Book on Evolution . ..

[Xru]

Greetings all - I would like a recommendation for a book or books by a recognized expert in the filed of Evolutionary Biology that offers a OBJECTIVE critical review of the current state of Evolutionary Biology . . . the evidence both supporting, contradicting, lacking, etc.

I have no stake in the argument what-so-ever although I am a Christian . . . my basis in Faith is on the evidence supporting the authenticity of Ministry of Jesus on earth and His Resurrection.

I have no taste for the contention between DE, OW, or NW advocate, ID or Creationists alike . . . so.

Budget no limit:)


Thanks you

PS I've browsed amazon.com for what seems like ages trying to find something but the books I find if even remotely critical of DE, there is always a host of Evolutionist Dogmatists giving it 1 star. Same for the Creationists and ID people.

I DON'T want to read Dawkins, I've read him and am thoroughly NOT impressed.

[phaedrus]

If I were you I'd google any decent university which has courses in evolutionary biology and see what texts they use for their course. There are also video classes like:

http://academicearth.org/courses/evo...y-and-behavior

If you have access to iTunes, you can browse through their Itunes university catalogue.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

[Benson Shays]

I'm not being sarcastic. How about Darwin?

[lao tzu]

The best and most meaningful criticisms of evolution were answered more than a century ago. Disputes inside modern evolutionary theory are constrained to questions of how it occurs, not whether it occurs.

I DON'T want to read Dawkins, I've read him and am thoroughly NOT impressed.

Contrary to what you might've heard, all caps is "NOT" [sic] cruise control for cool.

[Xru]

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000007031 StartFragment:0000000487 EndFragment:0000007015

I'm not being sarcastic. How about Darwin?

Yes . . . I have. Its on my reading list but first I have to read a bunch of Zombie Apocalypse books I just bought from amazon.com. I'd like to get his collected works with all the differences in editions. That would be way cool.

Some of the best reading I've had so far this year.

I know of few who would argue that no natural selection occurs, at some level including myself. After that it is hard to say. I am a natural skeptic, and I suppose it is my own bias, and could easily turn into a nihilistic view of knowledge in general. Oddly, this does not really bother me . . . the bias I suppose it is, to be honest, that almost nothing can be known for sure although there a plenty of others of far greater intellect than I who believed just this.

One must and act like one has knowledge, IMHO. That's what I do. I think I know that I exist . . . except after watching "Matrix" I'm not even sure of that. Know anything other than that for sure . . . well, I'm not so sure.

I'd probably say I'm a radical skeptic but wouldn't go so far as to assert Epistemological Nihilism.

Having studied a lot of history, and watched historians of various schools interpret the past such as the Middle Ages in strikingly different ways depending on the current cultural paradigm the historians were experiencing at the time. History, IMO, is much like archeology in the principle that the past is reconstructed through interpretation of what is found in the present, that is evidence. No evidence from the past can be assumed complete, IMO. Forensics reconstruction is different in kind than say the experiment that showed that light is bent by the gravitational field of the sun.

Reconstruction evolutionary history from the traces left in the earth is an ambitious thing. It seems that every theory from philosophy to science has some weakness including Evolutionary theory. I don't say that makes the main trust of it unsound. What I find incomprehensible is some, such as the esteemed lao tzu claiming that all objections to it have been put to rest. This is just not true, IMHO.

Such inflexibility and lack of humility does not engender confidence in me as to the judgement of those who say such things. Better to say, "Evolutionary Theory seems very sound in its main trust although there are some inexplicable things that persist, and there are some consequences to the Theory that don't make real sense." This, IMO, is a pretty good affirmation of any theory and pretty supportive. Anything else reduces theory to dogma which undermines my confidence in the people who endorse such things.

I really don't care for the fighting between neo-Darwinist, Creationist, or I.D. advocates. They all have drawn up their lines of battle and just slug it out . . . not really in the spirit of open and honest debate which is really at the center of the scientific method as I understand it. That is perhaps the most frustrating thing I observe.

I posted a supportive comment in the NS301 section as follows:
Re: Radioactive vs. carbon dating

Jump to Post

Originally posted by semar_mendem

Hi all,
I have a basic question about the radioactive dating, particularly in contrast to C14/carbon dating.
Carbon dating is proven when it correctly estimate the age of wood from a barge and the age of the barge is known from other documents.
Was there similar proof for radioactive dating, which often has millions of years of half-life?

Isn't this whole dating depends on knowing the original amount of radioactive material to begin with? How could we know for sure that the rock/fossil/etc. has the same amount of Potassium-40 a billion years ago compared to now?

If the composition of the elements was different back then, wouldn't it meant that the dating could be wrong (either too old or too young)?

Seems like you got some sensible answers to your question . . .

However, I'd encourage you to examine the assumptions behind any dating method whether radioactive decay, tree rings, or mud deposits. I always find it astonishing that people talk about making assumptions about conditions 13 billion years ago. But I'm a skeptic and sometimes think I'm a nihilist in certain ways. I guess that's my bias.

That is not a popular position around NS301, he he

.

I don't see anything wrong with drawing attention to assumptions. That's the basis of a good understanding. Yet NS301 participants immediately started flaming me, with one suggesting I was insane.

Here's the thread . .. judge for yourself: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-carbon-dating

Currently, I'm reading “Darwinian Fairytales,” by D. Stone. This guy is a lighted match thrown into a pit of gas to the neo-Darwinists although he goes on to some length explaining that he has little issue with the Evolutionary explanation of every living thing on Earth except humans. I don't agree with the thrust or don't find convincing the thrust of some of his arguments. However, some of his arguments make perfect sense and ya don't need to have a Doctorate in Evolutionary Biology to understand them.


Anyway, thanks for the suggestion.

[Xru]

The best and most meaningful criticisms of evolution were answered more than a century ago. Disputes inside modern evolutionary theory are constrained to questions of how it occurs, not whether it occurs.



Contrary to what you might've heard, all caps is "NOT" [sic] cruise control for cool.

Back in stride are you lao tzu.

ALL THE BEST DUDE.

[lao tzu]

I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay.

Even your trolling is second rate.

[rogue06]

Even your trolling is second rate.

You could offer lessons to the less fortunate you know

[lao tzu]

The best and most meaningful criticisms of evolution were answered more than a century ago.

What I find incomprehensible is some, such as the esteemed lao tzu claiming that all objections to it have been put to rest. This is just not true, IMHO.

You're far too modest about your lack of comprehension.

[Xru]

You could offer lessons to the less fortunate you know

Watch and learn . . . my moto.

[Xru]

You're far too modest about your lack of comprehension.

Hmmm . . . . I'll get back to ya on that one . . .

PS - are you stalking me lao