Top ten works in the Theory of Evolution

In the thread Does Evolution Require Spreading the Word? http://EvC Forum: Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word? -->EvC Forum: Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word? Randman makes the assertion: Putting aside the fact that this is completely untrue, it started me thinking of the ”top 10’ most important works that contributed to the theory as we understand it today. Modulous had the same idea, and I think it is a good one.I have listed below what I believe to be the 10 most important books and articles that contributed to my understanding of the ToE. I am sure I left out some important ones while including some which some of you might disagree as to their importance. I would like to discuss the following works, and give opportunity for criticism by those who have read them. Also, it would be interesting to hear some additions, maybe create an annotated bibliography of the important works in the ToE.The list: Darwin, Charles (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Murray, London. IMO everyone owes it to themselves to read this book. It is one of the most important books ever written. Darwin’s meticulous writing style can be difficult at times to wade through, but worth the effort. Darwin, Charles (1871) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, London. Another amazing book. I still find gems when I read through this. It seems like every concept in the ToE since Darwin can be found in embryonic form in this book. Fisher, Ronald A. (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford, Clarendon. This plus the two abovementioned Darwin works are arguably the foundations of all of the ToE. Fisher ties together natural and sexual selection with genetics. I have an old one but the book was reprinted again in 2000. Wright, Sewell (1931) Evolution in Mendelian Populations. Genetics 16: 97-159. I think that shifting balance hypothesis is one of the most important concepts in evolution. I believe that in time its implications will continue unfolding. As you may be able to tell I am a Wright fanatic and think he was so far ahead of his time we are just starting to get the framework in which to really understand him.Maynard Smith, John (1982) Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge University Press. Maynard Smith was one of the pioneers who recognized the importance of Nash equilibrium and economics in biology. This is where the term evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) comes from. ESS is the standard by which novel behaviors and traits must be judged. This is a really good one. MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography Princeton University Press This book ties population genetics to speciation, ecology, extinction, etc. The concepts from MacArthur and Wilson are still being batted around today and you will see this cited in nearly every paper on patch ecology, larval dispersal, etc.Platt, John (1964) Strong Inference. Science. 146:347-353 Not about the ToE directly, this is the paper that sets the standard for how evolution and all biological research should be approached. When designing experiments or research plans I always re-read this one. Trivers, Robert (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology. 46: 35-57. Arguing against both group selection theory and the premise that natural selection always leads to selfish behavior, Trivers shows how cooperation can be an ESS. Trivers, Robert (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine. PI or parental investment theory is one of those wonderful little theories that has been tested over and over and has been found to hold true. This predicts (among other things) that the degree or strength of sexual selection can be predicted by the degree of imbalance in how much energy is allocated by each sex. That is, if one sex puts twice as much effort into offspring protection, then that sex is the 'choosy' sex and sexual selection will be important and apparent in the behavior or morphology of that species. Gould, Stephen J. and Lewontin, R. (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm. Proceedings of the Royal Society 205: 591-98. And lastly, Gould and Lewontin. I am not a Gould fan in general but this is a great paper. This is required reading for all of my students.I don't know where this should be posted. Since I want to discuss the science in the ToE based upon these pubs, maybe Is It Science?

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Thanks Anglagard for posting online versions of some of these. I was tempted to look them up but got lazy.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Modulous-I would be interested in your list, please post. I am sure we have different opinions on which scientists were most influential from different sides of the pond. I just wanted to make sure that the American scientists were represented, like Darwin, Fisher, Maynard Smith as well as others. I am sure there are some Brits who helped the theory along. -LM

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Rand,I presented a list of what I believe to be the top ten most important works in evolution. These are what I believe to be the ten works everyone concerned on any side of the debate should read and understand. Other people suggested other refs they feel should be on the list. This is a list that if I were, for example, having to choose 10 refs that I would preserve for a distant future to prove that we humans understood the theory. I believe that if society were blasted back to the stone age the survivors, with those ten refs, quickly get back up to speed about the ToE. Do you get that?That being said, how many of those depend on Darwin's finches, pepper moths, the biogenetic law, and recapitulation (the later two are exactly the same thing btw, you might have known that if you looked at actual sources rather than creo websites)? Who called the above "Icons of evolution"? Was it evolutionary biologists? Or was it creationist Jonathan Wells? Since pretty much all you ever cite is from the latter book I would suspect this is your source.Wells book is interesting, but badly flawed. I actually found myself in partial agreement but not about creation. What I found it to be is a reflection of how miserable the state of our science education and textbooks. Where he goes horribly offtrack is in assuming that something claimed in a textbook is somehow foundational to the theory. Textbook authors look for simple, easy examples. They often oversimplify or repeat outdated information. This is a legitimate problem and one that needs to be stopped. By more funding for science education, higher standards for teachers and texts, etc.So here is a challenge in good faith. Pick one of your icons, I am partial to your Biogenetic Law. Show me how this law being true or untrue is in any way foundational to the ToE. Show how any evolutionary biologist since Haeckel depended upon this concept to understand or expand upon the ToE. This shouldn't be considered OT because I am asking you take that icon and show how it cripples or undermines the theory based upon the refs I cited or those others have suggested.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

I did read those threads, Rand, remember, I even replied to them as did others and we showed you how that was a non-issue. The importance of Haeckel's drawings and his Biogenetic Law to 20th Century evolutionary thought is just about zero. As I stated way back then, BIOGENETIC LAW IS NOT SAME AS EMBRYOLOGY. BIOGENETIC LAW IS NOT SAME AS EMBRYOLOGY. And, btw, I absolutely resent your implication that it is I who doesn't read what is presented. You don't have a good track record there, Rand.Wells interprets every drawing of embryo similarity to a perpetuation of this so-called fraud. It is not. Embryology provides a great deal of evidence to support evolution. Haeckel was wrong about there being a generalized tetrapod stage. That doesn't mean that we cannot infer evolutionary relationships based upon embryology. We can and we do. What is wonderful is that those relationships as inferred by embryology are completely supported by genetics.So now, show how the Biogenetic law was used as evidence for evolution after being falsified (or even since Haeckel). I gave you my top ten works, that should be a good starting point. When and where did evos perpetuate this claim? Can you show that? Or doesn't the Wells book tell you what to think about that? One trick pony indeed.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"