The best of the lot, in my view, is The Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge (Owl Books, 2001). It summarizes all the arguments and evidence very lucidly and concisely.
Regarding “intelligent design” theory, this Wikipedia article – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design – is a good, balanced intro.
Anyone recommend **The Naked Ape ** ? I really liked it… and even being a bit dated its pretty interesting.
I have to respectfully disagree. While I think there are flaws in Behe’s argument, it is a logical and clearly presented argument, and meets the terms of jebert’s request. And Behe makes the important point, too often glossed over by the defenders of Evolution, that there is no good theory for the origin of life on Earth. I’m not saying I belive the religious explanations; I don’t, and they aren’t explanations. But the origin of life remains an open question, scientifically, and it doesn’t do science any good to pretend it isn’t.
jebert, read Darwin’s Black Box and decide for yourself.
No. I have a problem with Morris in that he doesn’t differentiate between accepted evolutionary theory and his own unproven hypotheses. He talks about the latter (eg, the evolution of human female breasts to mimic the buttocks) without the necessary qualifications. If you want a good contemporary book on human evolutoin, read Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz
Another must read is Genes, Peoples, and Languages by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. It’s almost exclusively concerned with human evolution after the appearance of H. sapiens, but it is so well written and covers not only the fossil data, but also the genetic and linguistic data related to human evolution and migration. I can’t recommend that book enough. I’ve read it several times, and continue to find stuff in there I missed during previous readings.
Evolution is not a theory regarding the origins of life on earth–it only makes statements about what happened after life appeared. The fact that Behe lumps abiogenesis in with evolution implies that he’s ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
That’s simply untrue. There are a number of at least plausible theories that have been put forth to describe how life might arise from pre-biotic constituents. These typically are based upon observations of other self-organizing systems and go under the blanket term of “emergent phenomena”. It’s a very robust, testable theoretical framework, that is getting a great deal of experimental scrutiny. One potentially promising line of research has grown from the “RNA world” hypothesis. There are valid criticisms of the most simplistic versions of the “catalytic RNA” hypotheses, but scrutiny has led to other promising modifications to the model that are bearing fruit in the lab. You can read a good article about it here (requires free registration).
Behe asserts his theory is refutable, and hence scientific, but seems to ignore the fact that it has a thoroughly shoddy logical foundation. To cite his example of the bacterial flagellum, Behe claims one should be able to use forced evolution, starting with non-motile baterial species, to re-create flagella in the lab as a means of testing his hypothesis; but there is no reason to expect that flagella would necessarily be the result. If another way of generating motility were to evolve, it would neither support nor refute Behe’s claims, because he already acknowledges evolution is responsible for much (but not all) of the adaptations we see in nature. The only way Behe’s “science” could yield a refutable claim is if a reasonable facsimile of extant macromolecules could be “re-evolved” by chance. How is that possible, given even the barest undestanding of complexity? Given that the many caveats Behe uses to cover his theoretical arse renders any other outcome but re-creation of the flagellum from scratch entirely plausible within his theoretical framework, and hence not a sufficient means of disproving his hypothesis, how is one to argue against his case? And what is his hypothesis, realy? Quite simply, it’s a rather subjective assessment of a macromolecular motor, a claim that it’s just too wonderful to have arisen by chance from simpler components. If another motor arose by chance, but didn’t strike Behe’s fancy as being “irreducibly complex”, then it’s just another example of pedestrian natural selection, which he readily conceds can, has, and does occur. As logic, it’s absurdly easy to refute, and hence as science, it’s worthy of little more than summary dismissal. Behe is an evolutionary charlatan, a creationist unable separate belief from evidence.
Sorry for bringing this topic back from the dead…
Way to many of these books that were recommended seem to deal directly with evolution and the fossil record… and I think my interests lie more with “why humans are they way they are now?” Not as interested in the fossil records or their discoveries…
The books I read and like most on the subject were “Naked Ape” and “Demonic Males” (comparison humans and apes)
Any more recommendations before I head to Amazon.com ?
RM: Try these:
On Human Nature by Edward O. Wilson
Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect by Paul R. Ehrlich
Thanks… I’m reading the reviews… I hope these books aren’t for “begginers” though… I’ve read a bit already…
One of the reviews of Ehrlichs books just about destroys it… 
While it is perhaps not yet in the same league as evolution theory-wise, abiogenesis is pretty solid these days in terms of falisfiable models which show how RNA feasibly could have emerged from eg. organic compounds on comets forming spherical proteinoid structures upon collision, in which further chemical reactions could take place. Certainly, nobody seriously posits a “simple molecules straight to ribozymes” hypothesis any more.
In that case you most definitely have to read The Rise And Fall Of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond.
It discusses human evolution from all angles and is a fascinating read.
“The Rise and Fall”? I think you are thinking of just “The Third Chimpanzee”. I’ve never heard of the title you mention, unless Diamond has published a new book not listed on Amazon.com. It’s a pretty good book, though somewhat dated.
Do you recommend the “Third Chimp” ? I’ll probably buy the two you mentioned before…
Yes. BTW, that book was mentioned in post #2 of this thread. It’s a classic, and will always be on the top of a good list of books about Human Evolution. I didn’t bring it up earlier because it had already been posted.
Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller. Although the stated goal of the book is to argue that acceptance of evolution is not incompatible with theism, along the way Miller makes short work of most of the popular anti-evolution arguments, including the “irreducible complexity” argument of Behe and Philip Johnson’s aforementioned book Darwin on Trial.
I forgot to add: “In debunking the creationist arguments, Miller does a good job of providing an overview of evolution and many examples of the evidence for evolution.”
hmmm… I can afford only so much time and money… I can’t buy all 3 books. Of these 3 which 2 should I buy ?
a. On Human Nature by Edward O. Wilson
b. Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect by Paul R. Ehrlich
c. The Third Chimpanzee