I may start there, as it has been recommended here before.
Which one of RD's did you read Curtis? I often recommend his stuff on here because he is such a clear communicator and it's obvious he is as knocked out about the whole life thing as I am. I can honestly say that The Blind Watchmaker changed my life in teaching me how to think about evolution properly, how complexity grows, we get an idea about how it works from school but that often leaves a lot to be desired. All of his science books are worth reading, a favourite of mine is The Ancestors Tale which tracks human evolution backwards through our known common ancestors. A great story and also good as a "dip in anywhere" bedside book. People here might like Unweaving the Rainbow which takes a lot of new age myths and beliefs about crystals and suchlike and explains the actual science behind them, which is of course, a lot more interesting. The Selfish Gene underlines how different a way of thinking you need to really get to grips with evolution. Life is a series of mistakes, if DNA was perfect at it's job (making copies of itself) life on Earth would be just a sea of identical cells. Far out. The only one of his I haven't read is The God Delusion as he was preaching to the converted. I bought a copy for my Dad in an amusingly ironic "suggested books for Christmas" sale at a local shop. The conversation about what memes society should have predominating is a good one but I think he's better off sharing his enthusiasm and wisdom about his favourite subject. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Now, that is a question worthy of consideration. I find it hard to be a strict evolutionist. I tend to believe there has been some kind of intervention, somewhere along the way, or at various times. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Survival of the fittest? This is what the original looked like of that fossil just found in China (the Zhenyuanlong suni - a cousin of the better known Velociraptor). But it couldn't fly so those wings are surely (as the tired old cliché has it) about as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. Let's see those neo-Darwinians explain this one! Hmm, maybe they were originally for keeping warm and became useful for catching insects or mating displays. Or maybe they just helped it run faster? Feathers are deformed scales so they must have had some sort of advantage early on or they wouldn't have got very far. Don't suppose you'd accept enhanced cuteness as an explanation? If I had a time machine this is the sort of problem I would work on... http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h View on tinyurl.com http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h Preview by Yahoo
