Best products from r/evolution

Sure thing! The great, and not so great, thing about learning about evolution is that there is so much information out there it can be a bit overwhelm at times, and it is not always easy to know where to start. The best place to start it probably a university class, but that is not always an accessible resource. In lieu of that, I will strong recommend learning from biologist Richard Dawkins. While he is currently well-known for his stance on religion, he has devoted his life to teaching about evolution to the public. I'll give you a few of my favorite references of his. They are arranged in terms of the length of time they will probably take you. Also, so that you won't be intimidated, they are not references in which he explicitly denounces religion or anything; although, as you will see, he does explain evolution in contrast to some of the claims of creationism. I hope that is not a problem, as it is kind of necessary to learn why biologists take one view as opposed to the other.

Anyway, here are the references! =)

This video (5 parts, 10 min each) is a great introduction to some of the basic concepts of evolution, and was really eye-opening for me.

This lecture series (5 episodes, 1 hour each) goes into much more detail than the above video, gives much more evidence, illustrates some of the arguments, and has many fun and beautiful examples.

The Selfish Gene is a book that answered a huge number of questions about evolution for me (e.g., how can a "survival of the fittest" scheme give rise to people being nice to each other? The answer, it turns out, is fascinating.)

The The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution May be the book you are looking for. This book clearly lays down the evidence for evolution, complete with wonderful illustrations. It is very detailed, and very readable.


There are many other great authors besides Richard Dawkins, but this is a great place to start. You are about to go on a very beautiful and moving journey, if you decide to take it. I envy you! I would love to do it all over again. Enjoy!

These are some very broad questions, and some (like the age of the Earth) are outside the scope of biology but you are not alone and your questions, unfortunately, are common, especially for those coming from religiously fundamentalist backgrounds like yourself.

> I need to see evidence for myself.

If I showed you a murder weapon, a fingerprint that was lifted from it, and the finger print of a suspect, and you knew nothing about finger prints then the evidence, even in your hands, physically, wouldn't mean much to you. What's far more important than the evidence itself are the inferences we make from it, based on an understanding of how that evidence matters in some investigation. The same is true in biology and other fields of science.

So while you can certainly visit natural history museums and view their collections (like this or this), just seeing specimens won't really give you the whole story.

> Why should I, personally, be convinced that the Earth is billions of years old?

If you care about having beliefs that are true, then you should devote some time to understanding how we know the true age of the Earth, and the many different methods we use to demonstrate that it is indeed very old.

Wikipedia would be a great start:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
  
  As is typically the case, the sources are the the bottom of each page. If you're like me and you enjoy pop-science documentaries, you might enjoy episode 7 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, titled The Clean Room which deals with how Clair Patterson became involved with one of the first accurate methods of dating the Earth, using uranium-lead dating. It does a good job of explaining the basics of radiometric dating, why it's accurate, and why we can trust it the way we trust other scientific processes to give us good answers.
  
  > How can I better understand the Fossil record, which supposedly somehow tells us that humans and dinosaurs were not in the same time period?
  
  You likely already know that sedimentary rocks are formed in layers, with newer rocks being deposited on top of older rocks. So while there are processes that tilt distort rocks, we don't find examples of older rocks being found on top of younger rocks, and we don't find examples of rabbit fossils being in the same layers as velociraptors, for example. A lot of the evidence you're likely to encounter is a variation on this theme: things that happened a long time ago leave evidence that is separate from the evidence from things that happened more recently.
  
  While I've not personally read it, I hear it being recommended by people from fundamentalist backgrounds saying that it helped them: The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood.
  
  > And though I get it as a concept, natural selection has always been confusing to me; I can't see how it would practically happen in real life.
  
  It might be that you're used to thinking on time scales you are familiar with. A billion years is an incredibly long time. An analogy here that is often useful is to think of the entire history of the universe, mapped onto a single calendar year, with 00:00 January 1st being the first meaningful moment after the Big Bang, and December 31st at 23:59:59 being now. In this analogy, our planet did not appear until the first week of September, and the first life appearing sometime around the middle of September. The first amphibians, descendants of lobe-finned fish, appeared around December 22nd, and the first mammals appeared December 26th. Anatomically modern humans appeared about 8 minutes before midnight on Dec 31st. You can see more examples here. I know that for me, this really helps me conceptualise deep time.
  
  Dogs are descended from wolves, and they domesticated themselves beginning a few tens of thousands of years ago. Most of the breeds of dogs you are familiar with appeared only in the last few centuries, through artificial selection. If we can go from wolves to chihuahuas in hundreds or thousands of years, it is not a huge stretch to imagine what natural selection could do over millions of years. And, we have lots of evidence to support this idea.
  
  > Because of the way I was raised, a lot of this sounds like science fiction to me.
  
  The difference between any holy book you'll read, and what we know from science, is that behind the person saying it, there is an answer to the question "how did it happen?" At most, a religious answer will involve some shrugging of the shoulders, and what frankly amounts to "magic".

I will answer, but first let me address this:

> Every time I ask an atheist this question I never get a simple answer.

Two problems:

1. Atheism and evolution are different things. Many atheists believe in evolution, but not all. For example, there are atheists who believe we were seeded on the planet by aliens. Many people who believe in evolution are atheists, but very definitely not all. Some of the most prominent proponents of evolution are Christians. Evolution IS NOT in conflict with Christian views, it is ONLY in conflict with certain, specific interpretations of the bible. This Christian website does a good job of explaining how they are compatible.
   
2. Trying to justify a very complex theory with literally millions of pieces of evidence supporting it with just a single piece of evidence is a fool's errand. No single piece of evidence, in isolation, is enough to justify believing in evolution. But when you look at the overwhelming evidence contained in the entire body of evidence, it suddenly becomes extremely hard to deny.
   
   So I won't try to cite a single piece of evidence. What I will do is cite a particular field that is often overlooked in the discussion: Biogeography.
   
   Note: Simple isn't one sentence. I will simplify as much as possible, but complex topics can't necessarily be stripped down to far.
   
   Biogeography is the study of the distribution of life on the planet. It asks questions like:
   
   

• Why do we find certain types of species-- plants, birds, insects-- native to oceanic island (islands that were never connected to another land mass), but not other species (land mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish)? This is the discovery that first led Darwin to develop his theory. Creationism cannot offer a reasonable explanation for this.
  
• Why are there two types of mammals, marsupials and placentals, but marsupials are exclusively native to Australia (where they make up nearly all native mammals) and the Americas? Why are there are no native marsupials species anywhere in Europe or Asia? (And fwiw, this question is pretty concrete disproof of at least the Noah's flood story)
  
• Why do plants in similar environments tend to have similar traits, yet they can be completely distinct species? For example cacti in the deserts of the Americas and the succulents of the deserts of asia have very similar traits-- a fleshy stem to store water, spines to deter predators, small or non-existent leaves to reduce water loss-- yet the actual plants are biologically very different.
  
  These are just a few sample questions raised by biogeography, but they give you a sense of what is going on. These questions are trivially answered by evolution (plus plate tectonics for #2). For creation, they tend to take some rationalizing. Sure you can just say "god works in mysterious ways", but you can't come up with a good explanation for why an intelligent designer would do these things.
  
  Anyway, this is a super brief explanation of a big (but not difficult) topic. Biogeography as a whole I think is a pretty devastating argument against creationism and for evolution. To really understand it, I highly recommend the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It covers the topic thoroughly, plus pretty much all the other evidence supporting the topic. It is highly readable, easily accessible, and absolutely fascinating.
  
  And I want to repeat this because it is so important: Evolution is not in contradiction with Christianity. You do not have to give up your core beliefs to accept evolution as true. It is ONLY in contradiction with certain readings of the bible, most of which are not based on anything that is clearly stated in the bible.
  
  
  

Here are some books, articles, websites and YouTube Videos that helped me on my journey from a hardcore creationist to a High School Biology teacher.

BOOKS

The Language of God - By Francis Collins ~ A defense of Evolution by the head of the Human Genome Project (Who also happens to be Christian)

Only a Theory - By Ken Miller ~ Another Christian biologist who accepts and vigorously defends the theory of evolution

Your Inner Fish - by Neil Shubin ~ The wonderful story of how Tiktaalik was found

Why Evolution is True - By Jerry Coyne ~ A simple and thorough treatment of evolution written for the mainstream

The Greatest Show on Earth - By Richard Dawkins ~ A wonderful and beautifully written celebration of evolution

The Panda's Thumb - By Stephen Jay Gould ~ A collection of eloquent and intelligent essays written by SJG. Any of his collections would do but this one is my favorite.

ARTICLES

Crossing the Divide - By Jennifer Couzin ~ an article about an ex-creationist and his difficult journey into enlightenment.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - John Rennie ~ a nice rundown of the major objections to evolution.

WEBSITE

An index of Creationist Claims - Via the TalkOrigins archive ~ an impressive index of the major problems creationists have with evolution, as well as good, evidence based rebuttals.

YOUTUBE VIDEOS/PLAYLISTS

Why do People Laugh at Creationsts? - Via Thunderf00t ~ a scathing review of outrageous sins of logic committed by creationists. Thunderf00t's style isn't for everyone, since he can come off as smug and superior

How Evolution Works - Via DonExodus2 ~ a nice and thorough overview of how evolution works

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Via Potholer54

Evolution - Via Qualia Soup ~ short (10 minutes), simple and well made, this is one of my go-to videos to help logically explain how evolution happens.

I'm shocked this is even still a debate in schools... There is no competing theory that does anything close to explaining the natural world as well as evolution.

The debate should be framed not on "pro versus anti evolution" but rather is there any competing theory that can be presented which debunks evolution or better describes the natural world. There isn't, but if there were evolution would be replaced with that theory.

That being said the opposition presumably will advocate for Intelligent Design (I.D.) which is not scientific in the slightest and should be easily debunked with a bit of research. If you have time read this book, it does a wonderful job explaining the nuance of the debate. I read it in college and loved it; never had a second thought about evolution again.

https://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669

If you don't have time these are a couple examples of evidence supporting the theory of evolution I didn't see posted below. Or maybe you could find a synopsis of the book I mentioned.

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/09/13/why-humans-must-eat-vitamin-c/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Science isn't a pro vs anti debate; if that's the debate it's just an excuse to let religion into the classroom. The theory with the most credible evidence which best helps us understand natural phenomena should be the leading Theory. I.D. is not that theory.

Definitely check out these books. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne

It’s may not go as deep as some others but it’s an easy read book that keeps you engaged and is totally worth your time. I love this book so much because it’s very approachable for anyone. It’s filled with easy to understand examples, and I find that it’s a great refresher for myself every now and then. It’s also a great book to give or recommend to others who may not know much about the subject.

As others have mentioned, Darwin’s book is more of a piece of history than anything else. It was absolutely groundbreaking at the time but we know so much more now. Plus, the way it was written definitely shows it’s age and makes it a kind of a hard read.

Ernst Mayer, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have written some decent books broadly covering the evidence for evolution. Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters fits into that general category, and does a good job of outlining the evidence for evolution as well, in particular from a paleontological perspective.




Astrobiologist / Paleontologist Peter Ward has written a ton of fantastic books. I'd start with Rare Earth, which outlines the Rare Earth hypothesis, ie complex life is likely rare in the universe. If you read Rare Earth, you'll come away with a better understanding of the abiotic factors which influence the evolution of life on Earth. If you end up enjoying Rare Earth, I'd highly recommend Ward's other books.




Terra, by paleontologist Michael Novacek describes the evolution of the modern biosphere, in particular from the Cretaceous onwards, and then discusses environmental change on a geological scale to modern environmental challenges facing humanity. It's one of those books which will change the way you think about the modern biosphere, and the evolution in the context ecosystems, as opposed to individual species.




Another book by a paleontologist is When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time, looking at the Permian mass extinction, which was the most catastrophic mass extinction of the Phanerozoic wiping out 95%+ of all species. More focused on the geology than the other books I mentioned, so if you're not into geology you probably wont enjoy it so much.



Biochemist Nick Lane has written some great books. Life ascending would be a good one to start off with. Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life is really excellent as well.




The Origins of Life and the Universe is written by molecular biologist Paul Lurquin. It mostly focuses on the origin of life. It's pretty accessible for what it covers.




Another couple of books I would recommend to people looking for something more advanced are: Michael Lynch's Origins of Genome Architecture, which covers similar stuff to much of his research, although takes a much broader perspective. Genes in conflict is a pretty comprehensive treatment of selfish genetic elements. Fascinating read, although probably a bit heavy for most laypeople.

Not a book, but the overviews on TalkOrigins.org are a good place to start. Just start at the top and work down. It addresses some common theological issues.

You can also look at an index to creationist claims on the site, which has short answers to many points creationists raise, including a section on philosophy and theology.

You also might look at the unrelated biologos and clergy letter project for more theological support for evolution.

As for book, someone already mentioned "Why Evolution is True". Your Inner Fish is also a good place to start. The Greatest Show on Earth is also supposed to be good although I haven't read it.

If you do become interested in debating, or if you just have questions, it would be better to head over to /r/DebateEvolution, which specializes in the issue and has a lot of people very knowledgeable about the subject.

>evolution is based around the fact that existence is random and chaotic.

>random system

Evolution is the opposite of random. It's natural selection, not natural shit happens (no offense). It's a pattern: the things likely to be reproduced are reproduced the most, and there end up being the most of those things, until they completely overpower the others and they're all that's left and they're the new standard. (To answer your questions: The hornier humans made more babies. Then there were more horny babies and humans. Today, all the humans are horny (inclined to mate), to paraphrase.)

We're not naked all the time because it snows. (I'm simplifying, but do you see my point?) Also, culture. That's been around, in anthropological terms, fo eva. (Shyness is something else. This is all extremely complex.)

>And if you take into account that that would accelerate reproduction too much, food supply would diminish and natural selection would kick in.

Looks like you answered your own question there. It's like trees: being taller (mating more) gets them an advantage; but being too tall costs too many resources (we eat too much) and they even out.

I hate to sound insulting, but there are soo many things wrong with your post; you don't understand evolution at all. I think you should read up on it a little. If you're willing to read a book, Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth is amazing. Not only will it give you a wonderful understanding, but it's just a brilliant read, and I plan on rereading it for the fun of it. And I got the tree thing from Chapter 12. (Dawkins explains it much better.)

But if you don't want to read a whole book, maybe find some articles or something.

Anyway, good luck.

You're very welcome. And, yes, you do have to do the double sum, over all possible n_B, good catch!

Why Poisson? There are some biological reasons that it's reasonable (that are currently eluding me) but also because an individual can't have 1.532 offspring. A discrete outcome needs a discrete probability distribution. The poisson happens to be discrete and unbounded, so it fits the bill. A negative binomial or geometric could also work, if you just want to plug in a distribution. It is not, however, inordinately hard to simulate a Poisson RV given the ability to simulate a uniform(0,1) RV.

I wouldn't say that the example is unfair by merit of using the same survival probabilities. There are two ways for an allele/genotype to have a higher fitness than other alleles/genotypes: higher survival and/or higher fecundity. By merit of the way you set up the problem A is already fitter than B. If you want to assign s_A and s_B you can do so as well, the binomial distributions used to calculate the probabilities of n_A and n_B simply change. In general (or at least in a lot of classical population genetics), people abstract away from survival vs fecundity effects and simply talk in terms of relative or absolute fitnesses (the product of survival and fecundity).

Last note: if you're interested in population genetics, it has a very rich theoretical foundation, and you should do some reading on the subject if you're curious. I think you'll find that most problems under the sun have been discussed somewhere at some point. As starting points, Felsenstein has a free and surprisingly comprehensive book available online. Gillespie has a not free and surprisingly concise book. Both are excellent.

Similar story here. I came into the light when I tried to find actual support for Creationism and the Flood several years ago.

Anyway... I highly recommend The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean Carroll. As he says in the foreward: in the US, a person can be convicted and executed using DNA evidence but a majority of its citizens deny the reality of evolution while carrying around the best evidence- in their own DNA.

Carroll does a very good job of entertaining while really helping you grasp the process and timescale of evolution. Lots of good examples for how evolution works and how we know what it did to various species. I listened to the audiobook- great for trips.

There is a "cultural" aspects, but it is not much different from nature where learned behaviour and copying is not so uncommon.

An small and easy example is mate choice copying which can be shown with an simple experiments with guppy fish. Female copy other females choice in mates.

We like other animals learn by observing others, which why it is sometimes common to see a group of people sharing a type or a child having a similar taste as their parent. Also a reason for things like Hollywood and reality TV trends about beauty spreads.

This is just a small example and a good way to getting started could be with an introduction to behavioural ecology

I had an older edition And it might be possible to find an older edition some where with some good googling instead of getting an expensive new one.

The book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne goes over these questions in detail. It talks about the evidence available to Darwin, and the evidence that we have discovered since then.

I listened to the audio book, but it seemed like a nice, accessible book, and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject.

Edit: One of the things that the book covered that I found most compelling was the geographic evidence of evolution, a topic I was not really familiar with previously.

To give one specific example, Marsupials are naturally occuring in only two areas, Australia and the Americas, especially South America. Darwin predicted that when we explore Antarctica, we would find fossil evidence of marsupials there, which was later determined to be true. At some point in history, ice bridges connected these three bodies, and allowed marsupials who naturally evolved in S. America to migrate to Australia (or was it the other way around?). Once the two populations split, they continued to evolve, so the two populations are now distinct species, but dna testing proves that they are very closely related.

I am badly paraphrasing the idea, but that is just one of several very strong arguments that the anti-evolution crowd tends to ignore. You really have to stretch to come up with a explanation for these distributions outside of evolution, so it is easier to just pretend the whole line of evidence doesn't exist.

(Unrelated: Marsupial distribution is also strong evidence against the Noah myth. If Marsupials had been on the Ark, how is it that they were able to travel from the middle east to S. America and Australia without leaving any fossil evidence anywhere along the way?)

I just read it last week. You're pretty well right about. If you're looking for an introductory book which covers evolution, I recommend The Greatest Show On Earth also by Dawkins.

Look, Dawkins is definitely one of the most pedantic authors I've ever read, but his work is strong and arguments are presented very clearly but if the subject isn't what you're interested in, then what can you do. That said, yes the book will contain valuable information that you will gain if you finish it. Any book that has stood as long as the Selfish Gene will leave you with something. But it is an old book. Much of what he says was pretty cutting edge at first edition, but it was released in the 70's (I think). Read the 30th Anniversary Edition if you decide to move forward with it, if not, move on to something that interests you more. It's only a book. It won't get mad.

TL;DR If you don't like it, don't read it.

Kaufmann is fairly well respected in the community of complexity researchers, but his work is veeery abstract. You might find the stuff you read there interesting, but I doubt you'll find anything to sway someone skeptical of the plausibility of non-God-initiated abiogenesis that their skepticism is mainly based on bias.

With that goal in mind, I'm not sure that pursuing the math angle directly is really the best route either (if there actually are any best routes towards that sort of goal). The appeal to mere mathematical plausibility is abstract enough that it's for a person to dismiss that and still maintain that it isn't plausible physically. It would maybe be better instead or in addition to approach the topic of known environmental contexts that make abiogenesis seem like a physically plausible thing to have happened.

From that perspective, I'd say the first couple chapters of Lane's Life Ascending is still one of the better sources out there. It's a very approachable text.

It depends on the area you're interested in specifically. If you liked Dawkins you might like some of his more recent stuff, like The Ancestor's Tale, most of which is still pretty relevant. For genetics Steve Jones is good, Steven Pinker is good for more human-based/psychological stuff. Gould gets touted here a lot - his stuff is quite outdated now, but he does write well.

If you want something more challenging but still readable by the general public, principles of social evolution is an undergraduate-level textbook on social evolution, which in my opinion gives the best overview of recent developments in the kinds of ideas Dawkins talks about in The Selfish Gene (don't pay £80 for it, though). An introduction to behavioural ecology is also up-to-date, exceptionally well-written, and one of the most popular textbooks in evolution/ecology/animal behaviour.

I saw a talk by Richard Prum last week on his book:
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Beauty-Darwins-Forgotten-Theory/dp/0385537212

From what I understand, the idea is that natural selection will always have the final say, in the sense of determining what species continue to exist and which go extinct, but sexual selection can drive evolution to decadence within a species, where decadence is understood as traits selected for their beauty which are maladaptive for generally surviving and getting around. Prum's target position is the idea that beauty is a mere indicator of fitness, where fitness is understood in the Darwinian sense of being matched to one's environment. Sexual selection can drive a species to be unmatched to it's environment, and the evolution of decadence can ultimately lead to extinction.

Most of the books that people are recommending on here are great, especially Jerry Coyne's. If you're going to read Dawkins, his best for explaining the basics of evolution is Greatest Show on Earth. If you want to read a book by a devout Christian who does an outstanding job of explaining evolution, then explains how he reconciles his understanding of evolution with his religious beliefs, try Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. Good luck on your search, and I salute your hunger for knowledge!

The 10,000 Year Explosion answers your exact question.

> Scientists have long believed that the “great leap forward” that occurred some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago in Europe marked the end of significant biological evolution in humans. In this stunningly original account of our evolutionary history, top scholars Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending reject this conventional wisdom and reveal that the human species has undergone a storm of genetic change much more recently. Human evolution in fact accelerated after civilization arose, they contend, and these ongoing changes have played a pivotal role in human history. They argue that biology explains the expansion of the Indo-Europeans, the European conquest of the Americas, and European Jews' rise to intellectual prominence. In each of these cases, the key was recent genetic change: adult milk tolerance in the early Indo-Europeans that allowed for a new way of life, increased disease resistance among the Europeans settling America, and new versions of neurological genes among European Jews. Ranging across subjects as diverse as human domestication, Neanderthal hybridization, and IQ tests, Cochran and Harpending's analysis demonstrates convincingly that human genetics have changed and can continue to change much more rapidly than scientists have previously believed. A provocative and fascinating new look at human evolution that turns conventional wisdom on its head, The 10,000 Year Explosion reveals the ongoing interplay between culture and biology in the making of the human race.

If you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend Dawkins "The Ancestor's Tale." It starts with modern humans, and then it works it's way back through our ancestors (explaining as it goes along when our "cousins" join the family tree; or to put it differently, it explains, in real time (rather than going backwards), our cousins departure from our common ancestor to the place they hold today). It doesn't focus exclusively on hominids or "transitional fossils," but the scope of the book will definitely give you an idea of the mountains of evidence we have for determining our ancestors, our cousins, and our family tree. I'm only about halfway through, but I've enjoyed it quite a bit so far. Take a look at the reviews online, and if it looks good, pick it up.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Evolution/dp/061861916X

Get "The Big Bang" by Simon Singh. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0007162200/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i4

​

This is a fantastic history of astronomy and science, working it's way from the very beginning and explaining what people believed, why it made sense at the time (!) and why we believe something different now. From Ptolemy to Copernicus, Gallileo, Newton, Einstein to Hubble and beyond. It'd be appropriate for the second half of high school, language and complexity wise, I guess. It's seriously the best and most easily accessible primer for layman's interest in modern astronomy.

This is a great resource: Why Evolution is True, Jerry A. Coyne

The easiest way to do this is to present the data with some really great examples in this book, and to argue that it at least looks like life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor.

If you can get them there, then most of the work is done.

If you really become interested in this subject, a really good, easy to read book I enjoyed is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Koyne.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143116649/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1453066607&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70&keywords=why+evolution+is+true+by+jerry+coyne

Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne is a great book on the subject. Keeps it simple while also giving a good survey of evolutionary theory. It gives tons of evidence too.

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin is a good one. It's short, and easy to read, the author has a very friendly, conversational tone. It is primarily focused on human evolution, rather than evolution in general, though.

FREE
(On The Origin Of Species)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1228

KINDLE
(Why Evolution Is True (Jeffrey Coyne)
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-Is-True-ebook/dp/B001QEQRJW/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1368402079&sr=1-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true
(Evolution: What the Fossils say)
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Matters-ebook/dp/B007H9RGOK/ref=pd_sim_kstore_8
(Your Inner Fish)
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-3-5-Billion-Year-ebook/dp/B0010SKTRA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1368402391&sr=1-1&keywords=your+inner+fish

and there's a really good power point you can download here:
https://ssl.cbsd.org/sites/teachers/hs/jucollins/Pages/Evolution-Page.aspx

If you're really interested in the evolution of the human brain and how evolution has shaped our psychology, I suggest reading Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works." It's not a light read, but it's incredibly fascinating.

For a more general look at recent human evolution, I enjoyed "The 10,000 Year Explosion." The authors argue that genetic changes have led to higher than average IQs among European Jews.

Ken Miller wrote a book called Finding Darwin's God, where he does what you're looking for. He starts with young-earth creationism, moves onto old-earth creationism, and then to intelligent design. It's the best book on evolution I've read so far.

> And if your still certain that Evolution is indeed a fact then give solid answers to the following 4 questions:
> 1) Every single living organism at their base level requires 3 things to live, DNA, RNA and Proteins, all of which are co-dependant on one another for existence (DNA needs RNA & Proteins to feed it, RNA needs DNA & Proteins to form it and Proteins needs DNA to form RNA to create it) and if even for a split-second they would cease to exist. How did they come to be?

Lots of work is being done on this. Go to scholar.google.com and start reading. There are many compelling ways life could have initiated.

Also note, you do not understand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory only applies to life forms. At the moment there are many hypotheses about the origin of life. Evolution and the origin of life are different fields. Evolution does not depend on knowing how life started, just that life exists.

If you had read a very basic text on evolutionary theory

https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135

It would be obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

Again, Cambpell's biology is a good place to start for a high school student.

> 2) Sequential Hermaphrodites have the ability to change their gender and thus rearrange their entire biology. How did they evolve that ability? BONUS: Since that ability is generally used to compensate for a missing gender, how did they survive long enough to gain it?

See above. There is a lot known about this from a variety of species. This is also irrelevant to speciation by the way.

Don't forget that most organisms are not sexual. Only a few clever species, mainly Eukaryotes have evolved sex, though some bacteria have mechanisms to exchange genetic information.

> 3) Humans have forced mutations to occur in dogs for over 100 years, however instead of new species being born, the most we got was Inbred Monstrosities suffering from complete Genetic Failure and they were all still dogs. Why didn't the mutations result in a new species?

Populations are mixing, therefore no speciation. Again, you do not understand basic evolutionary theory, nor population biology.

https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135

Explains it all.

> 4) Crocodiles have been around for 200 million years, longer than the dinosaurs, survived multiple Mass Extinction Events, and the only change they've gone through is becoming smaller, and the Coelacanth an ancient species of fish that first appeared 400 million years ago and was though to be extinct yet was discovered to be alive and unchanged from 400 million yrs ago. Why is this the case for them, but not for other species such as Dinosaurs, even though Dino's and Croc's have very similar biology's?

See above. Dinosaurs are having breakfast at your bird feeder. You couldn't have picked worse examples.

Here is another one: https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/extinction/dinosaurs-survive/

CONCLUSION:

You are ignorant.

Yes absolutely. Evolution is a highly mathematic science with a long history of mathematical theory describing how populations change over time. RA Fisher and Sewell Wright were some of the first and many many have followed.

For future reference, only populations can evolve, not individual organisms. Unfortunately most introductory material on evolution doesn't get into the math. I'd recommend this book as a good introduction to the math of evolution, but it assumes some pretty basic knowledge of the concepts of evolution already.

I second the recommendation for Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. Very very good and highly accessible. Then, if you want further detail, go to The Greatest Show on Earth.

We had a discussion about this in the biology interest group of the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science while discussing a paper by Prum. Prum's book makes it clearer.

What do you mean by "natural selection"? Do you define it like Darwin did, so it does not include sexual selection? Or do you define it like the population geneticists do, so it does include sexual selection (sexual selection is also changes in allele frequencies in populations)?

That is why Prum is very careful in how he describes what he calls the Lande-Kirkpatrick null hypothesis. A display trait is "arbitrary" if is doesn't "code" for anything other than what it appears to be: a phenotype that pleases the opposite sex. It is not necessary that any trait any organism has is adaptive in the engineering sense. An arbitrary display trait does help organisms reproduce because potential mates prefer it, but it doesn't do anything other than that. This is more than just a theoretical possibility Darwin, Fisher, Lande, Kirkpatrick, and Prum argue. It actually happens in nature (so Prum argues).

Of course, both natural selection and sexual selection (as defined by Darwin, so these are different) occur. Lande and Kirkpatrick worked out the math of what happens when both operate. There is not necessarily Fisherian "runaway". There can be a line of equilibria along which the display trait and the aesthetic preferences of the opposite sex drift. There is no fitness optimum achieved.

The Greatest Show on Earth

or

The Ancestor's Tale which is a personal favorite of mine although not specifically devoted to evidence arguments. It's just an amazing read through our biological world and along the way the case for evolution becomes overwhelming.

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is a good book that gives counter examples to creationists. It addresses radio-dating, plate tectonics, cool examples of animals, and missing links. Dawkins is a grumpy old atheist, so he may not be your cup of tea.

A really good book to read is The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins

There are two books that I think would be good:

What Evolution Is

Why Evolution Is True

I liked both books. I am not sure how readable they are without a decent understanding of basic biology. Can you tell us how much background you have in biology? That may help with suggestions.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649

Dr. Coyne is amazing. Highly recommend.

Or The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins.

Honestly, the field changes so fast that it'd be hard to have a "comprehensive" text book stay relevant. Most of the time we're reading and discussing academic papers from the past ~5 years, occasionally referencing significant results from further back.

http://www.amazon.com/Population-Genetics-A-Concise-Guide/dp/0801880092 is a good book to start with though to build up a good foundational understanding of how people are thinking about and studying evolution (or at least the people I'm working with), assuming you already have some basic familiarity with population genetic principles.

edit: When starting grad school several years ago, this is the textbook we used for the molecular biology courses we had to take. The degree program I'm in is Computational and Molecular Biology (where students are either in Comp or Mol bio, but there's some overlap in the first semester. I'm in Comp, so most of my coursework is in math/cs/stats), so I can't say what graduate level Evolutionary Biology courses require.

Here you go. It is a full but that details the whole thing without pounding on religion. It is also a good primer on the scientific method.

My kids enjoy this book.

As for dealing with the inevitable stupid god-bothering parents, all I can say is good luck. Because my response would be hostile and the question "why do you want your children to be stupid"?

Which is probably one of the reasons I'm not a teacher.

Myself and my kids really liked this kids book on evolution:

https://www.amazon.ca/Grandmother-Fish-Childs-First-Evolution/dp/1250113237/

Books are better than videos for this. I liked Shubin's Your Inner Fish a lot (better than the TV series, which leaves out too much detail).

You can always insert a link like this

I wouldn't bother arguing with them. It's notoriously difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.

If you're interested in evolution, by all means learn more about it, but do it for yourself. You can start here for an overview:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

http://evolutionfaq.com/

And these books will explain in more depth:

https://smile.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649?sa-no-redirect=1

https://smile.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491?sa-no-redirect=1

https://smile.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925?sa-no-redirect=1

this is also a possibility?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001QEQRJW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135