/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5935781]

Raised young-earth creationist, would like to study and understand evolution in depth, have no background in biology.

What book should I get?

[Anonymous No.5935786]

>>5935781
I'm told it's good and understandable even from a layman perspective.

[Anonymous No.5935792]

>>5935786

However, Darwin's theories have been superseded many a time since then.

[Anonymous No.5935793]

When you have an understanding of evolution, an actual understanding, Dawkin's The Selfish Gene is a mandatory read. But it will not do you any good otherwise, it'll just confuse you.

[Anonymous No.5935802]

>>5935793

I have an understand of evolution and how it is believed to work, at least on Darwin's level, which, I was made to think, is not how it is believed to work nowadays; the battle moved from bodies' shapes to genes, or something along those lines.

I would prefer to avoid pop authors and acquire more serious work, if possible.

[Anonymous No.5935807]

>>5935792
Still interesting from a historical POV, like reading about Pythagoras, or Archimedes.

[Anonymous No.5935819]

>>5935807

I'll think about it.

What about the other guy who discovered evolution before Darwin and got fucked over by him? The theory used to have both names. Should I read that other guy too?

I'd appreciate a book that has a heavy emphasis on facts and evidence, as opposed to speculation.

[Anonymous No.5935827]

>>5935819
Wallace didn't discover it first, Darwin's journal proves that. Darwin was just too afraid to publish and waited ages, until Wallace convergently came up with it.

[Anonymous No.5935836]

Is there a book that has the timeline from the first living organism to humans?

We all agree that life evolved from the same primordial living entity, right?

[Anonymous No.5935846]

>>5935836
bumping with interest.
Isn't that the "the missing link"?

[Anonymous No.5935852]

>>5935846

No, it's the "primordial soup".

[Anonymous No.5935881]

>>5935802
The Selfish Gene is a fairly good biological piece. Dawkins did it before he became popsci. He might have atheist tied to his name, but he is a good biologist too.

[Anonymous No.5935882]

>>5935846
The only way to solve the "missing link" issue is having a fully detailed pedigree, like a dog has, citing each and every individual between a thing you accept as a monkey and a thing you accept as a man.
That's impossible because there's no way to find all the corpses needed to note that, and your definition of a monkey and a man can be loose enough that you'll never feel that the individual is monkey enough, maybe, because the primordial ancestor surely isn't a monkey you know that is alive in modern times. You want Matthew Chapter 1 kind of proof.

[Anonymous No.5935895]

>>5935882

What about insects? They don't have bones.

Are insects aliens?

[Anonymous No.5935906]

>>5935836
Slow down, charlie. You gotta take it in steps. It seems like what you're looking for is a book that says "And then this happened and then this happened"
If you want to learn about evolution, but have no prior education in biology, start with something light.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Beginners-Guide-Oneworld/dp/1851683712

If you eventually want to get into the deeper stuff, like neutral theory or population genetics, you gotta have the bases covered.

Congrats on trying to shed the ignorance that creationism conveys to you. I wish more of you creationists would take more time to try and learn what you're arguing against. Then you wouldn't argue against it.

[Anonymous No.5935913]

>>5935895
Insects share a common ancestor with us, just as you share a common ancestor (your grandmother) with your cousins. We are not decedents of insects

[Anonymous No.5935918]

>>5935906

I'm still Christian, though, no mad.

[Anonymous No.5935926]

>>5935918
That's fine. No problem with being a Christian. It's just that YEC just deny the hell out of everything, despite the truly immense amount of evidence. I don't know why they have that mentality. I'm proud of you for overcoming it and taking a look at the evidence.

[Anonymous No.5935941]

Get the basic general biology, continue with basic genetics, cellular, & mollecular biology, then read Ernst Mayr's Evolution book or Futuyama's What Evolution is.

Seriously, understanding some general bio & genetics will help before reading evolution book.

[Anonymous No.5935942]

>>5935846
>>5935836
both of you leave.

[Anonymous No.5935951]

Using the Bible logic, could Adam and Eve's offsprings make out with whom to have descendants? There was only their fathers and their own brothers. Could this be a massive incest?

[Anonymous No.5935962]

>>5935951
explains a lot, really.

[Anonymous No.5935975]

>>5935906

I'm considering buyin this book, just concerned that it may be too simple or dumbed down...

[Anonymous No.5935980]

>>5935913

>Insects share a common ancestor with us

>We are not decedents of insects

Provide species that was our common ancestor.

[Anonymous No.5936000]

>>5935951

OP here, I can answer that.

The Bible, if you read it, explains that Cain was exiled and met a woman from another tribe. The Bible never says Adam and Eve were the first humans, just the first that Yawheh made. Not even kidding.

[Anonymous No.5936001]

>>5935975
If you try to jump right in to the tough stuff, you'll just end up lost and confused, and won't learn anything at all. You gotta start at the basics, and build up from there. I haven't read that book, but the description says that it assumes no prior knowledge, which you've stated is true about you. It's not a kids book. It's a book for people who aren't evolutionary biologists to develop a better understanding of evolution, which is exactly what you are trying to do.

[Anonymous No.5936015]

>>5936000
Wait, what??? So, God made a copyright infringement?

[Anonymous No.5936036]

>>5935836
>Is there a book that has the timeline from the first living organism to humans?

The taxonomy of species is far too detailed to simply show on a branch graph.
The number of species alone is ridiculous -- even to cover just primates would be vastly impractical.


>We all agree that life evolved from the same primordial living entity, right?

No, that is oversimplifying to pointlessness.
The origin of amino acids to single-cell organisms to even multi celled organisms only gives us broad understanding of concepts like the development of organs and other specializations.
Very very much later, there are specific animal species which succeed and have further mutations, but there is nothing (no fossil) which points to what that animal was; there are too few fossils to show a specific path for most animals.

And that is part of the problem: fossils are not common, and the mutative branching doesn't show specific paths of successive animals.

Add to that the problem that each success in an animal means broad propagation and many kinds of mutations.

[Anonymous No.5936040]

>>5936000
bible says he made man (adam), so by natural conclusion adam was the first human. what the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.5936039]

>>5935881
>The Selfish Gene is a fairly good biological piece.

But isn't that mostly his theories of perspective?
A non-standard perspective may not help someone understand the theory very generally.

[Anonymous No.5936041]

>>5936001

I've checked the list of contents, it seems advanced enough. I ordered the book already.

[Anonymous No.5936047]

>>5936015

As a Christian, I don't consider the OT more than context.

[Anonymous No.5936048]

>>5936036

Just all the way up to humans. Not all species.

[Anonymous No.5936050]

>>5935895
>What about insects? They don't have bones.
>Are insects aliens?

No idea what your point is, here.
Just because someone didn't use an example that includes non-mammals doesn't mean there is a problem.

If you are trying to be cute, please don't.

[Anonymous No.5936053]

>>5936040

Bible never says "first human", and like I said, it mentions an entirely unrelated tribe. What would you rather trust, people's interpretation or the actual text?

[Anonymous No.5936058]

>>5936040

So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.

17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

[Anonymous No.5936057]

>>5935980
I don't really think it's possible to know what 'species' is our earliest common ancestor, because that was a really long time ago, and there is very few fossils from that period of time. Arthropods, (the phylum to which insects belong) and vertebrates (Cordata, the phylum to which we belong) both appeared in the fossil record at the Cambrian explosion, so the closest ancestor would have to come before that, so we're on the order of ~550 million years ago. Precambrian organisms were small and soft, and didn't fossilize well, so there aren't many fossils of them.

I'm not much of a zoologist, but after a quick search on Google, here's a good answer from someone who is, supposedly, a biologist.
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=4606

[Anonymous No.5936061]

>>5936041
Great. I'm glad to hear it.

I'm proud of you for taking the time to learn about evolution. Too many Christians shy away from it simply because they have been brought to believe it conflicts with their personal world view.

[Anonymous No.5936064]

>>5936053
So, if God created a man at his own image, that means that God could be a human from another tribe?

[Anonymous No.5936070]

>>5936000
>The Bible never says Adam and Eve were the first humans, just the first that Yawheh made. Not even kidding.

not sure why you think those aren't the same thing.

In explaining the origin of people, the Bible says he made Adam, then Eve.
It is saying those are the first two people.
There isn't any uncertainty in that; no room for there to have been people before.

It even describes (in a simplified way) that it is cells from one animal that provide the mutations to make a new animal, and the variations of gender for the same species, and more.

Let me suggest something: if the scripture was genuinely guided by the authentic word of God, would He have chosen to describe cellular mutation, evolving forms, adaptation and competition, etc, in scientific and chemical/cellular detail? Would he not simplify so that his message was clearer?
Don't we all do that when we start learning or teaching -- always start from the basics, a general overview?

[Anonymous No.5936071]

>>5936061

I appreciate the good feelings; I braced for hate when I opened this thread.

>>5936064

"Own image" doesn't have to refer to the human body; it could just as easily have been about the soul. The resemblance may be incredibly small, we have no means to know.

I personally think many ancient gods (including Yahweh) were ancient aliens or humans from a previous civilisation on earth.

[Anonymous No.5936073]

>>5936048

Taxonomically, yes -- but you start from the early hominids
You don't trace back through mammals to earlier or more fundamental forms of life -- it's irrelevant.

Taxonomically, there is a First occurence of a species.
it's all theoretical, but they do isolate specific adaptations or structures to name when a branch begins.

[Anonymous No.5936075]

>>5936053
>Bible never says "first human",
Obviously not, because it never knows or has that word to write.
The word is commonly translated to 'people' -- and that's already very general.

>and like I said, it mentions an entirely unrelated tribe.
unrelated?
It mentions people of a far, far, later time
That it doesn't connect Adam to the emergence of tribes later doesn't mean that there were other people in Adam's time.

[Anonymous No.5936076]

>>5936039
>TSG
>A non-standard perspective
This is not true at all. It's a fairly straightforward explanation of gene selection, and widely accepted among the scientific community.

[Anonymous No.5936081]

>>5936071
>I personally think many ancient gods (including Yahweh) were ancient aliens or humans from a previous civilisation on earth.

Then you might be misinterpreting the word.
'God' does not mean 'powerful person.'

The conceptual god is something before matter, before universe, a creator, literally, of all things.
(Thus, impossible to interpret as an alien on this universe or a person from Earth.)

There may indeed have been aliens or people visiting Earth before animals, or before civilization, or at the beginnings of civilizations; those are entirely separate topics. But none are what God is.

[Anonymous No.5936080]

mfw this entire thread

[Anonymous No.5936091]

>>5936076
>This is not true at all. It's a fairly straightforward explanation of gene selection, and widely accepted among the scientific community.

I am not saying it doesn't describe something, or that it isn't accepted to describe that.
I am saying it is a perspective concept, one that deals with a narrow part of biology (selection and mutation success).
As it is a narrower view, and requires some familiarity with biology and genetics and evolution to understand, it would be a poor choice for someone looking over basic ideas of the larger topic.

I stand by 'non-standard' -- it might not be ridiculed, but I know no biologists who examine anything according to this view, primarily.

[Anonymous No.5936097]

Better start with the basics: citric acid cycle, Gregor Mendel and his peas, then going to Darwin.

[Anonymous No.5936102]

>>5935781
After reading the book on Darwin look into this.

[Anonymous No.5936109]

>>5936091
>deals with a narrow part of biology
OP asked for a book about evolution in depth, not biology general.
>requires some familiarity with biology and genetics and evolution
It is written in a way that is extremely accessible to the layman. If a particular concept is confusing to OP he could research it before returning to TSG. Furthermore I think it's easier to accept the ideas of evolution as a whole if the mechanics are somewhat understood than the other way around.
>I know no biologists who examine anything according to this view, primarily
I know of no evolutionists who don't

[Anonymous No.5936114]

>>5936081

I don't confuse gods/God, I'm just saying the OT God behaves like a god, not like God.

[Anonymous No.5936117]

>>5936102

I read it, but as expected, it was weak. Why would a biologist have anything relevant to say about theology? Do you consult plumbers if you want to understand how cars work?

[Anonymous No.5936118]

Read Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"

[Anonymous No.5936121]

>>5936117
There's a lot of pipes in cars... at least something he can say right.

[Anonymous No.5936122]

>>5936109
>>deals with a narrow part of biology
>OP asked for a book about evolution in depth, not biology general.
In order to understand, from the perspective of someone who has been taught against it.
That means, as many people said, a basic understanding FIRST.
And, the very narrow subject of gene selection is NOT 'evolution in depth' -- it is narrowing the topic.
Again, I am NOT saying the book is useless or wrong, only that it isn't general.

>>requires some familiarity with biology and genetics and evolution
>It is written in a way that is extremely accessible to the layman. If a particular concept is confusing to OP he could research it before returning to TSG. Furthermore I think it's easier to accept the ideas of evolution as a whole if the mechanics are somewhat understood than the other way around.

So, you would teach someone a topic by jumping into the middle, with a recent and narrow viewpoint.
And then when they get confused, you'd go treat the basics?
That tells me a lot about what you think is good practice.

>>I know no biologists who examine anything according to this view, primarily
>I know of no evolutionists who don't
Ah, but evolutionists are already a narrow subset of the topic, and abstracted.
Yes, of course they would consider (if not accept) the concepts from that book. Evolutionists also consider climatology and geology, but that doesn't make those books useful to someone beginning to look at evolution.

[Anonymous No.5936126]

>>5935792
Darwin really got the core ideas right, actually between his life and now there were many attempts to supersede Darwin's ideas that often turned out to fail

[Anonymous No.5936128]

>>5935781
>Raised young-earth creationist, would like to study and understand evolution in depth

I can isolate the main disagreement regarding evolution, and it's about assumptions, not science.

Science has demonstrated, with evidence and observation and experimentation, that evolution is an authentic process, one which really has created the variety of animal and plant life on earth.
This includes the origin of the form of humanity, and what animals adapted to create that form, and which animals are in our successive line.
However, and this is the part that religion is upset about, it does not specify what made humans special in that process.

Religious folk often see evolution as a claim denying that people are special from animals, and that isn't true at all. Science doesn't tell us why that happened.
The conflict isn't directly about evolution at all; that's just how people summarize it. The conflict is that religious people think science isn't giving credit to God for making people special, and science doesn't address it at all.

[Anonymous No.5936133]

read any book about genetics, everything else about evolution is just a logical continuation of genetic principles.

[Anonymous No.5936137]

>>5936126
>Darwin really got the core ideas right, actually between his life and now there were many attempts to supersede Darwin's ideas that often turned out to fail

of course he did, that's why he still gets credit for the overview.
For people in this thread to suggest his book is pointless because he's been superceded (without recognizing that those are merely details) is like saying all previous thinkers are also all wrong, everywhere, because we know -slightly- better in every topic.

[Anonymous No.5936141]

>>5936122
Have you even read the book? Dawkins retreads much of the basics of evolution, but does so in largely nontechnical language. Really game theory would be the fundamental underpinnings of his text.

>So, you would teach someone a topic by blah blah blah blah
I would teach someone a topic by relating it to a topic they may already have some understanding of, which in this case is explicitly not biology
>Ah, but evolutionists are already a narrow subset of the topic
>of evolution

[Anonymous No.5936143]

>>5936137
We can have an advantage that Darwin didn't had in his own time: we can understand genetics and DNA structure BEFORE reading Darwin, and see the bigger picture.

[Anonymous No.5936146]

>>5936143
Darwin is the big picture

[Anonymous No.5936158]

>>5936146
Making this propaganda against genetics is allowing OP to commit the same mistakes that Darwin's contemporaries had in trying to understand the evolution process in a solid, natural way.
But, at least, you're only one anon against genetics and all the other anons are recommending genetics, so, you lost.

[Anonymous No.5936160]

>>5936143
>We can have an advantage that Darwin didn't had in his own time: we can understand genetics and DNA structure BEFORE reading Darwin, and see the bigger picture.

We do have a big advantage in being able to understand the mechanisms that make those adaptations possible, genetic and environmental and even temporal.
But, as someone else said, that's the smaller view -- going to the details of how a mechanism does something. Darwin's is the big view, where you see changes in populations over time and why they happened.

It seems to me, if you start from a genetic view, you'll go Larmarckian, and expect major changes to occur in every generation.

[Anonymous No.5936166]

>>5936160
He could think about a lamarckian process, but after reading genetics, he'll read Darwin that will erase this misconception.

[Anonymous No.5936167]

>>5936160
>It seems to me, if you start from a genetic view, you'll go Larmarckian
It seems to me, the complete opposite.

[Anonymous No.5936171]

Dawkins gives good lectures on the internet ( the old ones from the 90s ). His documentaries are also quite good. Other than that you can just pick up a standard biology text and understand biology in-depth more. It is quite a simple concept though at its core. It is more so about understanding specific findings we get from it.

[Anonymous No.5936187]

>>5935781
I'd really recommend "The Selfish Gene".

[Anonymous No.5936204]

>>5936117
I'm guessing the link is:

Evolutionary biology -> Evolutionary psychology -> Why people believe in God

Beyond that, if you have a model for explaining religion without god, it's far more simple to explain a universe in which there is no god but people evolved belief anyway then one in which god exists.

I think that's the idea, anyway.

[Anonymous No.5936211]

Origin of species is still very readable and relevant. There is even a comic book version of it published.

It's also a good idea to try and understand the scientific history and thought around the time of Darwin. Get an understanding of Lamarck, and why he was ultimately wrong. Lyell and Hutton, and how their concepts of geology directly informed Darwin's reasoning. Also Malthus and his theories of economics, which influenced Darwin as well. Not suggesting that you go and read all of their individual works (although you're welcome to if you want), there should be some decent documentaries or history books that describe all of these sufficiently.

Also remember, Evolution was originally conceived without direct foreknowledge of the existence of DNA or how it worked as a direct, physical conduit of biological inheritance. Understanding how other works in genetics will help you understand Evolution in a more mechanistic sense. Familiarize yourself with Mendell and his theories of inheritance, and work your way from there.

I'd recommend you save something like The Selfish Gene for later (not that it's difficult to understand though). It is a good book as well, as some anon's have said previously.

[Anonymous No.5936223]

>>5935792
You'd be surprised at how much he got right without knowing about genes or chromosomes or DNA or even atoms and molecules. That guy was a genius of the highest calibre. He also lays things out in a way that shows a lot of thought, with evidence piling upon evidence, and then presenting counterarguments against his own ideas, and then refuting them.

Darwin's The Descent of Man is also a very great book, and it focuses on things that may be more everyday/personal and thus easier to understand.

[Anonymous No.5936233]

>>5936204
>it's far more simple to explain a universe in which there is no god but people evolved belief anyway then one in which god exists.

very well said sir

[Anonymous No.5936238]

>>5936223
Not who you were responding to, and not to demean Darwin's accomplishments in any way, but I'm not so sure he was a "genius of the highest calibre".

I think one of the reasons I like him so much is that he isn't some Newton, sequestering himself in a room for ages and devising new fields of mathematics or theories of light, etc.

He was a guy who had an enthusiasm for the natural world, so he went out and travelled the world over collecting things he found interesting, and experiencing first hand the diversity of life on Earth. His works come more from a stance of experience, first hand knowledge, and a bit of good old lateral thinking.

We know there was at least one other guy on Earth who had the same idea as Darwin did at the same time too. Darwin just got lucky and published first. He didn't even publish till years after his voyage on the Beagle. He spent a lot of time contemplating what he had experienced, trying to connect the dots between a variety of theories from different scientific disciplines.

[Anonymous No.5936270]

>>5936238
>We know there was at least one other guy on Earth who had the same idea as Darwin did at the same time too. Darwin just got lucky and published first. He didn't even publish till years after his voyage on the Beagle. He spent a lot of time contemplating what he had experienced, trying to connect the dots between a variety of theories from different scientific disciplines.

theory of evolution by natural selection was not unheard of in darwins time. it had existed for centuries.

it originated in greece and was kept in the islamic world until it was transmitted back to europe.

darwin found a body of evidence and elaborated on the mechanisms by which evolution could take place, but the idea that organisms were selected for thru natural selection and could even change over time into new organisms was not new at all.

[Anonymous No.5936296]

>>5936117
theologist lol

[Jarl Sagan !ZelZ/AwYqE No.5936305]

Dawkin's 'The Magic of Reality' is quite possibly a good, simple place to start. Sagan's 'Billions and Billions' is possibly a next step. Of course, they won't help if you didn't pay attention in like 2nd grade through 12th to any of the stuff on evolution.

Also, depends on if you want just human/mammal/animal/organism/protist/etc evolution, or you want planetary evolution, universal/cosmological evolution, et cetera.

[Anonymous No.5936306]

>>5936117
>Why would a biologist have anything relevant to say about theology?
If the primary focus of theology is the study of "divine things" then what one "theologist" has to say on the matter isn't any more valid than anyone elses, considering there is no empirical evidence of such "divine things".

[Anonymous No.5936307]

>>5935793
Dawkins is a STUPID hack and "The Selfish Gene" is pop-sci crap.The whole premise is unverifiable which is why he wrote this instead of trying to publish in a peer reviewed journal FOR THE FIRST TIME.
Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden" is also on a layman's level but it's written by a skilled writer who is a SUCCESSFUL scientist.

[Anonymous No.5936314]

>>5936307
>"The Selfish Gene" is pop-sci crap.
Have you even read The Selfish Gene child?

[Anonymous No.5936316]

>>5935906
Why would you call him a creationist?
He states he was raised as one but there is no evidence at all to support your assumption.
It's probably not genetic ya know.

[Jarl Sagan !ZelZ/AwYqE No.5936323]

>>5936000
Or, just use the simpler argument and point out that Noah and his family were the only 8 people on earth (in the universe, perhaps?) and did the same damn thing. Because hey, the gene pool was dirty then or some bullshit but not magical Noah and company.

[Anonymous No.5936327]

>>5936040
Seriously?
The statements "I made pie" and "I made a pie" have identical semantic content.
Neither says "I made the first pie."

[Jarl Sagan !ZelZ/AwYqE No.5936331]

>>5936307
Why do people keep going with arguments to authority?

>hurrdurr popsci must be wrong because it's popsci

No, you dumbasses, popsci isn't crap just because it's popsci. Brian Green is an asshole. Dawkins and Sagan and Krauss are not.

[Jarl Sagan !ZelZ/AwYqE No.5936337]

>>5936327
>arguing semantics
>not understanding semantics
>accepting a shitty translation of a shitty earlier work as absolute truth but somehow not believing the word of god
>believing in an all powerful god who is illiterate and can't even write his own book in a language everyone can understand
>believing god gave us the gift of speech but can't speak any languages and needs pleb scribes to write his books

I mean, from this standpoint, at least the mormons were creative enough to give god credit for writing his own book...

[Anonymous No.5936351]

>>5936102
Fuck that empty scrotum.

Dawkins is the Rush Limbaugh of pop science; he simply makes inflammatory statements to rally the disenfranchised and unaccountably angry. It's all about the ratings.

[Anonymous No.5936363]

>>5936331
>>hurrdurr popsci must be wrong because it's popsci

I did not make that argument at all. In fact I recommended another piece of pop sci.

[Anonymous No.5936368]

>>5936337
So, you are just kind o fmaking up your own posts to criticize rather the ones that other people typed?

Try reading slower.

[Anonymous No.5937099]

>>5936233

Know what else is simpler?

>to think God just made humans out of clay

Simpler doesn't mean truer.

[Anonymous No.5937106]

>>5936306

You can't study "divine things" from an empirical perspective, precisely. It's a different field.

[Anonymous No.5937108]

>>5936323

The Flood wasn't a world-wide event. Confirmed by geologists.