /u/guyinachair's question. You have not done so. Why do you refuse to answer what should be a simple question if your belief is true.
Natural selection is not defined as "survival of the fittest," that's just a colloquialism to help people understand the basic idea. The basic idea is that there is some process by which organisms who are more fit than others will reproduce more often, outcompeting those who are less fit. Natural selection is simply the mechanism that takes genetic mutation and environmental conditions and outputs organisms that succeed. It also outputs organisms that don't, hence the idea of 'out competing.'
I'm on mobile, so here's an ugly link to a good definition and high level overview:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
The phrase "survival of the fittest" reduces the idea down by trimming away the details to make a nice, intuitive catch phrase. However, that loss of information does lead people to misunderstand what natural selection really is.
As for your link, I'll respond with one of my own, if you're interested. I'm not an expert and don't keep the details of evolution handy. The book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne goes into great detail about why the Theory of Evolution does make predictions and that those predictions are testable and verifiable. That will suffice as my rebuttal to Dr. Henry Peters' forced "tautology." After all, wouldn't you rather hear it from an expert than some internet stranger?
There are plenty of other books like Dr. Coyne's that would do just as well, however. I was able to check out his book for free at my local library, but here is the Amazon link ($14), so you have the details:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
You might want to take a look at Why Evolution Is True by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. It's an entertaining, clear, well-written overview--the single best book I've read on the topic of evolution (and in the running for the best popular science book I've read, period). Based on the Amazon reviews of Mayr's book it sounds like Coyne's is the better and more approachable book.
If you like philosophy, consider PHI/HPS 314 Philosophy of Science with Creath. It's a great course, there is zero homework through the whole semester except reading 2.5 books, and they're very easy reads (and one of the books is just excellent anyways, Weiner's The Beak of the Finch). There are 3 tests, which, if you do the reading and just come to lectures most of the time, you'll do fine on them. Creath is a great lecturer, the material is interesting, the reading is good, and it's an upper division HU.
If you're Barrett there's also a discussion component course you can take (HON 394 topic) to get honors credit for the class, and all you do in it is sit around with Creath and a few other students and discuss additional topics.
You should read The Beak of the Finch. It's about two scientists, Rosemary and Peter Grant, who have been studying a population of finches in the Galápagos since the 1970s. They are highly respected in their field. This book would give you a much better understanding of natural selection and evolution, and it's not a hard read. There are also similar, and more recent books, on the same subject. Stephen Jay Gould also explains this well, and he's a really engaging writer.
People study these things rigorously for decades in order to better understand how it all works. It makes much more sense to look at their results and conclusions than to just wonder about these things yourself, without the necessary background.
https://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X
Your description of parasitism is based on its use in sociology, not in biology. This is unfortunate, because in that sense, it is only negative, but in a way that does not track with its comparison to actual biological parasites. It also tends to be used most often by the very people you are criticizing and directed at groups that most need affordable housing.
Parasites do not as a rule, kill their hosts as that would be counter productive. They often provide a survival benefit in excess of whatever resources they are consuming. Some good reading on parasites:
https://www.amazon.com/Parasite-Rex-Bizarre-Dangerous-Creatures/dp/074320011X
Read Why Evolution is True.
>Evolution is the process of "getting something for nothing".
No, this is wrong. You're thinking of abiogenesis, which is also not something from nothing.
Testicles between the legs of bipeds is not a sign of intelligent design. And this is but one of the many design flaws that can be explained by evolution.
Read this: Why Evolution Is True https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143116649/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_R9BFV4FSNT2M5CBZWDE4
>How does intelligence result from an unintelligent process?
Don't know, but it obviously happened.
What is the purpose of evolution?
Evolution is a process, driven by natural and sexual selection, for the purpose of allowing life to reproduce.
Why is life trying to survive and procreate if there is no intention?
Because that's what life does.. Try a strangle a cat with your bare hands and you'll learn pretty quickly why.
Atheists don’t believe in God because the see no compelling evidence for God. I also can't see gravity, but I know it exists.
>I'm not going to believe in common ancestry because I can't see it.
Would have to look at the actual evidence. 🙄
You have a model, and you're trying to make the world fit into your model.
Science looks at data and builds a model, which it refines with new data. Religion, on the other hand, is nearly impervious to new data.
>Yes, evolution takes place over long periods of time, but there are also hard start and stop points.
I'm going to need you to either explain that more fully, or provide evidence for this.
>At one point, one of our ancient ancestors gave birth to the first being
that would meet the biological criteria of being a modern human.
No. This simply isn't true. That's not how any of this works.
>That being was indeed the first modern human, and it was birthed by a non-modern human mother.
What are you basing this on?
> Individual organisms do not evolve into different organisms over the course of their lifetime.
Of course they don't.
>Evolution occurs because sometimes enough genetic mutations occur in a
single organism that when it is born it comes out as a different species
than its parents.
That's simply not true.
The changes accumulate in a population over a long period of time. That population slowly becomes a different species. At any individual point in time, the population looks pretty uniform. Over the course of 100,000 years? You can see the differences emerge.
A mother gives birth to a child of the same species. That child may have some small differences that don't distinguish it as a "different species". Maybe those traits get passed on to subsequent generations. That child grows up, reproduces, and produces children of her own. Maybe that child has further changes in her DNA - but she still looks like the same species as her parents. And on and on, down the genetic line. Everyone looks basically like their parents, and the differences between generations are fairly small.
It's the time that's the key. Evolution, after all, is change over time.
You should read up on the Galapagos finches to get a good idea of how divergence happens in the real world. The Beak of the Finch is a superb read, if a little dated.
Evolutionary Analysis by Herron and Freeman. That was the textbook I used for Evolutionary Biology in undergrad. It sort of the introduces phylogenetics prior to coursework where that information would be applied, eg., Mammalogy, Mycology, Plant Taxonomy, etc.
No. I just know how statistics relate to evolution theory.
You're pretty smart based on your diction. I think you recognize you're not picking angles to come at a pretty self evident concept:
More unvaccinated people lead to a larger breeding pool for a virus to mutate.
I'd recommend "Why evolution is true" if you like a update on how evolution works.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Still it's elephant to elephant and doesn't address the changing kind argument. There's lots of books out there that talk about the evidence of evolution. If you haven't read it already my favorite is Dawkins' "Greatest Show on Earth"
If I may, I think you should read Jerry Coynes book Why Evolution Is True . I think he does a great job of explaining how we, through the scientific method, discovered that evolution through natural selection - aka the theory of evolution - is how life has progressed from a single common ancestor.
If you can, I would recommend reading the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. He looks at both the evidence for evolution, and the most common arguments against it, and shows why the various arguments against evolution fail.
It's extremely readable, and easy to understand. You don't need to have a deep understanding of biology to follow it. I can't recommend it highly enough.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.
Firstly, I really recommend you read this book. It’s beautifully written and helped me so much with my lack of understanding in evolution. I know Dawkins has said some shitty things lately and I absolutely condemn him for it, but I have to appreciate how amazing this book is.
Secondly, even if you could disprove evolution entirely, it wouldn’t get you a single step closer to god being real. Just like the fact the evolution is real, does not in anyway disprove god. They are entirely unrelated.
Yes, logic and Christianity are like oil and water. And speaking of Coyne, you should definitely check out his outstanding book Why Evolution is True, which is in the running for the the best popular science book I've ever read. I can't recommend it highly enough -- you'll not only learn a lot, you'll enjoy it (and Coyne's an atheist who wrote the book in part to lay creationist claims to rest).
Another good book is Steve Stewart-Williams' Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life: How Evolutionary Theory Undermines Everything You Thought You Knew, which looks at the implications of evolutionary theory for various areas of thought but specifically focuses on the (many) ways it undermines theism.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Take a look at this book, and the first preview.
I am having the same opinion about this book for example. It's outdated and those argument are bad and questioned by science now.
His hour plus long videos could be reduced to five minutes without loss of content. They are basically red pill talking points. Those talking points are valid theory and correctly describe female behavior, but man, this stuff was worked out nearly ten years ago by Barbarossa, Stardusk, Colttaine, Black Pigeon, and a few other early mgtow content creators that I can't even remember now.
Hell, most of this stuff was worked out in the 1990s by evolutionary psychologists. My favorite author, Matt Ridley, wrote about these very issues in the late 90s and early 00s in books like The Origins of Virtue and The Red Queen. Most of the red pill was based on the ideas presented in books like this. I wouldn't be surprised if Rollo Tomassi read these books before he started the Red Pill discussion.
The problem with all content creators today, including but not limited to Donovan Sharpe, is that they are just rehashing known principles. There is no new ground being broke. What I want to see are new ideas, new theories, and new revelations. The red pill and mgtow has become stagnant. Maybe there's nothing left to learn, but I don't think so.
> I know it's early age to be teaching evolution but the numerous creationism propaganda has introduced all of that super early and my daughter is an active reader and busy mind so we were up to middle school age textbooks last year.
If you haven't yet you might want to read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne -- a great overview of the various lines of evidence for evolution -- and then share some of the things he mentions with your daughter (e.g. the states of development of the embryo, which evolution explains perfectly but which makes zero sense under creationism). Coyne's an atheist and he specifically wrote the book with creationists in mind, so he has all the information you'd need to counter some of the propaganda she's been fed. And as a bonus I'm sure you'd enjoy it, since it's probably the best popular book on evolution I've ever read.
Good luck!
>I'm just stating my opinion.
In my previous response I said
>Its your right to hate Westerners
I am willing to admit and defend your right to express yourself. You have an absolute right to say what you want.
However, I do not have to accept or be nice about your opinions or ideas. The notion that Muslims accept Evolution, because they are "ignorant and blinded by Western culture" shows the following:
I do not believe that you have honestly done the research on Evolutionary Theory. Here is a 10 second google search that provided an extremely detailed short video by Dr. Ken Miller who is a very religious scientist. This is a systematic break down of Creationism/Intelligent Design and a very detailed explanation of Evolution. Here is a link to The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution on Amazon. It is as cheap as $5. Evolution is central to modern Biology and understanding life. I hope you truly study it instead of ignoring the evidence.
Arguing that Muslims believe, because they are somehow poisoned by "Western culture" not only shows an ignorance of science, but also some sort of hatred for the West.
It has been proven without doubt, if you are a rational person. If you want to doubt, because "God is testing our faith", than no proof will satisfy you.
For more, read
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
You got it. If you want a really good book about it with lots of really great examples I recommend "The Greatest Show On Earth" https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795
>So maybe a book that goes over every point a creationist would have and then counter it with why it isn't true would be good for him.
Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution was a great read and I think it fits that :)