Best developmental biology books according to redditors

We found 54 Reddit comments discussing the best developmental biology books. We ranked the 26 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Developmental Biology:

u/Notasurgeon · 18 pointsr/videos

The first time the evidence for common ancestry was fairly presented to me without any gross distortions, I was in my mid-20s and it blew my fucking mind. I ended up ordering about 15 books on evolution from popular writing (WEIT, Your Inner Fish, etc.) to graduate level stuff (From DNA to Diversity, Eco-devo, others).

One of the first things I did was to naively assume that other creationists were likely mostly just like myself, and my mind was thoroughly blown for a second time at the pushback I received at trying to share my newfound knowledge with other creationists.

u/okrahtime · 6 pointsr/evolution

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.

u/mikezsix · 5 pointsr/videos

Both were from the same source.

Unfortunately, the best I can offer is the name of the text book Life: The Science of Biology [2009] (amazon link)

If my memory serves me, they were just a side note [in the margin] and didn't have an inline reference.

u/ibanezerscrooge · 4 pointsr/Christianity

>methodically state the case for why creation is most likely and/or why evolution is unlikely.

You will find lots and lots of the latter. Very little of the former.

>I'd also be happy to read GOOD anti-creation books as well, provided they meet the above criterion of not being mocking.

Those would just be science books based on the academic literature, wouldn't they?

Here is my reading list form the past few months. These would be pro-evolution (a.k.a science). Creationism is mentioned in a few of them, but almost in passing because Creationism is simply not a factor in legitimate scientific research, so it gets pretty much no consideration.

Knock yourself out. ;)

  • Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin - Also, watch the three part series that aired on PBS hosted by Neil Shubin.

  • Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carroll - An in depth look into developmental evolution.

  • The Universe Within: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets, and People by Neil Shubin

  • The Link by Colin Tudge and Josh Young

  • Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade

  • Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA by Daniel J. Fairbanks - This and the other Fairbanks book listed below are the only books on this list with the intent to refute what creationists contend. He does this not by presenting the creationist argument and then trying to refute. He does it by simply presenting the evidence that science has born out regarding human evolution and genetics.

  • The Story of Earth by Robert Hazen - this is a cool book about the history of the Earth and life and how geology and biology worked in tandem with other factors to produce life from the point of view of a protein biologist.

  • Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth by Richard Fortey - Good general overview of evolutionary and geologic history.

  • The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Edwin Douglas - This is the most academic book in this list and, as such, is the most difficult to read. It is a concise look at what we know about the Cambrian Explosion from the scientific literature.

  • Life's Ratchet by Peter Hoffmann - Very good book about how the chaos wrought inside cells by thermal motion at the molecular level leads to the ordered functioning of the machinery of life.

  • What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology by Addy Pross - Super interesting take on the question, "What is Life?" He comes to a very interesting conclusion which might have implications for abiogenesis research.

  • The Machinery of Life by David S. Goodsell - A neat little book that gets you acquainted with what it's really like inside of cells. A good companion book to read with Life's Ratchet as they highlight different aspects of the same topic.

  • Evolving by Daniel J. Fairbanks

  • Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes by Svante Paabo - Very interesting book about the drama, blood, sweat and tears, Dr. Paabo shed to develop the techniques to sequence ancient DNA. You simply won't find books like this and Your Inner Fish above amongst Creationist literature because they simply don't do what these scientists do out in the field and in the lab.
u/crispysardine · 4 pointsr/askscience

You should read this textbook! It's all about epigenetics and ecological developmental biology... basically how our choices can effect our own biologies and how this can effect our future and our children's futures. Please note I've only read the first edition. This is the newly released second edition!

Ecological Developmental Biology, Second Edition

Edit: autocorrect issues

u/chicken_fried_steak · 3 pointsr/askscience

Them, plus Janeway's Immunobiology, Carey and Sundberg's Advanced Organic Chemistry part A and part B, Anslyn's PhysOrg, Ptashne's A Genetic Switch, Gilbert's Developmental Biology, Fersht's Structure and Mechanism in Protein Science and the NEB Catalog form a reference shelf for Biochem/Chemical Biology that I don't suspect will need updating for another decade or two.

EDIT: Except, of course, for switching out the NEB catalog every year for the new edition.

u/CapOnFoam · 3 pointsr/triathlon

I really think it will help. The tower26 episodes on alignment really helped me.

Also, I found this book to be helpful:

And finally, check out the have some good posts.

I'm 42 and learned to swim 3 years ago when I wanted to try triathlon. I still have improvements to make but I'm swimming a 1:55/100m pace and finally achieved a couple 500m swims under 10 minutes! And getting close to a sub-20 1k. Again, I'm not super fast, but I feel good about it and mention this to give you encouragement.

Oh! And one last thing - frequency is key. Get in the pool 3-4 times a week, even if a couple of those are 500m of drills. Just get in the pool. Best of luck to you - if this 40-something uncoordinated lady can do it, I know you can!!

u/Felisitea · 3 pointsr/exchristian

I'd recommend "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayer- non-confrontational, detailed description of evolution. (Evolution was a big factor in my deconversion, personally, as my branch of christianity was super anti-evolution.)

u/simchaleigh · 3 pointsr/atheism

Evolution in no way suggests that "humans came from monkeys." That is a common and unfortunate misconception. Though the trail of human development is quite complicated, basically we share a common ancestor with primates (see for a good basic overview; for a more in-depth exploration, this book ( is a really good read).

u/rangorok · 2 pointsr/biology

What evolution is by Ernst Mayr.

u/hashtag_smart · 2 pointsr/triathlon

Buying this book.

it made me realize i was simply lazy in the pool and it helped me get my ass into shape.

u/VA_Network_Nerd · 2 pointsr/college

Enjoyment of Music is a $15 rental.


That Ornithology book is a tough one. Sold out on Amazon. About $125


Epidemiology 101 is a $23 rental.


Principles of Animal Behavior (Third Edition) wasn't available for rent via amazon either but new @ $65

So that's $228 @ Amazon.

You overpaid by about $125 -- UNLESS you really wanted to keep those books as permanent references, since this appears to be part of your major, or something, based on your flair.

u/guscrown · 2 pointsr/Swimming

Hi /u/murphalicious55, I'm not sure if I am in any position to give advice, since I've been swimming for a small period of time.

These are the things that I did:

1.- Swim more. I go to the pool 4 times a week, and I average around 2500yd per session.

2.- No lollygagging in the pool. I use to swim with a team of Triathletes, but I found that I tend to socialize more when other people are around, and I would take very long breaks at the wall. When I'm alone, I just keep on doing my own thing.

3.- I bought a book. I bought this book and it's companion workout book. Really good information.

4.- I have a friend that has been a swimmer since he was a kid, he is a very competitive Age Grouper in Ironman 70.3 races, he's usually 1st or 2nd out of the water. About 2 times a month he comes to the pool with me and shows me some drills, and also takes a look at my stroke and tries to correct it.

I'm planning a 3 month swimming block that will begin in October, and I will concentrate on the swim and see if I can reach my goal of swimming 25min for the 1500m swim in an Olympic Tri. That's a 1:31/100yd pace (1:40/100m).

u/MiniXP · 2 pointsr/Swimming

I just finished reading Swim Speed Secrets, which talks a lot about the pull phase of swimming as being the part where most of your speed is coming from. I have been doing tris for a couple years now and wanted to start to focus in on my swimming technique more. I liked the book for this and I am already seeing some improvement.

I know some people don't like this book because it leaves out some of the other parts of the stroke, but I think as long as you are aware of that it is a good read.

u/directaction · 2 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

> Dawkins did a great interview with Steven Rose where Rose calls him out on this and he really has no coherent answer.

Ha, I was reading your previous post in this chain and thought of that exact debate, and was going to link to it for your enjoyment (figured your knowledge base of evolutionary theory is probably beyond the level of that discussion, but it's a fun way to spend an hour) and that of others reading the thread. I'm pleased to see you thought of it first! It's been a very long time since I watched it, but what I seem to remember most saliently is Dawkins utterly failing to understand the dialectical nature between phenotype and environment and the role of that dialectic in producing evolutionary outcomes. Watching Dawkins compared to Rose in that discussion made me feel like Dawkins had a college freshman's understanding of evolutionary biology and the various mechanisms that make up the process of evolution when compared with Rose's grasp of the subject.

Have you read Lifelines or Not in Our Genes? Again, it's been a while since I've read them but I remember especially enjoying the latter. They were clearly written for the layperson, but I was a poli sci & philosophy student who took a whopping two courses in biology, so they were reasonably interesting for me, and it was nice to get an alternative take on evolutionary biology versus all the gene-centric stuff like that of Dawkins et. al., which so often seems to morph into right-wing evo psych pseudoscientific "just-so" nonsense.

u/Zakalve · 2 pointsr/AgingBiology

I'm coming from Molecular biology background so I can't really help you about medical textbooks but for the biological side of things I would recommend the following:

Biology of Aging: Observations and Principles by Arking - This was my textbook for the subject. It's really good, comprehensive book that covers methodology, basic principles and some more advanced.

An Introduction to Genetic Analysis by Griffiths - This was recommended for my Genetics class. Quite comprehensive and explains some basic genetic concepts really well (imo).

Molecular Biology of the Gene by Watson - Almost all the basic stuff from molecular biology you'll need. Essentially, The Book.

Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts - Cell biology, you'll need it a lot and Alberts is really good at explaining things even if it's sometimes a bit too wide.

Developmental Biology by Gilberts Developmental biology is, imo, very important and Gilberts is one of the best in the field. Definitely check it out.

There is a few more books on other subjects that are under or above this level (depending on uni this is 2nd or 3rd year of BsC) but you'll get the gist.

Considering the price of these I would recommend you to check out (feel free to pm me if you need some help). Also you might want to check out r/longevity , it has much more traffic than this sub. I hope I wasn't confusing, I just woke up and my English is not so good in the morning. :)

I'm kinda in the same boat as you. Only I'm going for PhD so if you need any help or advice feel free to pm me. :)

u/omg_IAMA_girl · 2 pointsr/wheredoibegin

Some of the criticisms of "What Evolution Is" by Mayr is that it doesn't go deep enough into the subject, which to me, is a good book as an introduction.
Or pick up a used Intro to Anthropology text book and note the sources they are citing and go that way.

u/iamaxc · 2 pointsr/biology

Read this back in undergrad, kinda technical but a pretty good read:

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/SkincareAddiction

Retinoids are category C drugs. From the FDA:

> Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women
despite potential risks.

There is no clear evidence that it causes birth defects in humans because it would be grossly unethical to perform that study. You would have to deliberately administer potentially terotogenic drugs to pregnant women and then document their side effects. But it is recommended not to use it during pregnancy because the benefits do not outweigh the risks. Other category C drugs sometimes are used during pregnancy because they're more necessary for the mother's health than acne cream is. Antidepressants are a good example. Many of them are category C but it would be dangerous for some women to quit taking them so they accept the possible risk for the benefit of the drug.

BUT your question was HOW and I just so happen to have a developmental biology text book from 2013 right behind me. From the section on retinoic acid:

> These anomalies are largely due to the failure of the cranial crest cells to migrate into the pharyngeal arches of the face to form the jaws and ear. Radioactively labeled RA binds to the cranial neural crest cells and arrests both their proliferation and their migration.....Retinoic acid probably disrupts these cells in several ways. One mechanism is that excess RA activates the negative feedback pathway that usually ensures the proper amount of this compound. Transient large increases in RA thus activate the synthesis of RA-degrading enzymes, causing a long-lasting decrease of RA.


When an embryo is exposed to high doses of retinoic acid it activates a negative feedback loop which destroys RA resulting in a deficit of this necessary developmental chemical.

Aren't you glad you asked.

u/jufnitz · 2 pointsr/ShitLiberalsSay

There's actually a lot of theoretical work in evolutionary biology that can be couched in terms of dialectical materialism, whether explicitly or tacitly. If you find this sort of stuff interesting, I definitely recommend those two books at least for starters.

u/tolos · 2 pointsr/philosophy

I am not a biologist.

The Counter-Creationism Handbook might be something like what you're looking for, though it does branch into non-evolutionary topics. It is a compilation of questions/arguments from (usenet) that are discussed for a paragraph or two with lots of sources cited. Check out the reviews on Amazon. Really recommend this one.

What Evolution Is was a good introduction to evolution. I've read several, and I feel that this was the best. He also talks in passing about what evolution is not. Standard kind of non-fiction book.

Evolution is supposedly the reference textbook of atheists. There is a newer edition out, or you can pick up this one for about $15 (USD).

u/kzsummers · 2 pointsr/atheism

(This is the rest of my answer, cut off for being too long).
3) I'm beginning to think that we need to skip ahead and talk about evolution, because if you don't understand how DNA could have evolved, you've really never read a single book on evolution. (I'm not criticizing you; you're in good company there). So let's combine your third and fourth points, and allow me to clarify what evolution is, why it explains DNA, and why your micro/macro distinction is, frankly, bullshit.

First principle behind evolution: If something can make copies of itself, there will soon be more of it. It there are lots of competing things that can make copies of themselves, the ones that can do so most efficiently will end up having the most copies.

If that statement strikes you as true, there we go. Evolution.

The first proto-organisms were basically strings of RNA. Under certain conditions, a nucleotide strand would attach complementary bases, and you would have two strands of RNA. Then environmental conditions change and the two strands separate, and both of them can attach to more complementary bases.

Second principle behind evolution: If copies aren't exactly the same as the original, then some changes will increase efficiency. Other changes will decrease efficiency. After enough generations, your population will contain lots of copies of efficient replicators and very few copies of inefficient replicators.

So some of the RNA sequences happen to misplace an adenine instead of a cytosine, and that means that a replication enzyme bonds more tightly to the strand, and this mutant makes more copies of itself than its neighbors do.

And eventually, a nucleotide ends up with a deoxyribose sugar instead of a ribose sugar, and this configuration turns out to be WAY more stable - it can form into a double helix that is less likley to spontaneously collapse, and which can replicate with fewer errors. And this mutant makes more copies of itself than its neighbors do.

And these sequences of DNA/RNA aren't just random collections of letters. Well, some of them are, but others can be interpreted to build proteins that facilitate copying - and the ones with these helpful sequences can make more copies of themselves.

Let this process happen for a couple billion years.

But, you're saying, the probability is so small! You mean all those coincidences just happen to occur? Convenient mutations just happen to come along? If you multpily together the odds of all those things happening, it's tiny!

Well, of course it is. When you have a trillion early replicators hanging around, improbable things happen ALL. THE. TIME. And multiplying together the odds of each mutation is the completely wrong way to look at the problem - it's like looking at all the possible combinations of your parents' sperm and eggs that could have existed and declaring triumphantly that the probability of you existing is one in a gazillion. Of course it is! The question is what the probability of some complex life developing, under the given optimization pressures, and it should be obvious that it's reasonably high. Of those trillions of worlds we talked about earlier, maybe only a couple billion of them got to complex life.

Obviously, this is the grossly oversimplified version. For the whole story, you need to read this or this or this or this or... any of these, actually. But I hope you understand why most atheists feel that the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is silly. Evolution is just the change in gene pools over time. This change has been observed to lead to one species splitting off into multiple species which can no longer reproduce (the biological definition of speciation). At what point is this process called "macro" evolution? How many genes need to change before you insist that the process "doesn't exist"? Why would evolution push two separate populations to the brink of speciation and then suddenly stop working by the rules we've repeatedly observed? Saying "micro but not macro" is like saying you believe gravity works on people but not on planets. There's just no reason to draw the distinction!

Using techniques called molecular systematics, we can trace the evolutionary relationships between species by mapping the differences in noncoding DNA. And, of course, I'm neglecting the single biggest piece of supporting evidence for evolution: the fossil record. You've probably been fed the lie that we don't have the transitional fossils. Well, we do have the transitional fossils. Overwhelmingly..

Now, ethics. The God of the Bible, if he existed, is a monstrous, selfish, egomaniacal, power-hungry terrifying sociopath. I don't mean to cause offense (though I probably will) but I read the Bible and it nearly made me ill. God tortures everyone who doesn't worship him for all eternity. He had 42 children mauled to death by bears for laughing at a bald man.(II Kings 2:23-24). He murders all the inhabitants of an entire city for being "sinful" (Genesis 19:1-26). He orders his people to commit genocide, over and over again. (Deuteronomy 13:13-16, Numbers 31:12-18, I Chronicles 21:9-14).
He's okay with rape (often, he explicitly orders his followers to commit rape) and treats women as property(Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Exodus 21:7-11). He's pro-slavery (I Timothy 6:1-2, Exodus 21:20.) He even claims in Isaiah 45:7 to have created all evil. In short, if we're getting our morals from that guy, we're seriously screwed. This isn't the wise and loving father whose children can't understand his dictates: it's the abusive alcoholic father whose son runs away when he realizes that rape, murder, and incest aren't okay just because Dad says so.

You're about to protest that most of those are Old Testament. But Jesus explicitly endorses the Old Testament and says that he has not come to change the old laws (Matthew 5:17). He endorses what God did in Sodom and Gomorrah and threatens to do even worse to three more cities because their inhabitants were unimpressed with him.(Matthew 11:21-24). He says that any child who curses his parents should be killed as according to Old Testament Law. (Mark 7:10)

I don't think a world where everyone follows their individual conscience could possibly be worse than a world rules by that God. And, in fact, countries that are nonreligious have lower rates of crime, higher standards of living, and higher self-reported happiness.

Interesting debate, thanks!

u/atomichumbucker · 2 pointsr/biology

"life"by Sadava et. al. is a good gen bio text, with a decent amount of material on plant biology. Im sure you can find it online as a digital copy somewhere.
Your questions are asking a lot more that I think you realize. to be general plant cells are surrounded by a cell wall that fills the spaces in between cells. Some cells form junctions with neighboring cells and essentially wash out all of their internals to become the veins of the plant, they are supported by their neighboring cells biochemical processes.

Virus can directly enter the cells of the plant, and utilize the cells own machinery to reproduces itself, and then be released into neighboring cells. The virus usually attaches via specific protein structures on its surface, to either receptors on the target cell, or in some cases, directly through the membrane. Sadave gets into some immunology but I dont think too much detail about plant immunochemistry.

u/Tangential_Diversion · 2 pointsr/biology

Regarding medicine: That's going to be a few years down the road. A lot of what you will learn now and in college will have ties in medicine (and said ties are often discussed), but the material they teach in medical school itself requires breadth and depth that takes a while to learn. Still, reading up on random wiki articles and journal papers from time to time keeps things interesting, and it's still a great way to learn. I did that all throughout my undergraduate years. You definitely will not know everything in said articles, but they're still fun to read and you'll know more than if you didn't read them at all.

For online resources, Khan Academy has the best online resources I know of, but I wouldn't rely on them too much. Personally, I'd recommend a self-study course using textbooks/e-books myself.

If you go this route, feel free to buy used books. General biology has not changed much in the past ten years that you need to buy the latest editions of any textbook (and seriously, when comparing $15 to $200, not worth it.)

Books I went through my undergraduate year (Note: I am a molecular and cellular biology major):

  • Gen Bio (AP Bio is equivalent to 1/2 this course): 978-0716788515

  • Cellular Biology (Second year lower div): 978-0815320456

  • Cellular Biology (Upper Div): Use above book

    These should get you started and keep you busy for a while :) Other than that, Google is your best friend. Search up any words or concepts you don't know. Between Google, university wikis, subreddits like r/biology, YouTube, and increased university presence on the internet, there are a ton of resources out there for you.

    PS: Obligatory link to Inner Life of the Cell that we show in every introductory bio class:
u/daedalusesq · 1 pointr/politics

You realize he doesn't need to state something overtly to be saying it, right?

By calling women functionally non-adapted to certain work with rare exceptions there is a clear implication that he thinks they are inferior to men in those roles.

His arguments are:

  1. Not in anyway new or insightful

  2. Based on "research" that was originally used to justify discrimination of women due to their "biology"

  3. Based on premises debunked since the 1980s

  4. Advocates for limiting people's consideration for certain work types based on being a woman or minority

    These arguments are so commonly found within discriminatory arguments for supporting sexism that avoiding overt claims of inferiority does not separate its from its roots.

    I suggest you read Not in our Genes and consider the following:

    > The biological determinist argument follows a by now familiar structure: It begins with the citation of “evidence,” the “facts” of differences between men and women … These “facts,” which are taken as unquestioned, are seen as depending on prior psychological tendencies which in turn are accounted for by underlying biological differences between males and females at the level of brain structure or hormones. Biological determinism then shows that male-female differences in behavior among humans are paralleled by those found in nonhuman societies — among primates or rodents or birds . . . giving them an apparent universality that cannot be gainsaid by merely wishing things were different or fairer. . . And finally, the determinist argument endeavors to weld all currently observed differences together on the basis of the now familiar and Panglossian sociobiological arguments: that sexual divisions have emerged adaptively by natural selection, as a result of the different biological roles in reproduction of the two sexes . . . the inequalities are not merely inevitable but functional too.
u/Ru-Bis-Co · 1 pointr/biology

A very nicely written book that adds a lot to Darwin's Theory of Sexual Selection is "The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle" by Amotz & Avishag Zahavi. Only little knowledge about evolution is necessary in order to understand this work because the authors present so many examples for their thoughts and conclusions. I've read it in German so I cannot comment on style and language of the English version.

u/gobiasblue · 1 pointr/Swimming

This book is great for technique and has some good swim workouts. 60 feet is a bit short but fine to get started. You're actually better off not pushing off the wall as far and really trying to get some good long strokes in.

u/rogersmith25 · 1 pointr/askscience

Sexual Dimorphism is common among many species.

You refer to "gender roles" as the cause, though I don't think that is correct. Gender is a societal construct - it is not societal laws that made women smaller and weaker as sexual dimorphism predates modern society. (It's interesting that some early feminist literature hypothesized that by now women would be physically equal to men, since they too attributed sexual dimorphism to gender roles.) Sexual dimorphism is rooted in biology - it was sexual dimorphism that caused gender roles, not the other way around.

Sexual dimorphism is evolutionarily adaptive. "What Evolution Is" has an interesting chapter on sexual dimorphism as it relates to "harem size". Typically animals that display sexual dimorphism have an uneven mating ratio - the larger the male relative the the female, the more mates he will have in his harem.

Given this evidence, your forth speculation makes sense - that the gap between females and males will diminish with time. But I do not believe it will disappear entirely since much of the female deficit in physical ability can be attributed to sacrifices made in favor of the ability to carry and raise children.

u/Openworldgamer47 · 1 pointr/AskMen

What evolution is by Ernst Mayr.

Even though I forgot almost everything because I have brain damage. Extremely important book that everyone should read. If you've ever been like "Why do I exist" well this is actually the answer to that question.

u/evo_psy_guy · 1 pointr/evolution

I'd also suggest getting some cheap used books such as: Sex, Evolution and Behavior or Haldane's classic:The Causes of Evolution. Other authors worth checking out would be Dawkins, Darwin and Zahavi. Between free online courses and erudite but still very accessible books you can get a solid foundation on the basics, for much much less than a single college course, and perhaps find a particular field that really intrigues you. Lastly, there are a number of great blogs out there, John Hawkes is a favourite. I'd suggest steering clear of Gould, but The spandrels of San Marco is a classic, and wrestling with Gould's semantic-based arguments and being able, to your own satisfaction, refute them using facts, is a worthy exercise.

Oh, and I'd be remiss without throwing out Trivers or Lieberman

u/stormgasm7 · 1 pointr/INTP

Well, I'm currently reading What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr. I picked it up for some light reading and because I love the subject. It basically goes into detail about what evolution is (hence the title) and how it has shaped our thoughts as a society.

u/Silent_Inquisitor · 1 pointr/atheism

I'd prefer a serious scientific book, tbh, not popular literature.

I would read Darwin but he wrote what he wrote a very long time ago and I'd prefer a modern account. How about this:


u/MisanthropicScott · 1 pointr/atheism

The human species has no races. We have racism because of silly perceived races. But, the reality is that there is only one extant race in our species.

u/caffeine_buzz · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

If you're looking for something that is really easy to read, then I would recommend What evolution is by
Ernst Mayr.

Edit: link

u/informedlate · 1 pointr/atheism
u/heimdall58 · 1 pointr/atheismbot

I would like to point out that evolution DOES NOT explain the origin of life, but the diversity of it. The science concerned with that is called Abiogenesis.

Now, on evolution I started with this one.

I also recommend: The Coiled Spring: How Life Begins,
Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, Life Evolving - Molecules, Mind And Meaning. And of course, Darwin's Origin Of Species.