Better than the classics are the later sources
Reading Dawkins may be more effective than reading Darwin, to appreciate descent with modification and differential survival as an optimization algorithm.
Reading Darwin may be more effective than reading Dawkins, to appreciate what intellectual work went into following contemporary evidence to that conclusion, in the face of a world filled with bias and confusion.
Reading Dawkins OR Darwin is - and I think that is Robin's point - more valuable than the same time spent reading blogs expounding shaky speculations on evolution.
I'm underlining your point about Darwin-- just getting the insights doesn't give you information about the process of thinking them out.
Also, a "just the insights" version will probably leave out any caveats the originator of the insights included.
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
This thread brought to you by quantum immortality.