Ok, I've read two almost frivolous writtings on evolution but two that are the most significant in the field. "The Greatest Show on Earth" - Dawkins, and "Origin of Species" - Darwin (1st Ed. reprint).
I'll most likely reread Dawkins book again before Darwins. There aren't many parts (after reading Dawkins) of Darwin's 'Origin' which don't make sense.
I'm used to some literary prose, but going through Darwin's persuasive anecotes was sort of annoying since I'm already confident in my understanding.
I did get some new things from Darwin's 'Origin' which I hadn't from Dawkins' "Greatest Show", however, I wont ruin Darwin's book by bringing them up here as I wouldn't be able to do them justice anyways.
What has anyone else found on the two, or one of the two, from reading it?

Keep in mind that in 'Origin of species' evolution was still a pretty new theory at the time. Anything that came after Darwins works are all expansions based on new and more modern discoveries that confirm most of Darwins findings. I am currently reading Dawkins 'Greatest show on Earth' and find it very interesting although at times I find Dawkins to be a very boring writer, sometimes it's hard to keep my eyes open reading through his books.

Yeah, for sure! Darwin's 'Origin' was written for an audience which were willing to reject the theories because they demolished major beliefs of creation. I've read two of Dawkin's books, The God Delusion, and The Greatest Show on Earth. I have to say there is a big difference in the entertainment value between the two. I'd figured Dawkins might've strained for production in the latter. I think he also mentions in TGS that his work is like a modern reespousal of Darwin's Origin. I find it amusing to look back on the two books and find some similarities which Dawkins might have accidentally reproduced, such as backtracking to earlier points and following up on new tangents, or recovering the same points several times due to lack of compiling conflicting/contrasting concepts, etc. Then again it is possible that the very nature of evolution made this the best method for writing about it.
I don't regret reading either of them, Darwin's work isn't ruined by Dawkins but made much easier to read after going through Dawkins, he goes into more depth and provides much more anti religious argument for the reader, while Darwin gives a more comprehensive outlook on exactly what, and how evolution is/occurs.

I have read most of Darwins works and found them to be more scientifically based as opposed to the whole god thing. Dawkins likes to take a stab at creationism every once in awhile but Darwin did not have to deal with creationism so much in his day. Back then it was basically science vs theology and even today that continues to be a war that I think will wage on forever. I have always said that trying to convert a theist through arguing from logic, reason, or scientific evidence is like trying to pull a lions teeth with your bare hands (futile). I like Dawkins thorough discussions on evolution but I just find him so boring as a writer.

I think Dawkins attempted to write 'The greatest show . . . ' in minimal drafts. There seems to be a lot of room for improvement, and the most recent interview which I know of (w/ Andrew Denton; which I posted in a now obsolete thread) shows Dawkins constructing his dialogue in an identical manner to the title I mentioned.
This said, it was his earlier book 'The god delusion' which I found so enjoyable that led me to get the other. I found that it was tiresome, at times I'm wondering when he will move on, other times I'm left with questions and have to find the answers elsewhere as he doesn't "look after" the average reader consistently, and the pace was all choppy, at times flowing smoothly, at others sounding disoriented, or strained.
Darwin's 'Origin' was a good read but it was somewhat boring aswell, but this is sort of hidden because as scientific as the work is, I was always kept active with deciphering the old prose he used to convey the info. He only mentions god a few times, and you can tell in the delivery method he used, he was breaking his discovery to creationists gently. I suppose it was this that made reading it a bit prolonged as I didn't need convincing

(February 10, 2010 at 3:42 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: Darwin's 'Origin' was a good read but it was somewhat boring aswell, but this is sort of hidden because as scientific as the work is, I was always kept active with deciphering the old prose he used to convey the info. He only mentions god a few times, and you can tell in the delivery method he used, he was breaking his discovery to creationists gently. I suppose it was this that made reading it a bit prolonged as I didn't need convincing

How boring was it?

I never learn about evolution in school.

I have been wondering if Darwins 'Origin' would be a good read, but as you have mention here it was good but boring aswell.

In case you don't want to buy it.

The Origin of Species

Donald Prothero's book "Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" is a great book for anyone to learn more about Evolution. It's obviously also more accurate than Darwin's book.

Available in our store: http://astore.amazon.co.uk/atheforu-21/d...0231139624

Thank you Adrian for suggesting this book.

I will most likely get this book from here after I finish the bible.

One of the best books on Evolution is a recent book I read entitled "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne A real good read to learn about evolution as well. I agree that The origen of species is quite boring, how boring? Boring with a capital B.