(Part 3) Best books about evolution according to redditors
We found 783 Reddit comments discussing the best books about evolution. We ranked the 273 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
You said in another comment below that others were treating you as a troll or an idiot. I don't think that's necessarily the case: many of us are just trying to present the facts, and may be a little bit frustrated due to how YECs typically react. For example, my earlier comment about how creation science does not count as science, and how Geocentrism is incorrect, I did not set out to treat you like an idiot (and if I did, I'm sorry). I did treat you as ignorant, which isn't as bad as it sounds. I'm ignorant to a lot of things. Everyone is. But I love to learn, because I love to expand my knowledge.
Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can't. We encounter wilful ignorance a lot, and it gets very frustrating, so that colours what we say.
If you're genuine about your desire to learn more, I'll drop some suggestions for further inquiry. Some of the language may be abrasive, but please keep an open, skeptical mind:
I'll give you fair warning on this next one: it may have a profound effect on you. At the very least, it will help you understand our philosophical position better as atheists.
For reading:
Hopefully that gets you started.
I've read so many books that I honestly cannot say that any particular one is the most important. However, here's a list of really good ones:
I've read so many more books than that. Since these are the only ones that I can think of off the top of my head, I'd say that they are the ones that have made the biggest impression from reading them.
Maybe Kenyans from their mountainous regions, but you can't generalize about Africans. Think the pygmies are fast runners? Genetically it's the most diverse continent in the world. Obama's Kenyan father is just as likely to be closer related to white Europeans than the west African ancestors of African-Americans. East-Asians and Europeans are closer related than even some African tribes in the same general region. Source or this.
You might as well say mammals are great at climbing trees.
Oh yeah, there's a ton of stuff out there about natural selection (and evolutionary theory more broadly). You might want to start with the SEP entry on natural selection, which will give you a feel for some of the issues. Beyond that, here are a few things I'd recommend reading:
That should give you some pretty solid places to start reading. I've read all of those things, and I'm pretty comfortable recommending each of them as worth your time.
"Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne (who is also a doctor) gives a pretty comprehensive and concise account of all the evidence for evolution from fossils to genetics. Amazon link here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0199230854
I'm sure you're trying to troll here, but let me take your question seriously.
Here's a selection for your convenience:
There's certainly discrimination in academics. I've been reading this book about the problems with evolutionary theory, and it contains many examples of prejudice against the idea of Intelligent Design. The funny thing is they don't even bring religion into the discussion for 99% of the book.
I'd also like to quote what the Apostle Paul said about suffering persecution:
1 Corinthians 4:9-13:
>To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment.
2 Timothy 3:10-13:
>You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
Stand strong no matter what may come. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. -Philippians 1:21
The gold standard in emergency medicine is Tintinalli's (https://www.amazon.com/Tintinallis-Emergency-Medicine-Comprehensive-Internal/dp/007179476X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504698322&sr=8-1&keywords=emergency+medicine+study+guide) although it is a massive book both in size and in depth.
Physiological medicine (https://www.amazon.com/Physiological-Medicine-Clinical-Approach-Physiology/dp/0070381283/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504698440&sr=1-1&keywords=%22physiological+medicine%22) is amazing.
Pathophysiology of Disease is also good (https://www.amazon.com/Pathophysiology-Disease-Introduction-Clinical-Medicine/dp/0071806008/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504698512&sr=1-1&keywords=pathophysiology+of+disease).
>I need some genetics books for dummies
What about literally Genetics for Dummies? It's from 2010 so won't cover more recent advances but will give a clear overview of the basics.
I borrowed a few from this range from a friend as an undergrad studying medicine (biochemistry and physiology IIRC) and they were good. Once you get the basics, you can usually then start to read some of the undergrad level textbooks (which are never the easiest things to read cover to cover!).
For strength training, Easy Strength by Pavel and Dan John. There is something in there for anybody.
For cardio training, it's not a book, but Lyle McDonald's series on methods of endurance training, also pretty much anything by Joe Friel.
For diet, Ruhlman's Twenty. It's not about nutrition, but it can teach you all the techniques you need to cook your own healthy (and on occasion not so healthy) foods so that you won't be tempted to go off the reservation and order a double deluxe pizza and chili fries when you don't know what else to eat.
Edit: For something very sport specific, there's also Jiu-Jitsu University by Saulo Ribiero and Kevin Howell. It's pretty much the beginning BJJ bible.
I can’t say I’m a fan of Kent Hovind, and I’ve never heard of Ian Juby - tho I’ll reserve judgement until I check it out.
Personally I’m a fan of Dr. Jay Wile and Todd Wood, and many of the papers published by BIO-Complexity which was edited for a long time by Matt Leisola who wrote the excellent book Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design.
I'm an MD in emergency medicine. Here is a broad list of things to choose from since your post is somewhat vague and I don't know your educational background from general public education (top of list) down to ultra detailed pathology textbooks and texts designed for specific specialties (which is like 12-16 years after high school)....
If you can give me an idea if any of this is near what you're looking for, I can expand that area x 10 easily. Off the top of my head:
1)There is a group who has created what is essentially some of the first medical podcasts and has grown into a massive platform. The original creator has since created a fairly casual podcast called "this won't hurt a bit" - it's an "edutainment" podcast around medical stuff.
http://www.wonthurtabit.com/season-one
2) This is a human physiology textbook (but kind of applies to animals as well), it's basically like a middle-college/university level knowledge base and provides fundamentals of how the body works, I actually used a version of this in my 2nd year of college in a class full of pre-med/vet/biomed researchers
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Human-Physiology-Lauralee-Sherwood/dp/0840062257/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2B3Q8XWOX2KJ2&keywords=fundamentals+of+physiology+sherwood&qid=1566022964&s=gateway&sprefix=sherwood+fundamental%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1
​
3) If you're looking for a 1st/2nd year medical student level information in video review format (this is like a review format of the text below in #4):
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-oN4AbdB4jdbFVCHMSrxNg/videos
​
4) If you're looking for seriously intense detail at a medical school level (this would be seriously overkill and probably difficult to digest without a college background but you mentioned textbook that goes into specific things):
https://www.amazon.com/Robbins-Cotran-Pathologic-Disease-Pathology/dp/1455726133
This textbook basically explains the basis of most diseases from a pathologic basis. You essentially have to memorize most of this textbook in med school. This is the basis for every specialty of medicine.
5) for your own curiosity, then every specialty basically has one or two major texts for their education, one of EM's happens to be (I do not remotely recommend buying this but if you find something to preview or such it gives you an idea of how far the info wormhole goes): https://www.amazon.com/Tintinallis-Emergency-Medicine-Comprehensive-Study/dp/007179476X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=21G3EWBKYQ2PO&keywords=tintanelli%27s+emergency+medicine&qid=1566022753&s=gateway&sprefix=tintanelli%27s%2Caps%2C153&sr=8-2
​
6) Here is an EM youtube person who has been putting out really high quality educational content for years, lots of actual video from patients and explanations of what is going on if you're interested in just like... general random medical stuff in an educational entertainment video format:
https://www.youtube.com/user/lmellick
​
Also don't forget there are other fields in medicine such as nursing, paramedic, PAs, bio-med research but I can't really speak towards those well.
I think the evolutionary reason for this is while a sting might mean death to the individual insect, it still helps the remaining colony survive and repel any threats. And since surviving a sting does not apparently contribute to the colony's survival, there is no reason for this to change.
Source: I think I read something about it in Lone Survivors.
Just buy him a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth.
Or failing that, Mayr's What Evolution Is, Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea (a bit heavy), or finally if all else fails, this
Interested in fine-tuning arguments? Luke Barnes is The Dude.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos
Why science cannot explain why anything at all exists
One of the Big Issues between them concerns the possibility of "brute facts." When do why questions come to an end?
Can you explain something by appealing to a “brute fact”? by Ed Feser
Parfit on brute facts by Ed Feser
@ 50 minutes, Carroll argues that this universe isn't what we should expect if G-d exists. It's too big and too finely tuned. I don't know what to make of this argument. What should we expect?! (If it were up to me the universe would consist of nothing but tropical fish. You're lucky I'm not in charge!)
Carroll considers the fine-tuning argument to be the best argument for Theism, but considers the multiverse a better explanation. No one brought up the notorious BBP:
>To bolster the argument against a multiverse, consider the Boltzmann Brain paradox. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical state in which something like a brain fluctuates into existence, and back out again. However, it is by chance self-aware and thinks it has a memory. The odds of this can be calculated to be a very small fraction of the odds of the initial condition. The odds of an observer being a Boltzmann Brain is inconceivably higher than being a person in a well-ordered universe. The anthropic principle therefore appears to demand that we would observe ourselves to be Boltzmann Brains. With that in mind, we can propose an experiment to test the anthropic principle.
>1) If we are in an extremely improbable state of low entropy, then we require a causal explanation for order. This is necessary for daily deductions and is built into the laws of thermodynamics.
>2) Either we are in a relative state of high entropy, or we are in a relatively low state of entropy.
>3) The null hypothesis is that which is more probable.
>4) Comparing the relative states of entropy of the big bang and Boltzmann Brains, the Boltzmann Brain is more probable.
>5) We are not Boltzmann Brains, so the null hypothesis is rejected.
>6) Therefore, we are in relatively low state of entropy.
>7) Given the degree of entropy, it is improbable to the point of borderline impossible that the universe could have arisen by chance. So following from 1, it requires causal explanation for order. ShamanSTK
The multiverse seems like a means of artificially inflating one's probabilistic resources. If we're playing poker and I get three consecutive royal flushes, you'll demand an explanation. "Millions of people are playing poker, so somebody is bound to get three consecutive royal flushes," won't satisfy you. There's a better explanation involving my (non-benevolent) design.
@ 1:14 Again with the "brute facts"! Carroll insists they're the Bottom Line and he's comfortable with them. How is this not special pleading?
Do you still need ideas, OP?
Consider Cajals butterflies of the Soul
http://www.amazon.com/Cajals-Butterflies-Soul-Science-Art/dp/0195392701
It is an art-book that features lots of pictures from early neuroscience research. I'm not sure if that is the kind of thing she would like, but as a Neuroscience student I love it. If she is less into art and more into Academic neuroscience, how about a good neuroscience book? Kendel's Principles of Neural Science is the 1800 page bible of Neuroscience, and everyone going into the field should own a copy. But, unless she actually studies it, it might be far too in depth. It is not for people with a Passing interest.
Alternatively, depending on her particular interests and level of education in the field, something from this list-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H7wZuITTrUVCkPz9rAgOIKYOjRAcTFnwMwb1VbKwcdw/edit?usp=sharing
If you're interested in the topic I just listed the audiobook of this book and found it very interesting: https://smile.amazon.com/Sapiens-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/B0741F3M7C/
Although the primary focus of the book is on homo sapiens, it can not be told without a lot of background describing other competing early human species.
Yes, shorter generation times do result in quicker evolution (all else being equal), for the same reason that selective breeding works faster on organisms that reproduce quickly.
There are other factors that can (or are at least hypothesized to) influence how quickly a species can evolve, such as the number of offspring produced in a lifetime, DNA repair mechanisms, sexual vs asexual reproduction, and the number of chromosome sets.
A given trait may be more or less likely to evolve as well, depending on various factors.
For instance, genetic linkage can play a role in how common a particular trait becomes over time. In humans, one example would be blonde hair and blue eyes, which are genetically linked on Chromosome 15. When genes are genetically linked, it means that selection pressure for/against one trait (say, blonde hair) will inadvertently select for/against any other traits that generally appear alongside it on the same chromosome (say, blue eyes).
And, as you might imagine, genes that have a broad effect on the organism (such as the HOX genes, which control developmental processes in the body) will often evolve more slowly than other genes, because there's greater likelihood for something to go wrong in a way that kills the organism (mutations to the HOX genes can cause serious deformities). There are a lot of genes affect several traits; for example, certain pigmentation genes also relate to the inner ear (which is why some coat colors in animals, like cats and dogs, correlate with deafness; in humans, this link between coloration and deafness is called Waardenburg syndrome).
If you're interested in the rate of speciation in particular, there are numerous additional factors to consider, which relate to how two populations cease to interbreed with one another, allowing them to evolve in different directions. Contrary to popular belief, separation by long distances (as by an ocean, mountain range, etc.) is not the primary driving force behind speciation.
It's more common for speciating populations to evolve some mechanism to avoid interbreeding—e.g., different breeding times, physical changes to reproductive structures, or assortative mating. I highly recommend reading The Beak of the Finch if you'd like to learn more about it.
Sometimes external factors split population into groups that can't interbreed, leading to speciation. For example, the bacteria Wolbachia can affect the reproduction of its hosts in various ways, and it's hypothesized to promote diversity in insects.
Hey, thanks for the info. It sounds like pretty much what I had thought it was. I'm really interested in getting an evangelical's take on the theological questions posed by evolution, since my only experience with evangelicals is with them pushing 7-day creationism, a literal Adam and Eve, and original sin.
I don't know of any good Christian intros to the subject, but several years ago I read a book called What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr. He's not a Christian, but he doesn't have the baggage of Dawkins, and it didn't have any anti-religious polemics. I recall he politely makes a comment at the beginning to the effect that even if you just want to read the book so you know what to refute, you're welcome to it. Overall I thought it gave a clear explanation of the basic concepts and reasons for believing in the evidence. I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but it's a good read, if a little bit dry at times.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0199230854 I recommend reading this if you're honestly interested.
You are probably going down the same route I did. I grew up in a very conservative Baptist home. Bed time stories were from the bible, went to youth camps every year, went as a missionary all over Europe, played piano in worship teams and so on. But over time I got more questions than answers.
God never answers my prayers, what am I doing wrong? How can all the people around me speak in tongues? Is evolution actually right? Gays getting married doesn't seem very wrong. And so on. It's a journey ultimately only you can go on and discover what's at the end. Maybe you go back to faith, maybe you don't. I became an atheist last year and haven't looked back since.
However, if you want some good resources I'd recommend the Skeptics Annotated Bible to cover the bible and if you haven't definitively watch Evid3nc3 Why I am no longer a Christian. As for creation, Richard Dawkins' books are usually good introductions if you can stand him, otherwise I'd recommend Why Evolution is True.
My two favorite books are Why We Believe in God(s) and 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian. The first was what made me really question everything I believed in and the second was the nail in the coffin, the question he asks are good and his tone is very nice. Highly recommended reading if that's you thing.
If you need anything more feel free to ask, we're here to help.
Freethinkers by Jacoby was quite interesting.
Another that may be a little out of your comfort zone is any collection of essays by Stephen Jay Gould, for example Bull for Brontosaurus or Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. He would engage often in anti-creationism and participated in a mock recreation of the Scopes trial on an anniversary. He gives great explanations of evolution to the layman which is his primary focus, but one needs a good science grounding to argue against creationists. After that, you could check out one of his regular books perhaps.
There is actually a genetic theory about that. It says that as time roles on with new generations, each generation sees a decay in the genetic code, i.e. each new generation is dumber (in theory) than the last.
Here's a book written on it: http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028
"Rosenallie" as FOAMcast suggest it :)
Start with https://www.elsevier.com/books/rosens-emergency-medicine-concepts-and-clinical-practice/walls/978-0-323-35479-0
And then proceed to Tintinalli's book
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/007179476X/ref=pd_aw_sbs_14_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8JGCGZ3GQVR3DWPBQSM7&dpPl=1&dpID=51o4olrw4hL
Your library must have access to one of those.
This is the book my program requires https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/007179476X/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile
Along with recommending the ACLS handbook
Sorry to say this is PDA (pre-digital-age)...
It is in Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393311031/sr=8-9/qid=1147394565/ref=pd_bbs_9/102-8938045-1943346?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Find out what "races" are, and more to the point, what they aren't.
Here you go
For everyone who is asking: this looks like the book of illustrations that you want. Here is one place that you could buy a few prints.
Here are great&related prints (though not by Ramon y Cajal).
You're on to something but philosophers of religion take it a lot further. Check out the argument from fine tuning. The general argument is that basic irreducible constants relating to natural law - eg. the constant of gravity, the mass of an electron, the strength of electromagnetic force - are such that if they were any other value, any sort of complexity in the universe (let alone life!) would not exist at all - usually this alternative universe would be a soup of helium or hydrogen, etc.
Check out this book
https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610
Sorry, I'm not a deist at all, just randomly decided to come in here.
Question 1 is out of the realm of evolutionary biology.
For question 6 read Stepehen Jay gould's - Full House.
Things I've read, or reread, recently that might be interesting:
[Echopraxia] (https://www.amazon.com/Echopraxia-Peter-Watts/dp/0765328038) by Peter Watts.
"Sequel" to Blindsight, but it doesn't really matter if they're read in order or not. Echopraxia is full of interesting ideas - Vampires (cloned pre-stone age apex predators with superhuman intelligence), technology-enabled hive intelligences, military zombie soldiers, amidst the backdrop of civilization cannibalizes itself in a battle between post-human factions.
It's also difficult to follow, with it's perspective being that of an unmodified human who is functionally incapable of understanding the motivations and actions of the various super-human intelligences that are the driving forces of the story.
The author's background as a biologist add a level of veracity to the story, and the research is near-peerless.
If you like complex hard-science fiction, with a side order of philosophy of mind, you may love this book. If you don't, it might be a huge miss.
[The Fifth Ward: First Watch] (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=a9_sc_1?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Athe+fifth+ward%3A+first+watch&keywords=the+fifth+ward%3A+first+watch&triggered-weblabs=SEARCH_SPELLING_122845%3AT1&ie=UTF8&qid=1509561625) by Dale Lucas
Pure escapism. One part detective story, one part middle-earth style fantasy. Elfs, dwarves, orcs and murder.
The writing was solid enough to carry the book, and it was a fun read.
[Easy Strength] (https://www.amazon.com/Easy-Strength-Stronger-Competition-Dominate/dp/0938045806/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509561859&sr=1-1&keywords=easy+strength) by Dan John & Pavel Tsatsouline
An easy enjoyable read, with a lot of useful information and anecdotes if you're interested in coaching.
This rekindled my interest in kettle bells for GPP, and has given me a bit to think about regarding programming and athletic development.
It's also made me interested in reading more of Pavels stuff - Pavels writing style made me basically discount him the when I glanced at one of his books in the past, and I suspect I need to re-evaluate that impression.
your stuff is very outdated.(by your definition all cigarette-smoker build a race)
this is more scientifically current
https://www.amazon.de/Race-Evolution-Behavior-Perspective-Abridged/dp/0965683621
Artikel
Bamshed (2003): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Guo (2015): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Lao (2010): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Porras-H. (2013): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Risch (2005): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Rosenberg (2005): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Witherspoon (2007): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Edit: ok the links dont work without some work on my side ... do you want them?
Wes mentioning Sapiens By Yuval Noah Harari was definitely a huge highlight for this podcast! Great book looking forward to reading his other book homo deus. Links below for those interested:
https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/B0741F3M7C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527192894&sr=8-1&keywords=sapiens
https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/B01MYZ4OUW/ref=pd_sim_129_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01MYZ4OUW&pd_rd_r=4FV7QJFXX07PXESEFHKD&pd_rd_w=Ze5JD&pd_rd_wg=vDsKL&psc=1&refRID=4FV7QJFXX07PXESEFHKD
It is important for Americans to learn how Washington DC really works. It is not what one would think intuitively. It is incredibly inward looking. Everyone is focused on personal advantage and having connections with people with "juice". In that sense it is exactly like Las Vegas.
Leibovich's book is a good place to start learning.
I'm using the same definitions of deleterious that are used by all population geneticists on both sides of the debate, as is evident in the papers I've cited so far in this thread. Sorry, but I'm done discussing this because I don't feel like we're getting anywhere and it keeps devolving into a debate about semantics. It will have to remain a point of disagreement.
> I asked for a secular life scientist that denies evolution in general, that supports an alternative idea for the origin of the diversity of life on Earth.
ID and evolution are really the only possible options. Either life formed by guided processes (ID) or unguided processes (evolution). And a lot come to believe in God after accepting ID, since other alternatives (such as aliens) still require a designer. But a designer-as-a-first-uncaused-cause avoids that.
But I'm wondering if cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini would qualify (both are atheists afaik). They who wrote What Darwin Got Wrong. From their interview on salon.com: "Creationism isn't the only doctrine that's heavily into post-hoc explanation. Darwinism is too. If a creature develops the capacity to spin a web, you could tell a story of why spinning a web was good in the context of evolution. That is why you should be as suspicious of Darwinism as of creationism. They have spurious consequence in common. And that should be enough to make you worry about either account."
However, I haven't read their book and I don't know what explanation they propose for life, if any.
There's also mathemetician David Berlinski, although having Jewish heritage, is an agostic, religion critic, and strongly an ID proponent. But he's not a life scientist.
A reasonable reply. Why don't you learn a bit more about evolution before trying to use it in an argument. Try these....Why Evolution Is True - Jerry Coyne or The Greatest Show On Earth - Richard Dawkins
Yes, obviously our genes determine every aspect of our physiology.
Yet these differences are only superficial. For example, I am "white" (at least I look white, more on that in a minute), yet if you compare my genetic code of that to a random "black" person, there is a greater chance that I would share more of my genetic code with that person than another random "black" person would.
Then you have things like what race you are can vary from country to country. A person might be considered "black" in one country and "white" in another.
Also there are many people from India who are darker skinned than people from Africa, and vice versa.
Two more examples are me and my nephew. For me, 4 of my 8 great grandparents were native Americans. Which would make all of my grandparents "half breeds" and since all 4 of them were "half breeds" that would make my parents "half breeds" as well. And by the same logic, me. Yet, except for a relative lack of body hair, I look "white", as do my brothers and sisters. I have blond hair and blue eyes. And what about my ancestors? How many people of other 'races' might they have procreated with? My mom's family originally came from Scotland, and my dads family came from Ireland (in the 1700's). There is another interesting thing to consider when talking about race. Irish people in this country were not considered "White" at first, it was only very recently that Irish people started being considered to be white. There was a LOT of racism against Irish people from "white" people. Including ironically for me Scottish people.
My nephew, Is half "black" and half "White" (if that is what you could really call my sister). His hair slightly coarser than mine, (my hair is very fine). His hair is curly, but the curls are very loose. His skin tone is about halfway between my sister and his dad. He also has bright blue eyes. He is a beautiful child. What 'race' is he?
What if he marries and has a child with a half 'Asian' half 'Indian' woman? What 'race' would their child be?
>That's quite impressive, if you think about it, and hard to explain if you believe it's based on a notion that's purely socially constructed.
While it may be a pretty good test generally but it is by no means foolproof. I had a friend who you would swear is a Native American yet he is half Korean and half "White".
At any rate, we are all a lot more similar than we are different. And the simple fact is that the word “race” has no biological definition, and it does not appear that one could ever be formed, at least not on the basis of genetics.
Further reading for people interested.
Genes, Peoples and Languages
From the publisher weekly review. "from a genetic standpoint, "it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African." Moreover, "Black Americans have... an average of 30 percent of White admixture" in their genes, he reports. From the vantage point of DNA, according to Cavalli-Sforza, the idea of separate races is unscientific and fallacious, as different ethnic groups display superficial variations in body surface, mere outward adaptations to different climates--an opinion shared by a growing number of molecular biologists."
Race and Reality: What Everyone Should Know About Our Biological Diversity
"For decades, social and biological scientists have amassed evidence demonstrating that the human species has no races, and that differences between groups called races are not biologically based. Race and Reality by Guy P. Harrison makes this knowledge accessible, and knocks the props out from under scientific arguments that have been used to justify racism." ----Jefferson M. Fish, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, St. John's University, New York
This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral-Plus, Plenty of Valet Parking!-in America's Gilded Capital
I'm really enjoying Lone Survivors by Chris Stringer. It's not too term based so it's easy to read. Gives great insight into our own evolutionary path.
I study evolutionary biology as a hobby and have read many books on the subject, several of which actually argue in favor of a designer (a position I disagree with based on the evidence). The facts and evidence overwhelmingly support the history of the eye's development as I have described it whether you agree with it or not. If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend checking out "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller and "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" by Stephen Jay Gould, both of which are very informative and excellent reads.
If you are a blind, ocean-dwelling creature who's food tends to hang out near the surface, a mutation that allows a cell to detect light would make it easier to find food, thus increasing the likelihood that you would survive and pass on that mutation. Furthermore, if another mutation multiplied the number of those light detecting cells, you might be able to better determine your distance to the surface and more precisely hone in on your meal without getting too close to the surface and putting yourself in potential danger. If a further mutation granted you enough of the light-detecting cells that you determine movement, you would be in a much better position to both find food and evade predators.
It is small mutations like this that have selective advantages that result in the development of things like eyes and the rest of our organs. It's not that the creatures "knew what they wanted to see"; it's that mutations provided sensory inputs that increased the likelihood of those creatures surviving. It is the survivors that pass on their genes and spawn the next generation. This is happening constantly in all living things, humans included, and that is an indisputable fact. It can be and has been observed.
You're thinking the exact thing as most prominent astronomers! The "fine tuning problem"* notices that if the universe's constants like the electron mass, the gravitational constant, and the cosmological constant were even SLIGHTLY different then life wouldn't have been possible. Suggests something deeper...
Sources for more information **
https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe?wprov=sfla1
> You didn't answer the second part of the question.
Micro-evolution is small changes within a species. For example the finch's beaks in the Galapagos Islands. This part I agree with. Macro is everything else. For example single cell organisms evolving and giving us the diversity of life we see today.
> Let me ask you this, you believe in an old earth. You do not believe in evolution is responsible for the changes in "kinds" over time.
See above.
> We have evidence of living organisms on the earth for the past 3.7 billion years or so. During this time there are many different species that arose, the died out. Do you believe that these species are just spontaneously appearing every X number of years?
You're asking me to guess? Okay :-)
My answer is sorta. While mutations allow adaptability they are also harmful [1]. After enough harmful mutations a species will become extinct. This means that in order for a species to evolve new information must be injected into the genome, or the DNA needs re-engineered. This is at the hand of the designer. What's the best way for a designer to do this? Some predict the designer would use retroviruses to insert genes that cause the spawning of a new species, or whatever the designer wants. Note that human designers already use RV's to insert foreign genes into the genomes of genetically modified foods.
[1] The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or fatal to the life-form having the mutation! (Sanford; Genetic Entropy page 38)
Sanford; Genetic Entropy p.38 http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028
Yes and no. While I agree with ukuleleBri that your skills will be appreciated, it is important to get a grip of the way biologists think about things, and more particularly how variance is important to biological systems. Unlike in most fields, which tend to see variance as something to minimise, biology depends on variance and though it can be irritating, it needs to be considered as a significant part of the system. A good book that discusses this is Full House, by Steven Jay Gould (while I disagree with some of his positions on evolutionary biology, he makes good arguments and the concepts in this book are definitely valid).
Then read J. Philippe Rushton's book or many others on this very subject.
I would suggest getting her a few smaller things and this book to get up to the target price:
Cajal's Butterflies of the Soul: Science and Art, http://www.amazon.com/Cajals-Butterflies-Soul-Science-Art/dp/0195392701
Also if she is a graduate student, postdoc or up for tenure one of those other things should be a massage.
Don't try to convert her 'away' from Islam. Just show her something you like and consider neat. For example, if you can truly geek out about the careful analyses and neat conclusions in "The Beak of the Finch", then go ahead and share that with her.
That way, she'll at least be exposed to what an actual scientific process looks like, and it shouldn't get as contentious. You're not talking about how humans evolved; you're showing her what life is like for bunch of birds on a far-off island.
​
There are a few decent books out there for beginners:
I finally found it!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0741F3M7C/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_es_US=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&crid=2543CJTCQQI2&keywords=yuval+noah+harari&qid=1566384707&s=gateway&sprefix=Yuval+noah%2Caps%2C218&sr=8-1
>Why? Wouldn't it be evolutionarily advantageous for the brain to model the 'self' as part of its overall strategy of modeling its environment?
This is problematic because the brain does not evolve to model itself.
-or this-
>I do wonder how you explain the spontaneous emergence of an intelligent, capable, knowledgable God without a process like evolution to get you there. But then, I can't ask you, because you have deleted your account.
Because it muddles abiogenesis with evolution. The two don't really have an overlap since abiogenesis necessitates not having a prior generation and evolution requires it.
-or this-
>if you put god into the evolution equation, you're entirely missing the point of evolution. The whole idea was to demonstrate a process through which complex life could form without the need for any kind of intelligence or creator.
As the whole idea of the Theory of Evolution wasn't to demonstrate anything. It was descriptive of observations and allowed falsifiability in certain places. His next post goes even more off base. Evolution is guided by environment as negative mutations to an environment often lead to death of a species or at least those individuals which have negative mutations. That is part of the basis of natural selection.
Here is a whole book that a couple of atheists wrote about evolution that is filled with flaws.
There is an obnoxious amount of misinformation in nearly any demographic and those of us who work in related fields just get used to glossing over them.
ebook about american politics which is somewhat about voting, although american politics these days are really more about money and power than the vote of the individual. go vote kid (and remember that your vote may only sorta count, especially with those shitty diebold machines)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Genetics-Dummies-Tara-Rodden-Robinson/dp/0470551747
Although most of his essay is fine, I disagree with Pinker about group selection too, and agree with /u/self-assembled that Pinker is willfully ignoring evidence. I have no dog in the group selection fight, so it is mystifying to see Pinker (who I actually used to like) debase himself by arguing like this.
Major papers have been published as recently as last month showing that group selection happens. Not sure why empirical data from papers published in Nature should be thrown out because they don't agree with Pinker's conception of "the facts of psychology and history".
Pinker admits himself that he's not arguing from empirical data, but from an a priori view that tries to show that group selection as a logical explanation is flawed (i.e. incoherent). As a scientist, that's madness, and it is the special kind of madness that makes creationism happen and helps smart, atheist philosophers like Jerry Fodor write books called *What Darwin Got Wrong". Scientists use data to test theories, and the "proponents of group selection" (like Charles Goodnight, above) are just doing their job. Hell, if Pinker doesn't like their analysis he can redo it himself (here is their raw data).
So when Pinker says:
"the groups made copies of themselves by budding or fissioning, the descendant groups faithfully reproduced traits of the parent group (which cannot be reduced to the traits of their individual members), except for mutations that were blind to their costs and benefits to the group; and groups competed with one another for representation in a meta-population of groups."
Nearly everyone in the evolutionary biology community will agree with him. This is what empirical work is telling us happens in nature, and we're happy to go along with what peer-reviewed studies seem to suggest is the case.
But when Pinker says:
"But everyone agrees that this [natural selection on groups] is not what happens in so-called "group selection." In every case I've seen, the three components that make natural selection so indispensable are absent."
I have no idea how he can conclude this given the evidence. It is actually very much like talking to a creationist.
Given your background I would recommend this
Nah, not really. It's definitely an important lens to view evolutionary processes, still useful, but in most studies, it's not as applicable. People generally look at organismal evolution in the most part, unless you're a geneticist. Group selection is DEFINITELY real, btw, though inherently harder to experimentally verify (but duh). Alot of good stuff in (this book)[https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Levels-Selection-Samir-Okasha/dp/0199556717]. Wish I could say more, but I'm currently drunk in the rainforest in Panama (studying the evolution of fertility signals in carpenter ants here). P.S. myrmecologists know all about dat group selection. P.P.S. gene's eye view probably varies in usefulness according to your subfield. Most people still at da modern synthesis, yo.
The theory of evolution isn't the only "scientific" theory to explain the formation of human beings. The theory of evolution has "flaws" and does not explain everything satisfactorily. Some of these questions have remained unanswered by the theory of evolution since it was initially proposed by Darwin. The scientific community is just as dogmatic as the religious one with regards to the theory of evolution among other things. I would suggest checking the following material and similar material also from the scientific community.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0089LOM5G/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0
https://www.amazon.com/Heretic-Scientists-Journey-Darwin-Design/dp/1936599503/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=heretic&qid=1574584576&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3CKSTFGSKWOXW&keywords=darwins+black+box&qid=1574584922&sprefix=Darwins+black+bo%2Caps%2C291&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061472794/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=uslimkeptic-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0061472794&linkId=166be51886e107227843bc81a6f6cf02
The evidence for evolution is irrefutable. It's all discussed eloquently in Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is.
Calling it "connecting the dots", even in fun, is incredibly ignorant.