Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Sunday, April 03, 2005

A book list for evolutionists

I frequently get requests for suggested books in evolutionary biology. Here's a short list with some very rough organization of books I've read and liked and think worth passing on. If you have any other suggestions, add 'em in the comments.

I'll probably also move the list to one of the sidebars at some point.

For the kids:

Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution. Steve Jenkins. Another encyclopedic illustrated summary of evolutionary history for the younger set.

Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs . David Norman. Not really intended for kids, but packed with full-color illustrations and detailed descriptions of many dinosaur groups. My kids would spend hours leafing through this one; it's the dinosaur book I wish I'd had as a 12 year old.

Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story. Lisa Westburg Peters. Excellent, simple summary of evolutionary history, for the K-3rd grade set.

The Tree of Life : Charles Darwin. Peter Sis. Nice picture book biography of Darwin for the kids.

From the Beginning: The Story of Human Evolution. David Peters. An older book that may be hard to get, but worth it for the wall-to-wall drawings of the organisms scattered along the human lineage, from single-celled prokaryote to modern humans.

For the grown-up layman:

Charles Darwin: Voyaging and Charles Darwin : The Power of Place. Janet Browne. This is the best biography of Darwin out there.

Science As a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology. John A. Moore. This is part history book, part philosophy of science book; if you know someone who doesn't understand the scientific method, this one will straighten him out.

The Darwin Wars. Andrew Brown. Much as we aspire to the pure search for knowledge, scientists can be testy and political and vicious, too—this is a study of the sociology of evolutionary biology.

Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Carl Zimmer. If you want a general survey of the history and ideas of evolutionary biology that isn't written like a textbook, this is the one you want.

At the Water's Edge: Fish With Fingers, Whales With Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea. Carl Zimmer. The focus in this one is on macroevolution of tetrapods and cetaceans. Excellently written, with a very thorough overview of the evidence.

Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution. Richard Fortey. Everything you need to know about the basics of trilobytes, with a chatty and often amusing introduction to the world of paleontologists.

The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. Jonathan Weiner. A Pulitzer-winning account of the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant in documenting the evolutionary changes occurring in Darwin's finches in the Galapagos right now.

What Evolution Is. Ernst Mayr. A survey of the theory by an opinionated master.

Evolutionary Biology. Douglas J. Futuyma. If you don't mind reading a textbook, this is one of the best and most popular texts on the subject.

An Introduction to Biological Evolution. Kenneth Kardong. Another textbook, but less weighty and less expensive then Futuyma's; a book I'd use in a freshman non-majors course.

For the more advanced/specialized reader:

On Growth and Form. D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson. I'm afraid no developmental biologist can list important books without mentioning this one.

From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, Scott D. Weatherbee. Like it says…molecular genetics, evolution, developmental biology. A good textbook describing the new cutting edge of evolutionary biology.

Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?. David M. Raup. A little statistics, a lot of paleontology, a good introduction to how we try to puzzle out what the world was like from a sparse data set.

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Stephen J. Gould. Massive. Indulgently written. But full of interesting ideas.

Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Mary Jane West-Eberhard. Also massive. If you're already comfortable with the conventional perspective on evolutionary theory, though, this one twists it around and comes at it from the point of view of a developmental biologist.

Biased Embryos and Evolution. Wallace Arthur. A slim and readable book about evo-devo.

The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Richard Lewontin. A slender book that lucidly summarizes the non-reductionist position on modern biology; it's a call for greater breadth in science.

The Shape of Life : Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. Rudy Raff. Hardcore evo-devo. A little out of date, but very influential.

For the anti-creationist:

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross. The best summary of the sneaky political strategy of the creationists of the Discovery Institute.

Unintelligent Design. Mark Perakh. Nice, blunt dissection of the pseudo-science of creationism.

Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Matt Young, Taner Edis, eds. A team-takedown of Intelligent Design's bad science.


A set of good additions to this list can be found at EvolutionBlog, in addition to the stuff in the comments below. I'll make some additions to my list (I really should include one book by Dawkins, I think) and see if I can add links to sources other than just Amazon later this week, if and when my life settles down a little bit.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2122/tYFvK8Y1/

Comments:
#20960: Mrs Tilton — 04/04  at  02:00 PM
Ben,

best point in the thread, if you ask me.



#20961: Mrs Tilton — 04/04  at  02:03 PM
their anticreationist material seems to have dropped off. A couple of months ago they had loads of anticreationist books, but they seem to only have the odd one here and there now.

One can, of course, construe an hypothesis under which this is a good thing (though concededly inconvenient for your own good self).



#20966: — 04/04  at  02:55 PM
coturnix and PZ (and anyone else, for that matter),

If I could bother you...I happen to be one of those who has been influenced by Dawkins. I like the way he refuses to get all weepy and warm and fuzzy when it comes to science v religion. Science and religion are not compatible. Now, I am strictly a layman. Science in general and human evolution in particular are my hobbies, not even close to professions. When Dawkins or Gould get too technical, too deep into the science, I'm lost. What one says sounds as reasonable and understandable (or not!) as what the other says, frankly. That said, could you explain why it is bad for someone like me to read and, hopefully, learn from Dawkins? I genuinely believe in the scientific method, i.e. don't get too wedded to(or dogmatic about?) any one hypothesis or theory or idea or a particular scientist's teaching...things change, be open minded. This is me being open minded. What have I missed?

Many thanks,
the guy with the "neandertal" moniker.



Trackback: A Liitle Light Reading Tracked on: The World Wide Rant - v3.0 (63.247.140.66) at 2005 04 04 15:27:29
Pharyngula has the details - a cornucopia of literature on the science of evolution, with selections suitable for serious students, adult laymen, children, and - yes - a few that are even on a low enough reading level for a...



#20974: coturnix — 04/04  at  03:40 PM
Hmmmm...this is tough.

First of all, Dawkins is a serious and respected figure, even when wrong. Quacks like Desmond Morris are just ignored - Dawkins is not ignored at all.

If a lay person with no intentions of becoming a biologist would ask me what to read: Dawkins and Dennet or Behe and Dembski (and Gould and Lewontin are for some reason not an option), I would happily suggest Dawkins and Dennet. They are excellent writers, and they get much of it right - enough for a lay person to get a decent understanding of evolution and get immunized against creationism and similar quackery. And definitely kudos to both of them for their valiant fight against superstition and pseudoscience, e.g., what they are doing with The Brights movement (the Newdow case, for instance).

The problems start when you get deep into the field. Perhaps the problems with Dawkins's theory should remain within the field, as they confuse the educated lay people.

Over the past 10 years or so I've been attending bi-weekly meetings of a Philosophy of Biology group. It is a nice mix of people, from researchers in evo-devo and geneticists, through ecologists and evolutionary biologists, to historians and philosophers of biology. Topics change over time (there was a whole year on cultural evolution, another on modularity of development, and another on philosophy of ecology, for instance), but it keeps coming back to the question of the role of genes in evolution.

One of the resident philosophers has done research and written some of the best stuff out there on hierarchies of units/levels of selection and on constraints, among else - most definitely a pluralist (perhaps a "Gouldian"). The other eminent philosopher arrived a couple of years ago a hard-line "Dawkinsian". The first few weeks were fireworks! Guess what - he is not Dawkinsian any more. Why? Because he is a VERY smart guy and over time we have read several dozen of headache-inducing philosophy papers that expose, through tough math and fancy thought-experiments, as well as some experimental evidence, serious flaws in Dawkins' philosophy - so over time he saw the light.

The core flaw is an arbitrary choice of genes (DNA) as the main, if not sole unit of selection. No other additions to the theory that Dawkins added in response to criticisms have done anything to change this. His is the case of extreme "genocentrism".

Both philosophers and biologists have, since about 1970s, worked on this problem and realized that this level does not have any particular primacy over other levels (from atoms to species and everything in between, e.g., cells, tissues, embryos, organs, organisms, groups, demes, etc.).

In its most crude and devious shape (see Gene Expression blog), genocentrism is religious (DNA as a substitute for God), and is used for pushing racist or sexists pseudo-scientific arguments. Dawkins is much more sophisticated than that, but his followers are a murky lot and use his ideas to push their agendas.

Finally, adherence to Dawkins' schemce hiders one's ability to do research correctly. A couple of years ago I saw a seminar by a very eminent biologist who is a strict Dawkinsian. He put up a slide with data that were screaming: group selection! What did he say? He said that he had no idea how to interpret that dataset. Afterwards, I asked him about it, and he got mad: "There is no such thing as group selection! Let's not even talk about it". How is he going to design his next set of experiments if he denies existence of a powerful (and already quite well documented) evolutionary mechanism which is, actually, extremely important in his study syste (a social mammal with co-operative breeding)? Answer: he will not. He will keep beating the old horse until he retires and someone younger, raised on post-Dawkinsian biology, picks up his work.

I have tried to write more about it, e.g., here (this is a long serious piece):
What Would Darwin Do(WWDD)
...and here (these two are meant to be provokative and opinionated):
God, Genes and Conservatives
Genocentrism Aids Anti-Abortion

Try this for good books about it:
Science Books, e.g., these:
Stephen Rose - Lifelines
Richard Lewontin - The Triple Helix
Evelyn Fox Keller - The Century of the Gene
David Moore - The Dependent Gene
Jonathan Marks - What it means to be 98% chimpanzee
Lewontin, Rose and Kamin - Not In Our Genes
Dorothy Nelkin and M.Susan Lindee - The DNA Mystique
Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald - Exploding the Gene Myth

Also, see my comments above.



#20981: — 04/04  at  05:02 PM
Humanity's Descent: The Consequences of Ecological Instability
Richard Potts



#20982: — 04/04  at  05:04 PM
Many thanks for taking the time. I guess I have yet more reading to do. I'll probably check in from time to time for clarifications and such...if nobody minds.



#20983: Steve Bates — 04/04  at  05:05 PM
Thanks, PZ; I plan to work my way through the appropriate part of your list, like DS, when I figure out which category I belong in. Perhaps I should start with the kids' books.

One more reason, completely apolitical, to avoid Amazon: in many big businesses, Amazon's web site is blocked by the company's filtering s/w. A friend who is a medical editor for a large hospital is endlessly frustrated by this; the editors frequently need the citations, reviews, etc. that they find on Amazon, but can't get to them.



's avatar #20984: Chris Clarke — 04/04  at  05:12 PM
Sorry about the Amazon links. A good alternative in the US is BookSense, which is a network of 1100 indy bookstores across the country. Order online and your local joint fills your order (and gets your money.)

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



#20996: coturnix — 04/04  at  08:08 PM
I use Amazon to get info and read reviews. Sometimes I order from them, sometimes I just get the ISBN code and take it to my local independent bookstore (Quail Ridge Books) and order there. If Amazon does not have a rare book, though, I can often find it on alibris.com



#20998: — 04/04  at  08:35 PM
I've never gotten anything directly from Amazon, but I've used them as an intermediary for deals with third parties (used stuff). I expect they get a profit out of that.

I don't take the whole "buy blue" stuff too seriously, and I buy from Republican-promoting businesses like Walgreens without too much worry. However, if any others take this seriously, probably the most convenient option is barnesandnoble.com -- their execs give their money to Dems. I'm thinking I'll eventually copy the Amazon reviews I've done to B&N, since they don't have many reviews. Powells is another option, though I find its interface less familiar.



Trackback: Some Monday Links Tracked on: The Two Percent Company's Rants (67.18.141.194) at 2005 04 04 21:34:47
It has been a little hectic here lately, and we haven't had a lot of time for anything in depth. So, to keep you thinking (and probably in some cases grimacing), here are some Monday Links. First, Ed Brayton pointed us...



#21012: — 04/04  at  11:12 PM
'The Theory Of Evolution' by John Maynard Smith remains one of the best overviews of the modern synthesis. "The best general introduction to the subject now available" according to Richard Dawkins in the foreword to the 1993 Canto edition. As an undergraduate I found it invaluable.



#21045: David Hadley — 04/05  at  09:35 AM
I've just finished reading 'Almost Like a Whale: The 'Origin of Species' Updated' by Steve Jones. I'd say it is a good entry-level/intermediate level introduction to evolution. Some are put off by Jones' style apparently, but I found it congenial.



Trackback: Evolution 101 Tracked on: Four And Forty (66.151.149.25) at 2005 04 05 13:42:34
Paul Myers at Pharyngula posted a book list for evolutionists that adds to my reading guide on the subject. The comments associated with the post are invaluable, particularly as a lay reader. Consensus seems to be that Richard Dawkins, whom



#21136: — 04/06  at  06:42 AM
Coturnix,

Regarding your posts about Richard Dawkins. Something about them had me somewhat distressed. At first I couldn't put my finger on it, but I've had some time to re-read and think on them. You cite an "eminent biologist" and an "eminent philosopher" above, both are Dawkinsian. At least at first. The philosopher, you say, "sees the light" eventually and is now no longer Dawkinsian. The biologist (the actual biologist!) apparently never does or cannot and is, in fact, intolerant of any discussions that don't square with his Dawkinsian view of science. The man doesn't seem to want people to even think about "group selection", for instance. Sounds dogmatic and extreme to me. Kind of like someone saying his books "should be banned from general bookstores!" Or "should not be on a list of books to general audience." It wouldn't surprise me if the biologist you cite started comparing those who disagree with him to Dembski and Behe, saying their view of science was "religious". Worse, there would be suggestions that they are "racist" or "sexist", that those who follow them are "a murky lot." Ending all debate or discussion.

As I've stated before, I am no scientist though I appreciate the disagreements of phenotype vs genotype. But appreciate is the best I can do. Obviously, I can offer no real scientific argument one way or the other. But the apparent vitriol that is thrown about between "eminent" scientists, vulgar accusations about racism and the like really does distress me. It was after reading your posts and seeing your list of books to read that I was reminded...I've seen this before. Steven Pinker covers the arguments between E.O. Wilson, Dawkins and Rose Lewontin and Gould in The Blank Slate. Reductionist, determinist, racist...all these words are used repeatedly (by Lewontin et al) to describe the "Dawkinsians" and/or their scientific views. Pinker, I think, does an excellent job of refuting all of this, point by point. Now, I imagine given this you are no fan of Pinker's. As you seem to have the same outlook as Lewontin and Gould. Disagree with us and you are reductionist and of course are attractive to that "murky lot" of racists and sexists. In either case you should not be on general book lists or in bookstores.

It so nice to see the phenotypist is the tolerant one.

Cheers.

P.S. I'd still love to hear PZ weigh in on all this.



#21725: Danny Boy — 04/12  at  08:52 PM
Amazon sent me an email recommending a book titled "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom" by Sean B. Carroll. I wonder if anyone has read it, and if it's too technical/advanced for an educated layman.

neandertal, Pinker's book "The Blank Slate" is filled with strawmen caricatures of the opposing position. Try searching through Pharyngula for PZ's assessment of that book.



Trackback: Dinosaur Books Tracked on: Suspension Phase (216.193.217.198) at 2005 04 30 21:37:30
I must confess to being something of a book fiend. I voraciously collect books from many different genres, and a topic that I have recently started avidly collecting is dinosaurs. Perhaps paleontology would be a more high class way of putting it, since...



Trackback: "Woe Unto Ye Beetles of South America!" Tracked on: Acephalous (66.151.149.25) at 2005 05 17 20:25:23
The title of this entry, exclaimed by Charles Darwin upon receiving his father's permission to sail on the Beagle, points to the way in which Janet Browne--in the magesterial two-volume biography floating somewhere to the right of these words--believes Darwin



Trackback: I need help Tracked on: a wolf angel is not a good angel (66.235.180.57) at 2005 06 11 17:22:18
My father is -- well, he's not a creationist, but he doesn't believe in evolution. His argument seems to boil down to this: look how long we've been on this planet! And we only got [important stuff] in the last six thousand years or so! It's absurd! ...



Trackback: pain medication Tracked on: pain medication (140.131.117.249) at 2005 07 22 12:53:07
Please check out some relevant information about adipex ambien bextra



Trackback: insurance quotes Tracked on: car insurance quote (69.171.82.227) at 2005 11 15 21:13:24
life insurance policy Car Insurance Quote Insurance Quotes



Page 3 of 3 pages « First  <  1 2 3

Next entry: Grumble, grumble, grumble

Previous entry: Homo floresiensis tug-of-war

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college