Has anyone read the book DARWIN IS WRONG – CHRISTIAN AMDERS?
I am especially interested in knowing anthropologists who have read the book.
This is an intro by Christian Anders to his book:
"MY DOUBTS ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
The study of Darwin's theory of evolution has not taught us how birds evolved from reptiles, mammals from older quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fish, or vertebrates from invertebrates. Darwin's theory of invertebrates presents the same difficulties. The gap between vertebrates and invertebrates, between worms and coelenterates, between coelenterates and protozoa, is so vast that we cannot survey it. Each layer, each stage, if one follows Darwin, is categorically new, unconnected to the preceding stage. One searches in vain for common interfaces that bridge these gaps, for one will not find them.
Many biologists hardly consider anymore that systematics is the basis of the entire theory of evolution, that it is what we know for sure, while the theories of evolution are what we SUSPECT. Even today's modern theory deviates considerably from Darwin's. Not all biologists, however, are convinced that even the modern theory is conclusive. Anyone who, as a physicist, philologist, or epistemologist, is familiar with exact methods has no doubt about the highly hypothetical nature of Darwin's theory of evolution, for at every stage of the development of living organisms, something new emerges that cannot be derived in any way from the lower stage. And so I say that selection cannot actually create anything new; at most, it can eradicate what is defective and unfit for life. The environment can only "call forth" hidden predispositions; it only looks as if it had created them. Darwin therefore does not provide a satisfactory answer to the question of where predispositions originate.
This thicket of kinship relationships, which arises through the opaque processes of recombination and trait evolution, cannot be explained by the Darwinian scheme or system. Darwin's theory leads to the conclusion that mutation rates are too low for an organism to be "forced" in a particular direction by random mutations—that is, guided into an evolutionary line against the action of natural selection. Nor is there any evidence or direct admission that these SUPPOSED processes or changes have occurred, as Darwin would have us believe in his Ladder of Organic Evolution. In my book, I refer to numerous scientists who vehemently contradict Darwin's theory. Christian Anders (Lanoo)
(3 votes)
Loading...
No. I didn’t. I won’t. And this will certainly not have been done by anyone else who has seriously dealt with the theory of evolution. At the end of the day such and similar books are Creationist propaganda. Kindly wrong, unscientific, dogmatic and as true as a Harry Potter novel.
Who really wants to deal with evolution theory is better served with this:
Or if it is to be popular science: Dawkins: The Creation Lies.
Did I ask? Did I tell you to read it? If it would read a bit and it’s so easy to replay, or not, please report back. I’d be very happy about it.
You could make a contribution to an argument from the book and ask if it is scientifically stable. Given the fact that the book is relatively unknown and the last review was published on Amazon 10 years ago, hardly anyone should have read it.
Thanks for the tip and comment on the review! Think, maybe someone else gets up because I just asked the question with the “preface” that convinced me (no anthropologist) much more than anything else I have heard and seems much more logical to me.
I read Darwin’s Blackbox from Behe. There are even biologists awake. Blasphemy what to say against Darwin . Like 15 years Merkel .
A mouse trap from 4 can not develop. Must work immediately. We have 4 mrd triplets with just one working code. Horizontal evolution is, however, possible. Vertical rather not. But water and flashes are enough. How many amino acids have we produced? Two?
The analogy is deceptive. Individual parts of the mouse trap can be used in a variety of functions, such as the wooden board for cutting or the bow for holding the tie, before landing in a mouse trap. In genetics, the change not only works by adding parts, but it is also possible to replace parts, remove, duplicate, allow neutral, modify functions or add additional features.
Michael Behe hasn’t been taken seriously for 20 years.
Just mistake Darwin, you too. 😊
Nope. They’re just shaking their head over so much garbage. Behe’s book is not worth the paper on which it was printed. Content wrong and completely unscientific.
That’s bullshit. Evolutionary theory has constantly evolved. Evolution biologists have no problem admitting that Darwin was not right on all points. Nevertheless, Darwin’s central statements -variability through natural selection and common descent – have been valid until today and many times confirmed.
Wrong. This can be seen by the fact that hereditary diseases are not always inherited, but also occur through a remutation without a family background.
So? This does not contradict the theory of evolution. On the contrary, the universality of the genetic code is a convincing evidence for them.
Didn’t even lose a sentence to my question, let alone the foreword I asked here. Too bad. 😊