On the Origin of Species

It's definitely a worthy read, especially if you have an interest in evolutionary biology.

While dated and erroneous in some aspects, Darwin's insight was impressive for the time and he presented his arguments very well.

>>7790340
Yes, though a bit outdated. If you are a popscientist and have an interest in evolutionary biology I would recommend Richard Dawkins. His grasp on evolution is unparalleled and his writing is lucid and crisp. I recommend The Ancestor's Tale. Do stay away from his anti-religios books, if you are not into that sort of thing. He can be a bit zealous

>>7790340
What's the current view on evolution? I've heard that some scientist are moving away from the standard theory.

Is it true or just creationismfags in denial?

>>7790375
>Richard Dawkins
I like him.

>>7790340
>I want to have it on my coffee table so I can come off as a pretentious atheist to my girlfriends culturally catholic parents.
Not going to work, catholics have nothing against evolution.

File: The_God_Delusion_UK.jpg (39KB, 328x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 328x500px

>>7790396
Hadn't read that part of OP. In that case you might like
>pic related

>>7790387
>>7790437
Iz gud.

>>7790437
That might be a little too in your face. I would prefer it be a bit more subtle. Other recommendations in this thread have been good

>>7790507
If they are Catholic subtle is no way to go. They are probably too stupid to notice anything

File: BlindWatchmaker.gif (26KB, 188x288px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 188x288px

>>7790507

File: 41Q+5ZqQ97L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (13KB, 226x346px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 226x346px

>>7790507
>>7790551
Or possibly this one. Same as last only more subtle

>>7790383
>>7790340
It's very dated. Genes and the entire field of molecular biology were after Darwin's time. It's read mostly for culture.

>>7790562
>>7790559
>>7790437
>>7790387
>>7790375
Dawkins' books are extremely - EXTREMELY - pedestrian. The Selfish Gene, for instance, has less information than a wikipedia article and is about fifty times as long. look elsewhere for books on evolutionary theory if you're even remotely willing to apply yourself.

>>7790649
[Citation needed]

>>7790682
For what, exactly?

File: average redditer.jpg (64KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x750px

>>7790340

>>>/reddit/

Dude every catholic born after 1930 believes in the theory of evolution. Catholic=/= American fag church.

>>7791294
>believes in the theory of evolution

That's not a matter of believe. Even priests correct people when they use "believe" in the wrong sense.

>>7790340
>I can come off as a pretentious atheist
You're already there fgt pls

>>7790340
Stop reading books.

>>7790340
>he thinks science is the realm of absolute truth

thats pretty fucking fedora.

>>7791493
What should it be called then, if you find some idea compelling? Belief is not faith. Is the universe flat? I believe so.

>>7790340
It is essential reading for anyone interested in evolutionary biology.

>>7792493
evolution is a model, and like all of our models, their truthiness is fucking irrelevant.

evolution could be 100% wrong and it wouldn't matter one bit, because its still an accurate enough model to be useful. it lets us DO things.

why do you think industry doesn't fund creationist science? because throwing our hands up in the air and saying "god did it!" doesn't make any money.

>>7794496
>why do you think industry doesn't fund creationist science
Lack of testable hypotheses, perhaps?

>>7794496
Are you sure you replied to the right post? I'm talking about belief, not evolution.

File: IMG_20160119_061227.jpg (159KB, 747x1043px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 747x1043px

>>7790340
best on the subject