When I use terms not in regular circulation like linkage disequilibrium, or those which I suspect aren't as well understood as I think they should be, like random genetic drift, I usually make reference to the companion website to Mark Ridley's text Evolution (if you followed the links to the terms you will note this). If you have a little spare time you should check it out, it isn't too taxing. Of course, those with a strong lay interest in evolution might want to purchase Ridley's Oxford Reader anthology, Evolution. This is the closest thing to "airport reading" that I've seen that still remains technical enough to add value to your knowledge base.
More like this
Matt Ridley, in The Globe and Mail, 31 Dec 1993.
Global warming, too, has shot its bolt, now that the scientific consensus has settled down on about a degree of temperature increase over a century-that is, little more than has taken place in the past century.
W00t, its the Big Fight, or at least its the spat du jour. Does anyone outside the little blogospheric circle care? My guess is no.
Recently, formerly respected writer Matt Ridley has been making a fool of himself with absurd and scientifically unsupported commentary on climate change. Recently he wrote something for the Wall Street Journal, "Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change," that serves as an example of this.
Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial: