Suggested books on evolution

[not_really]

Greetings all, first post, so please be nice to the newbie. :friday:

 

Recently, for reasons that I have yet to understand, I have been wanting to brush up on my knowledge of how life evolved. I have read a little on the subject, but not enough, I feel, to draw a conclusion between the two big theories on the origin of life: Intelligent Design and evolution.

 

I have trired looking up books on evolution, but I seem to run into a continuous problem: any book reviews I would look up would be accused by ID'ers as being horribly biased and not worth reading. I ran into this problem too with books on ID, as well. But I got a few references from some friends.

 

So, if the intelligent people of this forum could suggest any worthwhile books, I would greatly appreciate it. I do have a few requests, however: one, that it be written for a layman (I'm an intelligent guy, but I really don't want to have to sift through a lot of hard scientific terms if I can help it) and two, that it be relatively unbaised. What I mean by that is that the person writing doesn't have any kind of great grudge or hatred towards ID'ers, and that he/she is simply presenting the facts, as we know them, to an intelligent audience.

 

I should also put up a disclaimer. I haven't made up my mind yet one what I beleive. I'm just doing what every person should do in life: approach a problem from a common sense, unbaised standpoint, read both sides of an arguemnt, and make a rational decision.

 

Much thanks in advance to any responses.

[zadojla]

Stephen Jay Gould was a biologist and a supporter of evolution. He wrote a monthly column in "Natural History" magazine, and there are many collections of his articles. You might try reading one of these. He was by no means unbiased, but he wrote very well. The articles are not too heavy, and you can skip any you find boring. You will have to read several to get the full panorama of his views. Another excellent book of his on a different topic is "The Mismeasure of Man", contrasting IQ tests with phrenology.

[TINNY]

abridged story on ID :-

 

STARS PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: About how many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy? TINNY: A huge number, maybe one hundred billion stars. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And how many galaxies in the known universe? TINNY: Perhaps about the same number as there are stars in the Milky Way, one hundred billion. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If those numbers are right and each galaxy had about the same number of stars, that would mean there were as many as ten thousand billion billion stars in the known universe. Do you mean to say all those stars came from that original hydrogen and helium gas? TINNY: I do, but it wasn't quite that simple. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean? TINNY: Most of those first stars which formed no longer exist. Since the only two elements in the universe at that time were hydrogen and helium, the first stars which formed were giant stars, made up totally of those two gases. Those early stars were called first generation stars. Most were so massive that they collapsed in on themselves, then blew apart in great explosions called supernovas. When those giant stars collapsed, the pressure pushed their hydrogen and helium atoms together with so much force that they merged into one another, forming larger atoms. That process is called nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is the process which allows stars to burn for billions of years. It is also the process which formed virtually all of the other elements that exist in the universe. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that all of the different elements such as carbon, oxygen, sulphur, lead, gold, uranium, and others formed from hydrogen and helium gas in the center of stars? TINNY: That's right, over 100 different elements formed through the fusion process during the normal life cycle of stars, and at the moment when particularly massive stars explode as supernovas; but, some of them were so radioactive they didn't survive for very long. There are less than one hundred natural elements now left on our planet. The gold in this ring I'm wearing used to be in the middle of a star. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Amazing. TINNY: It sure is. I like to think that I'm wearing a piece of a star on my finger.

 

SCIENTIFIC METHOD TINNY: The very nature of science will be changed by this new world view. Although the ancient goal of science was to gain wisdom, understand natural law, and live in harmony with the natural order, science has for hundreds of years been the means by which mankind has come to dominate and control nature. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds like science took a turn for the worse. TINNY: Such was the effect of materialism, the view that there is no purpose, no life, and no spirituality in matter; that nature works according to mechanical laws, and everything in the material world could be explained in terms of the arrangement and movement of its parts. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did the belief in materialism affect human culture? TINNY: Science made it more and more difficult to believe in God. The divine eventually disappeared from science leaving behind a spiritual vacuum that has become characteristic of the mainstream of our culture. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And you say science is about to take another turn, that new turn being based on the quantum/relativistic view of reality. TINNY: That's right. Science during its materialistic period laid claim to and prided itself on its objectivity. Science purported to stand beyond values and morality. The new world view challenges that myth of a value-free science. It gives meaning back to human life. It provides a means by which the realm of science can exist in perfect harmony with spiritual aims and religious beliefs. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't that be dangerous? In the past religions have at times stood in the way of human progress, have required that beliefs other than truth be accepted as true, and have perpetuated great evil upon the members of our culture. TINNY: I would admit that all those things have been true; but, it is also the case that religions have given us some of our greatest truths and have been a source of great good.

 

RELATIVITY THEORY TINNY: The driving force in the development of relativity theory was the desire to show, through a unified foundation to the varied concepts in physics, that nature possessed an inherent harmony. According to relativity theory, space is not three-dimensional and time is not a separate entity. Space and time are intimately connected, forming a four-dimensional continuum, referred to as space-time. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All measurements involving space or time would then lose any absolute meaning. TINNY: So now we must accept that space has no meaning as a container of material objects, and that there is no universal standard of time flow. Since space and time had been so critical to our world view and to the description of all natural phenomena, this new perspective requires we reassess our most basic beliefs and assumptions about reality. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With such a basic flaw in our perception of the true nature of existence, it is not surprising that basing our beliefs and actions on the old, incorrect world view has led the human race to the brink of extinction. Are there any other surprises from relativity theory? TINNY: Relativity theory tells us that matter is another form of energy. I think that is quite a surprising conclusion. It is that truth which allowed the primal photons to create particles of matter such as electrons, protons, and neutrons when those photons collided, during the early moments of the newly created physical universe.

 

ENVOLUTION PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you call the progressive developmental process which permeates the physical universe? TINNY: I call it envolution. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's very similar to the word evolution. How do you define that new word 'envolution' which describes the developmental process? TINNY: Envolution is the natural unfolding of the physical universe in a series of successive small steps from a simple deterministic beginning to a perfect transcendental culmination. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That definition includes virtually all properties and behaviour in the physical universe. TINNY: Envolution is a description of the one basic law. Included in the concept of envolution is a further assumption; that the process is cyclic. After the simple deterministic beginning comes perfect transcendental existence. After perfect transcendental existence comes a simple deterministic beginning. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One becoming the many, and many becoming the one. TINNY: The eternal cycle. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me see if I understand the concept of envolution. As the physical universe begins it has a purpose, which is the creation of conscious existence, perfect in every aspect. The physical universe has an essential structure which determines the quantum/relativistic reality. That reality expresses the true nature of material existence. The physical universe begins as simple material forms acting in a largely determined manner in accord with their true nature. As simple matter develops into more complex organisations of matter, it begins to manifest a greater range of characteristics. The material stages of development progress through subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules to become biological organisms. The specific forms which can be manifested in each of those physical levels of existence is limited by the quantum factors of its own level and all preceding levels. That developmental process continues until a state of perfect transcendental existence is achieved. From that perfect transcendental existence emanates new physical existence of a simple deterministic nature.

CONSCIOUSNESS TINNY: In describing the envolution of consciousness I'll outline the process starting at human level consciousness, then work backwards to the beginning of the universe. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In describing the progressive development of other aspects of the physical universe, such as life, you began at the beginning and worked forward to the human level, why explain the development of consciousness in reverse order? TINNY: It is hard enough to see the relationship between the earliest physical forms and human life. With a quality such as consciousness, which is not visible, the relationship between the earliest manifestations of consciousness and human level consciousness may not be obvious enough to be understood. So if I begin at the level of consciousness, the human level, with which we are most familiar, the overall developmental process should be easier to understand. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But perhaps still difficult to understand? TINNY: Not only difficult to understand, but also hard to believe. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that? TINNY: At the lower levels of physical form I will be describing as consciousness some characteristics which have long been accepted as relating to factors other than consciousness. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me a definition of consciousness? TINNY: If I am to give a definition of consciousness which is to be meaningful at all levels it must be in very simple terms, because the term consciousness has wider meaning than just the human level of consciousness. Human level consciousness is a very complex manifestation of that particular characteristic. At more simple levels of material development the consciousness manifested is also more simple. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's fine, the definition must be one that includes all levels of consciousness from the most simple to the most complex. TINNY: An all inclusive definition of consciousness is, 'the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the environment'. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that simple definition include even human level consciousness? TINNY: On a very sophisticated level that is what human consciousness consists of, an extremely complex manifestation of the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the environment. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about memory, which doesn't seem to be either the ability to perceive the environment or react appropriately to it? TINNY: Memory is one of the mechanisms that enables consciousness to react appropriately to the environment. At lower levels of consciousness different mechanisms are used to enable appropriate reactions to the environment to occur. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those different mechanisms if not memory? TINNY: Actually they are memory at lower levels of development. They are the various progressive steps on the way to the characteristic we know at the human level as memory. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about the human qualities of emotion, are they just part of the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the environment? TINNY: Emotions remain as real and beautiful as ever, losing none of their importance by being included in that simplified definition. At the human level emotions are appropriate reactions to our perceptions of the environment. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The definition of consciousness you give is not to be seen as limiting, but as a convenient way to describe inclusively the varied manifestations of consciousness at all levels. TINNY: It would not be correct to give a more complex definition because although it might seem to explain more fully human level consciousness, it would become meaningless at the simplest levels.

 

LOGIC PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give a brief explanation of multi-dimensional logic? TINNY: The system of thinking based on multi-dimensional logic derives its effectiveness from the unified nature of all existence. In describing that logic system I will be using a three dimensional model. I must do that for the same reason I had to describe the shape of the physical universe as a three dimensional torus, a doughnut shape. The essential nature of existence, the toroidal shape of the universe, and this new system of thinking all have multi-dimensional aspects beyond the three dimensional world. Unfortunately, with a language which does not yet contain words and concepts to adequately describe that which transcends the three dimensions, I can not give true descriptions of the fullness of multi-dimensional reality. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Your efforts to provide descriptions of multi-dimensional reality in words and concepts of three dimensional existence have been most helpful. We must always accept our limitations. Those limitations are only temporary. Please go ahead with the explanation of multi-dimensional logic. TINNY: In three dimensional terms this new logic system can be fairly easily described. Thinking has envolved just as all other things have envolved. The simplest logical system of thinking we use to acquire knowledge can be thought of as having no dimensions. If we see a familiar object we do not require a sequence of thoughts to identify the object. The fact that it is perceived gives it identity. The next, and more widely used logical system of thinking can be thought of as having one dimension. This could be called linear logic. In that system of thinking we progress to knowledge by a sequential series of bits of information, facts which form a line leading to a conclusion. Linear logic works fine if the all points on the line, representing necessary facts are available, but if there is information missing the sequential series is broken and a conclusion cannot be reached. A further logical system of thinking can be thought of as having two dimensions. In this system of thinking we progress to knowledge across a plane. In that case no particular missing bit of information bars us from reaching a conclusion. As we approach knowledge along any line we may move to the side, across the plane, if it becomes necessary to bypass any empty space on the original line of logical progression. The plane, though, being limited to two dimensions does not contain all knowledge, only that knowledge contained within a particular subject. An even higher logical system can be thought of as having three dimensions. In that system of thinking we progress to knowledge through the body of a sphere. In this case all facts are contained within the sphere, as bits of information, each occupying a different point among the infinitude of points which make up the body of the sphere. As we think within the system of three-dimensional logic we have access to the necessary information to reach any conclusion. The path may be winding, even wildly divergent, but from any point within the sphere it is possible to reach any other point. Gaps along any sequential series or line present no obstacle. Information lacking on any plane is freely available on other planes. A sphere contains not only a infinitude of points, but also an infinite number of lines and an infinite number of planes. When using three-dimensional logic to attain knowledge there are an infinite number of paths leading to every conclusion. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there no limits at all to what knowledge is available when using three-dimensional logic? TINNY: Three-dimensional logic makes available all knowledge contained within the material plane of existence. To go beyond the material plane a new system of thinking must be used. That new system of thought is multi-dimensional logic, which has no limits and has available all knowledge. Through multi-dimensional logic knowledge of perfect and absolute truth can be achieved. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We humans are three-dimensional beings existing on the material plane. How can we utilise a system of thinking which reaches beyond the physical existence? TINNY: At the human level of consciousness our minds are constantly linked to existence beyond the material plane. Each of us has the potential to open the door of our mind, allowing access to perfect and absolute truth. Multi-dimensional logic, when fully expressed, does not lead to conclusions along lines, across planes, or through spheres; instead all knowledge is simultaneously and perfectly within the awareness of consciousness.

 

RATE OF SOCIAL CHANGE PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we truly know good from evil and right from wrong will we then be able to act in perfect accord with that knowledge? TINNY: I wish it could be that easy. To know the true nature of good and evil is a necessary step toward right action. It is a step that must be taken before right action can occur through the exercise of free-will. If we know good from evil the connection between the mind and body will result in our behaviour changing in a direction which would be more in harmony with the natural order. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be a sudden shift in behaviour toward that which is known to be right? TINNY: The speed of the shift in behaviour will vary between individuals from the almost instantaneous to the imperceptibly slow; but, it will always occur. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What determines the rate of change by which behaviour is brought into line with the knowledge of good and evil? TINNY: There are many factors which affect that rate of change. Some of those are: the degree of surety as to the truth of the knowledge; the consequences of wrong action; how integral a part of life the wrong behaviours were; how rewarding the wrong behaviours were perceived to be; and perhaps the most influential factor, the degree to which the knowledge of good and good and evil is commonly held by the other members of society, particularly those others who have greatest personal significance. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if all of human society were to hold a common, objectively true understanding of good and evil? TINNY: There would be a virtually instantaneous transformation of human society. We would rush toward the path of right action. This change would result in the end of all present social problems facing humanity. We would have a world that was so good it would be a veritable utopia compared to the way things are in the world at present. We would make a quantum leap to a higher order of developmental progression on the path to perfection. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And that great change would happen just because all human society held the same objective knowledge about the true nature of good and evil? TINNY: Exactly. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everyone was in agreement as to the true objective nature of good and evil wouldn't we have total conformity, a world where everyone acted the same way? TINNY: The opposite would be the case. We would have greater diversity in human society than ever before. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would that be? TINNY: There has always been a need to place limits on human behaviour to protect individuals and society from the effects of wrong actions. Those limits have been enforced through law, custom, and social mores. In a world freed from the constant threat of wrong action we would no longer have that pressing need to constrain the realm of human behaviour. We would have a freedom of action never before available. Freedom within the range of right behaviour would allow a far wider expression of human action than could exist within the relatively narrow range of acceptable behaviour which included both good and evil. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it the range of good is larger than the range of good and evil combined? TINNY: Good alone stands unlimited, while when good and evil are combined, fears of evil result in the placing of constraints which affect both good and evil. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we won't have conformity when the world is basically good? TINNY: No, we won't have conformity. It would be boring if everyone were exactly the same. Besides, if everyone were the same it would limit the progression of the human species. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would human progression then be limited? TINNY: We must explore many paths to reach our destined goal, perfection in every aspect. In that new world of goodness we will be freed from the constraints of evil, and new paths never before possible will be open to us. I don't think we can yet realise how great that freedom shall be.

 

SUMMARY TINNY: In the beginning light created physical existence. Light became simple matter, the subatomic particles. From those subatomic particles emerged many different atoms, forming the basic elements of which our universe is made. Galaxies, stars, and planets formed from combinations of those original subatomic particles. As the groupings of subatomic particles became more complex, in numberless places throughout the universe, life of high consciousness developed. Human life is one example of this process of development, called envolution. Envolution describes a process whereby simple material existence, exhibiting few of the characteristics of life and consciousness, comes to exhibit fully and perfectly all characteristics of life and consciousness. Our physical universe and all that it contains is part of the reproductive nature of perfected being, God. We human beings are the created children of God. For billions of years natural law directed this progressive development of simple matter until human life came to exist. The major developmental levels to that point were subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, biological life, and human life. At our level, human existence, natural law no longer externally directs continued progression toward perfection. One of the characteristics being progressively expressed is free-will. Sub-atomic particles had virtually no free-will, atoms had a bit more, molecules still more, and biological life even more free-will. At each of those levels of material existence, although free-will was constantly progressing, the external control of natural law had more influence than free-will. At the human level for the first time free-will has progressed to a point where it has the potential for greater influence than the external control of natural law. Natural law must still be followed, but we humans have the ability and the obligation to choose whether or not to follow that natural law. If we are to fulfil the purpose of physical existence, which is to attain perfection in every aspect, we can only do so by choosing to follow natural law. If we do not choose to follow natural law we will cease to exist as a developing lifeform. The future of humanity has only two possible paths. We will continue to progress to a perfect and absolute existence or we will cease to exist as a species. The path to perfection is the way of harmony and beauty, a future of peace and love. The path to perfection is heaven on earth, a veritable utopia. The path to extinction is chaotic and destructive, a future of force and aggression. The path to extinction is hell on earth, a veritable nightmare. Ours are the generations which must make that fateful choice. While it appears obvious that given such a choice any sane person could only choose the joys of the path to perfection over the sorrows of the path to extinction, it remains an important truth that all lines of development progressing toward perfection do not attain that grand goal. The human species as a whole cannot be considered sane. It is an unhappy fact that humanity may not choose the path to perfection, but instead may choose extinction. It is our collective insanity which could bring about that fatal error. It is the natural condition for humanity to be sane. We have diverged from the path of sanity due to our ignorance of the true nature of existence. We have based our beliefs and our behaviours on an incorrect world view, a mistaken perception of reality. To become sane we must come to know the true nature of our existence. A new world view is needed, and it is available. If we are to survive, if humanity is to have a future, we must soon come to know, understand, and live in accord with natural law. Our future offers ecstasy beyond all previous experience. I want that beautiful future for myself, but I want that future even more for all humanity. I will work my whole life to help bring about that grand future, but it will take much more than my small efforts. It is my hope and my prayer that all members of the human race will join together, work together, and progress together toward our collective destiny, perfect and absolute existence.

 

CONCLUSION TINNY: Occasionally there occurs in the progression of human knowledge a great leap forward in understanding. The unified theory of existence provides the impetus for the greatest single stride forward in the long development of the human race. The unified theory of existence is the culmination of modern scientific knowledge combined with the essence of ancient wisdom. The unified theory of existence is not simply a body of knowledge, no matter how significant. It is a body of knowledge specifically designed to alter the consciousness of humanity in a positive direction. This is to be accomplished by raising the level of consciousness of each individual who becomes aware of this new world view. The unified theory of existence shall be the catalyst for a revolution in every aspect of human life. With this knowledge humanity shall survive the present threat of extinction and travel the path to perfection. This is the beginning of the utopian dream...

[not_really]

Zadojla: thanks for the advice. I shall look up some of his stuff asap.

 

Tinny: dang, I was expecting maybe a few responses not more than a couple of sentences long, but I wasn't expecting a novel! :) But what you wrote was truly beautiful, thank you for taking the time to write it. There were many sentiments in there that resonated with me.

[TINNY]

i didn't write it on the spot. It's in my .doc file. there's a full version if you want.

[Tormod]

I can recommend "Plan and Purpose in Nature" about Darwinian evolution in a modern perspective. It's in the Science Masters series.

[Ayoungnerd]

Obviously 'Origin of Speices' the book that started it all to Charles Darwin. If you want new information however, read some books by Stephen Jay Gould or his teacher Ernst Mayer.

[gubba]

G'day to you not really,

 

Richard Dawkins offers a slightly different tack again and is pretty readable, as are Matt Ridley and Steven Pinker. Try Richard's famous "The Selfish Gene" and say "The Blind Watchmaker" for a solid introduction in lay language of a common take on present day evolutionary theory.For up to dates on the current debates try Steven's "The Blank Slate" then Matt's "Nature via Nuture". cheers gub

[Tormod]

i didn't write it on the spot. It's in my .doc file. there's a full version if you want.

 

No need - the entire article is posted at islamic-world.net... :eek:

[Pyrotex]

I have tried looking up books on evolution, but I seem to run into a continuous problem: any book reviews I would look up would be accused by ID'ers as being horribly biased and not worth reading. I ran into this problem too with books on ID, as well. But I got a few references from some friends. So, if the intelligent people of this forum could suggest any worthwhile books, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Richard Dawkins has been mentioned, and I encourage you to read him. He is one of the best writers in the Englilsh language today, together with Gould and Daniel Dennett, who also have published very readable and enjoyable books concerning Evolution. My favorite Dawkins books are :

 

"Climbing Mount Improbable" -- Uses the metaphor of climbing a really steep mountain to represent the progress of Evolution. If you go around to the 'back side' of the mountain, which is vastly long, the steepness is actually a very gentle climb; it just takes a long, long time.

 

"The Blind Watchmaker" -- Frontal assault on the oft-used analogy between Evolution and a pile of watch parts caught up in a whirlwind. 'Is there design in living organisms?' asks Dawkins. 'Yes, but it is not the kind of design you find in a pocket watch.'

 

A word about "BIAS". Many folks automatically accuse a writer of being "biased" merely because the speaker disagrees with the writer's conclusion. This is bad logic. Is Dawkins a theist? No, he is not. Does he give "equal time" to theistic explanations of Life, such as ID? No, he absolutely does not.

 

Is Dawkins biased? What do you mean by "biased"? Has Dawkins made his decision for one side or the other? Yes. He is an avowed non-theist and evolutionary biologist. However, does he misrepresent the facts, hide the unanswered questions, use fallacious or misleading "logic"? NO. His writing is as "clean" and rational as any you will find.

 

Is a person "biased" if they have already, perhaps in their teens or college career, looked at both sides of an issue, made their choice and stuck with it? Okay, let us say they ARE biased. So what? Does that make them wrong or untrustworthy?

 

If so, then EVERYBODY is wrong and untrustworthy about EVERY issue that they hold a firm opinion on!