Non-Dawkins books

[Rduke55]

I keep seeing Dawkins' books referenced in threads and am curious to what non-Dawkins books on evolution people have read that made an impact on them.

[DrunkHamster]

Consciousness Explained by Dennett has a nice bit on the evolution of consciousness

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I keep seeing Dawkins' books referenced in threads and am curious to what non-Dawkins books on evolution people have read that made an impact on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stephen Jay Gould, I have Matt Ridley's book, The Red Queen, although I haven't read it yet, and it isn't particularly new. Dennet has a few books that deal with it, including Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which I also have not read but own, and will get to eventually.

I read way too many syllabi and notesets to be of too much use in this thread, sorry.

[luckyme]

Dennett for his writing style, including 'intuition pump' mental stimulus approach.
Cronin's 'Ant and the Peacock.'
Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", I read only to get a first hand account of his views on species level issues.

luckyme

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", I read only to get a first hand account of his views on species level issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

You read 1500 pages for that? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", I read only to get a first hand account of his views on species level issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

You read 1500 pages for that? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the main one. I found myself very much agreeing with Dawkins/Dennett in the battle and thought I may be overexposed to their position. I wanted to give the other side a fair hearing.

I rather enjoy Gould's style and his ability to make sentences so long I can get through a cup of coffee on some of them ( in more ways than one).

Learned a lot.

luckyme

[Insp. Clue!So?]

Origin of Species
Voyage of the Beagle

Seriously, they're both fine books, should be required h/s reading.

Can't understand why Spielberg or someone hasn't made VOTB a great thriller.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I found myself very much agreeing with Dawkins/Dennett in the battle

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that battle, while popularizing the science of evolution debates, was bad b/c people started toeing the party line and dismissed the other side's points completely. I've always been a Gould fan (not in the sense of the battle sides) and I see people not thinking about ideas of constraint, spandrels, and a more limited role of adaptation in evolution just because they plant themselves in the Dawkins/Dennett camp. Although punctuated equilibria seems to still be popular - often for the wrong reasons though.

[ QUOTE ]
I may be overexposed to their position.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what made me post the OP. I was out with some other evolution people the other night and we were talking about how overexposed Dawkins was. I've been noticing in the forum that people seem pretty up on his favorite aspects of evolution but seem to lack some of the fundamentals, other ideas, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
I rather enjoy Gould's style and his ability to make sentences so long I can get through a cup of coffee on some of them ( in more ways than one).

[/ QUOTE ]

I love a lot of Gould's stuff and I was really disappointed in SOET. Near unreadable. He out-Goulded himself.

[vhawk01]

Fine, Mr. Smartypants Evolution Expert, what books should I be reading?

I definitely fall into the category of someone who is overexposed to Dawkins and Dennett. I have two books by Gould that are unread but near the top of my list. What else should I buy?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Consciousness Explained by Dennett has a nice bit on the evolution of consciousness

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't stand that book. Dennett's "explanation" is more or less to deny the existence of consciousness.