Reddit reviews Why Evolution Is True
We found 33 Reddit comments about Why Evolution Is True. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
Reddit reviews Why Evolution Is TrueWe found 33 Reddit comments about Why Evolution Is True. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne is the book I read for the same reason. It is concise, factual, and easy to understand. I recommend it to everyone in your position.
It is. When you swear so hard that the Bible doesn't make any sense if evolution is true, and then your children become convinced by evolution, there's nowhere for them to turn with their questions of "what next".
This is how my journey to athiesm started.
> That's how Dawkins became famous after all, if it wasn't for his open and active anti-theism nobody outside of the academic circles would know about him.
Actually, I understood it was for meme theory, though I might be mistaken. I enjoy Newton's laws of physics, though I don't agree with his views on alchemy. I appreciate genetics, but I don't care for Watson's views on race. That being said, if you really can't stomach Dawkins, then Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True might be more up your alley.
> It proposes an explanation yes, but for the application of biology into vital areas such as medicine, species conservation, genetic manipulation etc. you only need to know the how and what happens if - and you discover those things by applying scientific method of observation >> theory >> experiment >> successful repetition of the same results over and over.
This approach will only show you facets of the underlying theory, without understanding the mechanisms that tie it all together. Moreover, it's far easier to learn the underlying theory than it is to learn all the implications of the theory. You could watch a hundred thunderstorms and photograph all sorts of lightning behaviour in super-slow motion, but without an understanding of electricity, all those pieces of evidence don't fit together.
If you're not familiar with the practical applications of evolution, I suggest you read this. I suspect this list will also continue to grow as we find more applications.
bperki8 is right. Most Young Earth Creationists (YEC) I know have a very poor understanding of evolution, and I don't blame them for not accepting it. What they describe as evolution is utter trash, promoted throught the intellectual dishonesty of the Discovery Institute, Ben Stein, and the likes. Please read Why Evolution is True. I ruthlessly implore anyone with doubts to read this book. YECs are in the same boat as those hundreds of years ago who believed the Earth the center of the solar system, and anything else is against God.
Along the same line, Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" is fantastic.
"Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, insane, or hasn't read Jerry Coyne" - Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne: Buy it on Amazon
A quality online resource for you would be the free online archive of MIT's class "Human Origins and Evolution"; check it out here: MIT OCW 3.987 EDIT: This would actually only be appropriate as a guide for further study on your own. The course materials provided are primarily syllabi and the like, but does provide an extensive list of books and other sources of information that may be up your alley.
Much more technical options are also available from their biology department: MIT OCW Bio
Why Evolution is True - By Jerry Coyne
The author specifically and purposefully avoids all talk of religion and morality, and very simply and concisely lays out the evidence and logic behind evolutionary theory.
Anyone who reads this book and continues denying evolution is not approaching the subject honestly, or has other reasons (religious) for rejecting evolution.
It's only a couple hundred pages, and certainly is no longer than 'Life How Did It Get Here-By Evolution or By Creation', which I am nearly 100% certain is what he will be giving you. (For a fun game, take a shot every time you read a blatant lie or intentional misstatement of fact, or quote mine you find in that book. Just be sure you don't need to drive for the next couple of days.)
He may give you the new Creationism tract they introduced this summer, which is nothing more than excerpts from the larger book.
> as I have no proof that we evolved from other animals/etc.
Such proof abounds. If you're going to debate these people, you need to know some of it.
I don't mean enough to ask a couple of questions, I mean enough to carry both sides of the conversation, because he'll make you do all the heavy lifting.
Start with talkorigins.org.
First, the FAQ
Maybe the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution next,
then the pieces on observed instances of speciation
See the extensive FAQs index
Here are their questions for creationsists - see both links there
and then read the index to creationist claims
That's just to start. Take a look at the Outline (which starts with an outline of the outline!)
If you're going to talk with a creationist, you either need to get some idea of the topography or you'll end up chasing in circles around the same tree again and again.
Yes, it looks like a major time investment, but once you start to become familiar with it, it gets easier quickly. Don't aim to learn it all by heart - but you should know when there is an answer to a question, and where to find it.
read books like Your Inner Fish and Why Evolution Is True and The Greatest Show on Earth
I list Your Inner Fish first because it tells a great story about how Shubin and his colleagues used evolutionary theory and geology to predict where they should look for an intermediate fossil linking ancient fish and amphibians (a "transitional form") - and they went to that location, and found just such a fossil. This makes a great question for your creationist - given fossils are kind of rare, how the heck did he manage that? If evolution by natural selection is false, why does that kind of scientific prediction WORK? Is God a deceiver, trying to make it look exactly like evolution happens?? Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is true - that evolution actually occurs. (Then point out that many major Christian churches officially endorse evolution. They understand that the evidence is clear)
It's a good idea to read blogs like Panda's Thumb, Why Evolution Is True, Pharyngula, erv (old posts here) and so on, which regularly blog on new research that relates to evolution.
Make sure you know about the experiments by Lenski et al on evolution of new genes
Don't take "no proof" as an argument. The evidence is overwhelming.
I was hard core TBM, I would believe just about anything, which is why Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams is so much funnier to me now that I am an atheist, than when I read it back when I was TBM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJq8QjLI-so
I also knew when I was TBM that if God exists then anything is possible, ergo the church was true because it made the strongest claim to the truth then any other religion (when I say "truth claim" I am not referring to a logical and rational claim of truth by the church, I am referring to the standard "I know God lives and loves me" sort of truth claim). But I also reasoned that if I were to find sufficient cause to be an atheist, any difficulty of rejecting the LDS church and all other churches is rendered moot.
My biggest hurdle to stop believing in God was the fact that I was raised in an extremely religious environment growing up, even before my family joined the LDS church when I was 13 years old. My mom enrolled my brothers and in private christian schools growing up and we attended church services religiously growing up. My belief in God was such that it never even occurred to me to question his existence in spite of the fact I was keenly interested in science, I was also aware of the concept of atheism, but I could not comprehend why anyone would want to do something stupid like rejecting God.
It took me a long time to go from from fully believing in God, to completely rejecting the notion of God, I accomplished this through reason and science, I taught myself, with help from others how to think and reason. Atheism is not an easy choice for some, for others it is not so hard, it was a big fucking deal for me for me to reject everything I had ever understood about the universe and it scared the hell out of me when I did. There is no point in me telling you exactly why I am an atheist, it's complicated, and it is a very personal road of discovery.
However, for starters I would suggest reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532
and Richard Dawkins The Magic of Reality, How We Know What's Really True
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=majic+of+reality&x=0&y=0
Here are some of my most favorite Christopher Hitchens quotes.
>“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
>“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
>“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”
And my favorite Richard Dawkins quotes.
>“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
>“We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes.”
>“Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colors.”
Evolution threatens Christianity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/evolution-threatens-christianity/2011/08/24/gIQAuLVpbJ_blog.html
The greatest show on earth or Why evolution is true are both very good overviews of the evidence for evolution. Probably a good place to start. Evolution is such a huge topic that no one book is a comprehensive overview of it all, once you understand the basics of evolution however I really suggest the selfish gene. You can also pick up a very cheap copy of on the origin of species, though remember that the book is 150 years old and predated genetics (still remarkably accurate however).
I've always liked Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.
Here is a good book for Christians on evolution. It was recommended by Dawkins once for people that didn't like him and would never read his own books.
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497
The author (Miller) is Roman Catholic, and also has several other good books on the topic if you look at the author's page on amazon.
This one by a different author is also very good.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
If you'd like the basics online, here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
You can get by without enrolling in upper-level courses. There is some great free coursework out there if you want to go that route without paying money. Otherwise there are great introductory texts on the subject, like Why Evolution is True.
When it comes to understanding evolution, Why Evolution is True is a very entertaining, easily read introduction. I would also recommend The End of Faith by Sam Harris.
(This is the rest of my answer, cut off for being too long).
3) I'm beginning to think that we need to skip ahead and talk about evolution, because if you don't understand how DNA could have evolved, you've really never read a single book on evolution. (I'm not criticizing you; you're in good company there). So let's combine your third and fourth points, and allow me to clarify what evolution is, why it explains DNA, and why your micro/macro distinction is, frankly, bullshit.
First principle behind evolution: If something can make copies of itself, there will soon be more of it. It there are lots of competing things that can make copies of themselves, the ones that can do so most efficiently will end up having the most copies.
If that statement strikes you as true, there we go. Evolution.
The first proto-organisms were basically strings of RNA. Under certain conditions, a nucleotide strand would attach complementary bases, and you would have two strands of RNA. Then environmental conditions change and the two strands separate, and both of them can attach to more complementary bases.
Second principle behind evolution: If copies aren't exactly the same as the original, then some changes will increase efficiency. Other changes will decrease efficiency. After enough generations, your population will contain lots of copies of efficient replicators and very few copies of inefficient replicators.
So some of the RNA sequences happen to misplace an adenine instead of a cytosine, and that means that a replication enzyme bonds more tightly to the strand, and this mutant makes more copies of itself than its neighbors do.
And eventually, a nucleotide ends up with a deoxyribose sugar instead of a ribose sugar, and this configuration turns out to be WAY more stable - it can form into a double helix that is less likley to spontaneously collapse, and which can replicate with fewer errors. And this mutant makes more copies of itself than its neighbors do.
And these sequences of DNA/RNA aren't just random collections of letters. Well, some of them are, but others can be interpreted to build proteins that facilitate copying - and the ones with these helpful sequences can make more copies of themselves.
Let this process happen for a couple billion years.
But, you're saying, the probability is so small! You mean all those coincidences just happen to occur? Convenient mutations just happen to come along? If you multpily together the odds of all those things happening, it's tiny!
Well, of course it is. When you have a trillion early replicators hanging around, improbable things happen ALL. THE. TIME. And multiplying together the odds of each mutation is the completely wrong way to look at the problem - it's like looking at all the possible combinations of your parents' sperm and eggs that could have existed and declaring triumphantly that the probability of you existing is one in a gazillion. Of course it is! The question is what the probability of some complex life developing, under the given optimization pressures, and it should be obvious that it's reasonably high. Of those trillions of worlds we talked about earlier, maybe only a couple billion of them got to complex life.
Obviously, this is the grossly oversimplified version. For the whole story, you need to read this or this or this or this or... any of these, actually. But I hope you understand why most atheists feel that the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is silly. Evolution is just the change in gene pools over time. This change has been observed to lead to one species splitting off into multiple species which can no longer reproduce (the biological definition of speciation). At what point is this process called "macro" evolution? How many genes need to change before you insist that the process "doesn't exist"? Why would evolution push two separate populations to the brink of speciation and then suddenly stop working by the rules we've repeatedly observed? Saying "micro but not macro" is like saying you believe gravity works on people but not on planets. There's just no reason to draw the distinction!
Using techniques called molecular systematics, we can trace the evolutionary relationships between species by mapping the differences in noncoding DNA. And, of course, I'm neglecting the single biggest piece of supporting evidence for evolution: the fossil record. You've probably been fed the lie that we don't have the transitional fossils. Well, we do have the transitional fossils. Overwhelmingly..
Now, ethics. The God of the Bible, if he existed, is a monstrous, selfish, egomaniacal, power-hungry terrifying sociopath. I don't mean to cause offense (though I probably will) but I read the Bible and it nearly made me ill. God tortures everyone who doesn't worship him for all eternity. He had 42 children mauled to death by bears for laughing at a bald man.(II Kings 2:23-24). He murders all the inhabitants of an entire city for being "sinful" (Genesis 19:1-26). He orders his people to commit genocide, over and over again. (Deuteronomy 13:13-16, Numbers 31:12-18, I Chronicles 21:9-14).
He's okay with rape (often, he explicitly orders his followers to commit rape) and treats women as property(Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Exodus 21:7-11). He's pro-slavery (I Timothy 6:1-2, Exodus 21:20.) He even claims in Isaiah 45:7 to have created all evil. In short, if we're getting our morals from that guy, we're seriously screwed. This isn't the wise and loving father whose children can't understand his dictates: it's the abusive alcoholic father whose son runs away when he realizes that rape, murder, and incest aren't okay just because Dad says so.
You're about to protest that most of those are Old Testament. But Jesus explicitly endorses the Old Testament and says that he has not come to change the old laws (Matthew 5:17). He endorses what God did in Sodom and Gomorrah and threatens to do even worse to three more cities because their inhabitants were unimpressed with him.(Matthew 11:21-24). He says that any child who curses his parents should be killed as according to Old Testament Law. (Mark 7:10)
I don't think a world where everyone follows their individual conscience could possibly be worse than a world rules by that God. And, in fact, countries that are nonreligious have lower rates of crime, higher standards of living, and higher self-reported happiness.
Interesting debate, thanks!
Or if you want correct answers:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532
which handily demolishes this creationist nonsense over and over.
>Not familiar as I probably ought to be. I know that there were other homo species -possibly at the same time as humans. I think I heard something about interbreeding at some point, but maybe that was just speculation?
To be honest, I'm not exactly an expert on the specifics. However, Wikipedia provides as always - If the article and the numerous citations are to be believed, they're considered separate species as mitochondria genetic data (that I could explain further if you like) shows little significant breeding. However, there is indeed some evidence of limited interbreeding.
>This is fascinating stuff!
I'm glad you like it!
>To clarify: do all the primates share the same mutation which is different from the mutation in other creatures, ex. guinea pigs?'
Precisely! Mind you, I believe there are a few changes which have accumulated since divergence (since if they don't need the gene once it's "off", further mutations won't be selected against), but the crucial changes are indeed the same within primates - and those within guinea pigs are the same within guinea pigs and their nearby relatives (I believe), but different from those from simians. Amusingly, because mutations occur at a generally steady rate, the number of further divergences between the pseudogenes (no-longer-functional genes which resemble working copies in other organisms) in different species will give hints at how long ago those species had a common ancestor (this, and related calculations, are termed the "genetic clock").
Nifty, isn't it?
>I guess I don't see why it would be demeaning to be patterned after other homo species which were adapted to the environment we would inhabit. Maybe I'm way off here, but it seems like the case for common ancestry could also point to a common creator. (obviously it is outside the bounds of science to consider that possibility, but philosophically, it might have merit?)
I have indeed heard that before; the suggestion of a common creator as opposed to common descent is a fairly common suggestion, pardon the pun. The typical arguments against fall first to traits which can be considered "poor design" in pure engineering terms, even if they're traits that are now needed. I can point to the genetic baggage of the human eye compared to that of the cephelopod (nerve fibers over vs. under the retina), or the human back (not great for walking upright), or further traits along those lines which suggest that we're still closer to our origins. Indeed, we can also look at things like the pseudogene involved with vitamin C above as unnecessary addons; genetic artifacts which hint at our descent.
While this additional argument, I will grant, is better at addressing general creation then special human creation, we can also look at repeated motifs. For example, the same bones that form our hand also form a bird's wing, a whale's flipper, a dog's paw, a horse's hoof, and all the other mammalian, reptile, and avian forelimbs - though sometimes you need to go to the embryo before you see the similarity. When taken alone, that may suggest either evolution or design; it would make sense for a creator to reuse traits. It becomes more stark when you consider examples that should be similar - for example, the wings of the bat, bird, and pterodactyl, despite using the same bones, have vastly different structures, despite all being used for the same purpose (that is, flight).
The way that my evolutionary biology professor phrased this is that "design can explain this, but cannot predict it; evolution both explains and predicts." This idea - that natural observations may be explained or excused (begging your pardon) in a creation model, but are what are expected from an evolutionary model - is the major point I wish to make in this regard. And, I shall admit, perhaps as close as I can get to "disproving" special creation; it tends to approach unfalsifiability, if I understand it correctly.
>If I recall correctly, this is the position of Francis Collins / BioLogos. It's possible, but I have a few concerns. The first being that I think animals do have souls. If that's correct, ensoulment doesn't help make sense of the theology.
Yup; ensoulment as special is less compatible in that case.
>It would also mean that (at least at some point) there were other creatures who were genetically equal to human beings, but didn't have souls. Cue slave trade and nazi propaganda -they're human, but they aren't people. It would have been possible (probable?) that ensouled humans would breed with the soulless humans -and that just seems . . . squicky.
Point taken; even if you were to claim ensoulment for all humans existing at a specific point and thereafter, there can be...negative connotations.
>So, for now, it's a possibility, but it seems to be more problematic than special creation.
To be perfectly frank, I'm not really equipped to argue otherwise. As an atheist, my tendency is to end up arguing against ensoulment, as it's not something we can really draw a line at either. Still, I figured I'd put it out there; I'm a little delighted at your dissection of it honestly, as you brought up things I'd not yet considered.
>Like I said, the genetics is fascinating, and I am naive to much of it. Short of becoming a geneticist, could you recommend a good book on the subject of human genetics and common descent? I took basic genetics in college, so I was able to follow the discussion about chromosomes, telomeres, etc. But I would like to know more about the discoveries that have been made.
Oooh, that's a rough question. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful question, but I rarely read books aimed at laymen dealing with my specialty; most of my information comes from text books, papers, and profs, if you take my meaning. Which in the end is a way for me to provide my disclaimer: I can provide recommendations, but I've generally not read them myself; sorry.
Having said that, I'm not about to discourage your curiosity - indeed, I cannot laud it highly enough! - and so I shall do what I can:
I think I'll hold off there for the moment. The latter two are focused more on humans, while the former is about evolution in general. I'm sure there are more books I could recommend - Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth has been lauded, for example. I tried to stick with texts which were at a slightly higher level, not merely addressing the basics but delving a little deeper, as you noted you have a measure of familiarity already, and those which were related to humans. I hope they help!
It's not an alternative to books, but Wikipedia does have a fair article on the topic (which I linked near the very top as well). And believe it or not, I do enjoy this sort of thing; you are more then welcome to ask more questions if and when they occur to you.
If she will read a book for this and evolution is a big sticking-point, then actually maybe The God Delusion isn't the best Dawkins for the job.
I'd suggest Climbing Mount Improbable, or The Blind Watchmaker. Surprisingly I don't think The Greatest Show on Earth is the best to start with.
Or, This one :http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532
Well if you have the time, there's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins and Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne. You could check if your local library has one of them.
Also, although this will not teach you evolution, Richard Dawkins notes a flaw in the idea of a designer in that there are clear imperfections that one would not expect from an intelligent designer, but would from evolution.
>> Were you born before 1911? The only false "missing link" science(vs the press) has accepted was piltdown man. And don't forget it was science who subsequently disproved it.
>Yeah what about Ida or this "new" one New Fossil May be ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution Please dude these are only two of the many in the last 3 years, never mind how many since 1911.
Do you have any empirical reason to think any that is false? If so, bring it up so we can continue to refine our understanding.
>Im studying quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, The science of today proved the science of yesterday(Newton's time) WRONG. Even Einstein was proven wrong on some of his work time and time again among his peers during his lifetime and after.
You've failed miserably in your understanding of science and it's claims.
Newton's laws of motion are just fine.
Kepler's laws of planetary motion are imprecise, but explained everything we had knowledge of at the time. When you say they were wrong, it's important to realize they were right for all the data they had. We still teach them in first year physics, as they are correct enough for most uses. That's totally different than the capital letter WRONG the church was about geocentricism. That would be like finding out masses repel each other instead of attract, or that mass had nothing to do with it. The science was refined, but it wasn't wrong in the way you wish to claim.
Relativity is probably wrong in a similar way, and it is certainly not complete, as it makes predictions about the how things act, but we still have no idea why. We posit gravitons as force carriers, but if they even exist(which we have no good way of testing), the are by far the weirdest of the bosons.
But we're back to epistomology. Science knows what it knows, knows why it knows it, and how accurately it knows it.
How do you know God is 100% right? So far you've made no case.
On the other hand, every empirical fact about the world converges on the conclusion that the universe is old, evolution happened, the flood didn't, etc.
You're telling me your unsupported assertion that God is 100% true and the bible is 100% reliable is epistemologically stronger than every bit of convergent fact in the universe which disagrees with you. I would have to call that delusion.
> Thank you for you for Tim Minchin opinion, but actually science itself is in denial, its in denial of the obvious, no man has seen evolution in action. Science is in denial that men EVEN scientist can and do lie. Science is in denial that evolution failed to be reproduced in the lab, even on a micro scale.
Plain wrong. It's been observed many times.
>Science is in denial that like is complex and would never come about by chance. Science is in denial that to have complex life built upon DNA, DNA is information you cannot have information without someone, or something to create it. Yet you guys want to blindly fool yourselves into ignoring how the building blocks came about, and thinking it just evolved after.
Oh really. I happen to know a decent amount about information theory and evolutionary algorithms, and they work just fine thank you very much.
According to source theory, the subset of information theory that deals with data at rest and not transmission channels, randomization is an increase of information.
This randomization takes many forms, all of which we have observed.
The beneficial mutations tend to cause the carrier to survive and produce more offspring, and thereby genetic change occurs in the population at large.
We know how long this takes, and there's plenty of time to explain the variability we see in life based on our data. No one who understands the facts denies this.
If you want to take down evolution, you really need to learn some more about it first. I highly recommend Why Evolution is True. Maybe once you understand it, you'll be able to argue against it better. More likely, you'll be convinced. ;-)
I wouldn't say a damn thing. I'd just point them in the direction of this and this.
When you take the position of refusing to learn, nothing can be done to convince you. Why not be curious instead? Why not become interested in the world and how it works? It's fun.
It's not really possible to learn evolution via reddit comments. You need to read a book. For example, Why Evolution is True.
You might try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/search?q=fact&restrict_sr=on
and then ctr+F for "evolution" for a few previous instances of this question, or here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/search?q=evolution+fact&sort=top&restrict_sr=on
or other variations thereupon.
Anyways, we don't make a habit of letting these questions out all that often, as they never really do well, and when they do attract attention it's mostly people who don't really understand evolution all that well, trying to explain evolution to people who definitely don't understand it that well, and it just never really winds up being productive (while those of us who do know something about evolution squirm in agony at even attempting to undue all the damage this whole "fact vs theory" thing in a somewhat concise manner).
I'm keeping it spammed (you could also try searching in /r/evolution), but my honest suggestion would be to have her read something like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, if she's willing to (and perhaps you could sit down and read it yourself first, to be able to give it an honest recommendation). Alternatively Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth is supposed to be good (I haven't read it myself), although Coyne's writing style might be more appealing for the non-academic, and some people are allergic to Richard Dawkins, for obvious reasons if you know who he is.
What's her angle. Presumably she is of the faithful? If that's really her angle, then you might be hard pressed to convince her with a short paragraph or two that I could provide.
Why evolution is true. by Jerry A. Coyne
Pretty much all the evidence you need for evolution there. For information about the origins of life you will have to look elsewhere though.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532
Evolution is true:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532
Evolution is true and doesn't conflict with religion:
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497
Skepticism:
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469
The evidence is all around us. Start with the fact that, by helping to focus the process of natural selection, we generated broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and kale from a wild mustard plant known as Brassica oleracea. Similarly, all dog breeds are descendents of a small population of wolves. In the end, though, to get a handle on the specificity, power, scope and sheer quantity of evidence you (and she) will need to dig a little deeper into the subject.
That being said, if you're interested in a (relatively) quick explanation of what Evolutionary Theory actually is (and a little of the evidence for it) I'd suggest Evolution in Cartoon Form by Darryl Cunningham. It's long for a cartoon, but amazingly short for the number and depth of ideas about evolution it conveys.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne is an excellent book, written for general audiences with an interest in science, which lays out the evidence clearly and concisely. I'd suggest it as a good place to start. Dawkins' Greatest Show On Earth is also great and I personally prefer his writing style.
But if you're going to go with Dawkins, I can't help but also suggest The Blind Watchmaker. It's purpose isn't so much to provide all the evidence for evolution, but more to explore the underlying philosophy, implications and further insights which stem from the fact of evolution.
Becoming educated about evolution is a great ride, but its full impact might not be available in a quick, easy format.
Hope this helps. Have a blast.
Edit: I'd also like to second Loki5654's suggestion of Talk Origins.
I suggest you read a couple of books that present the evidence for evolution very clearly:
Why Evolution Is True
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
Evolution itself is a simple concept, but the evidence for it is broad and detailed across many scientific disciplines, and it all fits together.
Regarding the existence of God, one can't prove that your God doesn't exist, or that any of the other thousands of gods that have been worshiped through the ages don't exist. The real question is whether there is enough evidence to positively prove the existence of any one of those gods.
Here is a good book for your research in understanding Evolution. It's a nice read with reliable knowledge from an ecology specialist.
Jerry Coyne has a great book you might want to pick up
Or maybe the one by Dawkins
Or there's always this
Okay - I know...have him read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252105723&sr=8-1
> However, addressing your argument about "denying observable reality" is quite insulting.
Your denial of observable reality is quite insulting to those of us who care about observable reality.
> Many people refuse to believe in the literal six day creation or global flood and insist they are just stories
The reason for this is that everything we've observed about the relevant reality indicates that these events simply did not happen.
Read a science textbook. Or this.
Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True might help some.
My one-stop book recommendation would be Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation. It's a short read, but nearly every paragraph is its own distinct argument, and it covers a lot of territory.
If you're aiming to construct your paper around a set of the most popular arguments, here are some common refutations to arguments for the existence of God. Keep in mind that many of our arguments are in the form of refutation instead of assertion, since the burden of proof is on the claimant:
Ontological Argument (Argument from experience) - We assert that feelings do not equal facts; revelation is not a reliable basis for a factual claim. We also realize that to criticize someone for feelings that are personal can seem like a personal attack. Most of us wouldn't tell someone who claims he/she had a spiritual experience that it didn't happen, but we would try to find a scientific explanation rather than coming to the immediate conclusion that it was God's doing. As a brief example, a friend of mine said he "felt the touch of God" when his daughter was born, but we interpret his feeling as a normal, natural high that most people feel at such an emotional moment.
Teleological Argument (Argument from design) - We accept the evidence for evolution and realize that it is inconsistent with the biblical creation story. For further reading about what proof we have for evolution, I'd personally recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and he promotes Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True though I haven't read the latter yet.
Cosmological Argument (Causal Argument) - This is a case of people assigning the "God" label to something difficult to comprehend. The best we have to go on so far is the Big Bang Theory, and scientists will continue to test the theory. We don't have evidence that the beginning of the universe was brought about by an omnipotent/omniscient being outside of what is claimed by religious texts, and that goes back to the. We might also ask, "who/what made God?" inviting an infinite loop of "which came first" questions.
Moral Argument - We believe (normal) people are able to tell the difference between right and wrong without religious guidance. In turn, it seems that the Christian Bible teaches, excuses, or condones actions that our enlightened society would deem immoral, such as slavery, killing of children and non-heterosexuals, oppression, rape, and genocide. Interpretations of the Bible differ, of course, and most modern Christians don't believe they should actually kill their disobedient children (or that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply since the coming of Christ, which is another conversation). Regardless of arguments from the Bible, we believe that science can tell us a lot more about morality than we give it credit for.
Lastly, here is a wikipedia list of lots more arguments in case you'd like to ask about specific ones: link
Good luck, and I hope you enjoy writing your paper. Not that you should necessarily crowd-source coursework, but you'd probably get quite a strong response if you posted up a final draft, too.