Página InicialGruposDiscussãoMaisZeitgeist
Pesquisar O Sítio Web
Este sítio web usa «cookies» para fornecer os seus serviços, para melhorar o desempenho, para analítica e (se não estiver autenticado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing está a reconhecer que leu e compreende os nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade. A sua utilização deste sítio e serviços está sujeita a essas políticas e termos.
Hide this

Resultados dos Livros Google

Carregue numa fotografia para ir para os Livros Google.

Evolution: A Theory In Crisis por Michael…
A carregar...

Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (original 1985; edição 2002)

por Michael Denton (Autor)

MembrosCríticasPopularidadeAvaliação médiaMenções
332458,862 (3.5)6
Michael Denton is an Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor who has lived and worked in London, Toronto and Sydney, and who is best known for his biological research.
Membro:bestguess47
Título:Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
Autores:Michael Denton (Autor)
Informação:Adler & Adler (2002), Edition: 3rd, 368 pages
Colecções:Apologetics, A sua biblioteca
Avaliação:***
Etiquetas:Nenhum(a)

Pormenores da obra

Evolution: A Theory In Crisis por Michael Denton (1985)

Nenhum(a)
A carregar...

Adira ao LibraryThing para descobrir se irá gostar deste livro.

Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.

» Ver também 6 menções

Mostrando 3 de 3
> Tassy Pascal. Denton (Michael). — Évolution : une théorie en crise.
In: Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris, Nouvelle Série. Tome 1 fascicule 1-2, 1989. pp. 154-157… ; (en ligne),
URL : https://www.persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0037-8984_1989_num_1_1_1709_t1_0154_0000_1

> « EVOLUTION : Une théorie en crise » de Michael Denton (1988 - Editions Londreys ; 31, rue de Bièvre 75005 Paris 385 p.)
Michael Denton dirige actuellement le Centre de recherche en génétique humaine de Sydney, en Australie. Son ouvrage vient de soulever de vives controverses dans La Recherche (n°211 Juin 1989). De par le caractère exclusivement scientifique de cette estimable Revue, je n’entrerai pas dans les détails d’un débat de spécialistes, et me limiterai donc à quelques constatations.
Michael Denton offre par sa thèse une argumentation anti-néodarwinienne. Cependant, il ne prône pas, comme on l’accuse, une vision créationniste ou fixiste, mais met en évidence les points obscurs de l’interprétation évolutionniste classique. S’il est vrai que la théorie évolutionniste a évolué chez les spécialistes, ses idées initiales (gradualisme, sélection et hasard) imprègnent fortement les esprits de la très grande majorité des non-spécialistes.
Cet ouvrage, dont l’argumentation va à l’encontre des idées reçues, soulève, en lui-même, le problème de l’observation et de l’interprétation.
Est-il bien raisonnable de postuler des lois en valeur absolue comme continuent à le faire les tenants de l’évolutionnisme classique ?
Dans ce domaine, les théories matérialistes se sont édifiées sur l’idée d’un moteur de l’évolution dont il s’agit de découvrir les mécanismes (la terminologie en vigueur a d’imposantes significations !).
Là où l’on ne voit qu’un moteur, pourquoi n’y en aurait-il pas d’autres de natures différentes ? ce que tendent à constater ceux qui admettent le gradualisme et le saltationnisme.
S’il existe une force motrice à l’évolution, pourquoi n’existerait-il pas une ou plusieurs contre-forces, hormis le milieu naturel qui dans l’optique darwiniste revêt un caractère hostile ?
Le livre de Michael Denton, n’imposant pas de modèle théorique particulier, favorise de nombreuses réflexions sur un sujet scientiste demeuré tabou ; il n’explique pas Dieu, il le suppose et invite à de grandes découvertes. --Revue 3e millénaire, Automne 1989
  Joop-le-philosophe | Mar 6, 2019 |
This is by a non-creationist, a biologist, who sees big problems in evolution. I read this as a prelude to his update out this year. The main thesis is: nature is fundamentally discontinuous. By this he means that life forms are not seen as a continuum spreading across plant-animal, or across any of the major divisions within those kingdoms. This is precisely the opposite of what an evolutionist would predict.

The book is technical in some areas. I believe a reader can skip over some areas and still clearly see the main points he is making. I found it very helpful, but I think he takes a somewhat different approach in the update. It will be interesting to compare.

-- Origin of Species had 2 main points: special evolution, whereby species can arise by small changes with natural selection; and general evolution, whereby all of life can be explained. Within the latter, all of life would be continuous -- all species are linked together. Also, random processes can account for the complexity of life.
-- Finished the journey in 1836, formulated the theory 2 years later, and published in 1859. One of the main problems he saw was the gaps in the fossils, and no conceptual path from one species to another.
-- There was wide acceptance within 20 years, largely because other sciences had already "advanced" and many biologists jumped at the theory. An irony: Darwin saw problems that he thought future discoveries would address. Now, the problems still exist in even starker form, but scientists ignore them.
-- Microevolution: New species may be observed, but the variations are within only a very restricted range. No empirical evidence of macroevolution.
-- The prevailing concept before Darwin was to classify by typology: types and classes of life were clearly distinct from others. There were sharp breaks, and many leading biologists rejected D because they saw no evidence to support his theory.
-- The classification of species results in sister-groups as opposed to any pattern of sequence. There were no groupings along the line of, "see how this naturally arose from this group." This is a major problem. As a result, the theory has not significantly affected how life is classified from pre-D times.
-- Homology. From appearance of the specie or its fossils, there was thought that similarities evidenced evolutionary development. But other aspects of the specie (reproductive patterns/organs, heart, lungs, etc.) proved them to be very different. (Ex: marsupial dog form, vs a dog form with the more common birth design.)
-- Lack of transitional forms is an even bigger problem now, because new fossil deposits have shown the same gaps. Even fossils may give false indications, for they show only the skeletal remains, while there may be significant issues with the soft tissues (e.g., reproductive system, lung, heart).
-- Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." The feather and the bird lung system defy gradual development. Others: amniotic egg (reptile) vs the amphibian's egg; mating habit of the dragonfly (in flight); metamorphosis; liver fluke; spiders vs wasps.
-- Life vs nonlife. The simplest bacteria cell has 100 billion atoms; there are no simple life forms that bridge from non-life to life. There seems to be an absence of life in the universe elsewhere, and there is difficulty in formulating a concept where life could evolve that would not have severely risked that life.
-- First cell had to have several interdependent systems/components for it to survive.
-- The protein structure of organisms shows no evolutionary pattern of development; each is commonly complex giving no indication of sequence.
-- Chance: Trial and error is a very inefficient way to create something complex. The creation of a simple sentence could be vastly time-consuming. The production of a living cell defies vast odds. Darwinists have not been forthright in dealing with the mathematics. (Wistar conference by mathematicians and engineers confronted some of these difficulties.)
-- Perfection. Eye, stunning complexity of the cell; dna replicates itself, other. Defies randomness.
-- Paradigms..Ptolemaic astronomy protected itself by ignoring inconsistencies that emerged as the planets were observed. The same with fire and phlogiston. Darwinists ignore the huge issues because they do not have a "scientific" alternative. ( )
  jimmoz | Jun 6, 2016 |
This is a great book and very readable. I read it almost twenty years ago and it is still worthy of being read today. ( )
1 vote Cajun_Huguenot | Apr 17, 2007 |
Mostrando 3 de 3
sem críticas | adicionar uma crítica
Tem de autenticar-se para poder editar dados do Conhecimento Comum.
Para mais ajuda veja a página de ajuda do Conhecimento Comum.
Título canónico
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Data da publicação original
Pessoas/Personagens
Locais importantes
Acontecimentos importantes
Filmes relacionados
Prémios e menções honrosas
Epígrafe
Dedicatória
Primeiras palavras
Citações
Últimas palavras
Nota de desambiguação
Editores da Editora
Autores de citações elogiosas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Língua original
DDC/MDS canónico
Michael Denton is an Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor who has lived and worked in London, Toronto and Sydney, and who is best known for his biological research.

Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas.

Descrição do livro
Resumo Haiku

Ligações Rápidas

Capas populares

Avaliação

Média: (3.5)
0.5 2
1
1.5
2 1
2.5
3 5
3.5 1
4 9
4.5 1
5 3

É você?

Torne-se num Autor LibraryThing.

 

Acerca | Contacto | LibraryThing.com | Privacidade/Termos | Ajuda/Perguntas Frequentes | Blogue | Loja | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas Legadas | Primeiros Críticos | Conhecimento Comum | 157,715,013 livros! | Barra de topo: Sempre visível