2 von 55 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Outdated, dogmatic and incorrect,
Rezension bezieht sich auf: The Selfish Gene (Gebundene Ausgabe)
That social experiences are reflected directly in the genetic material and are even inherited was unheard of Darwin or Dawkins. That was also not written in the textbooks of Genetics. Lamarckism was frowned upon since Darwin and statements of the Bible that the sins of the fathers effect following generations ridiculed as myths. But now it seems to be scientific research, provided the news are correct.
The first who succeeded in this ground-shaking understanding was the biologist Emma Whitelaw at the Queensland Institue fo Medical Research. The Israelite biologist Eva Jablonka said that the whole discourse about inheritance and evolution would change and that it meant the end of the "selfish Gene".
Not long ago allegations that adaptation of an organism to the environment would pass over to the descendants was regarded as scientific heresy. They contradicted the ruling cognition of the evolution theory. It was said that accidental variations in the genetic material, so called mutations, supply the creatures with an advantage in the struggle for life.
It seems that Dawkins fabricated a hotshot, which he should urgently revise. The air for evolutionist is getting more and more thin. They need another helping sub-theory, or two?
The discoveries of the Epi-Geneticists are an example for a scientific truism, which is not well known to the public: scientific knowledge - here the evolution theory -is a preliminary knowledge. Whereby it is still the question whether the evolution theory is not just an ideology.
The "It is proved!", stated quickly, does not always mean the truth! Dawkins premature ideas concerning the Selfish Gene is such a "wanna-be-knowledge", which proves as en error in the light of serious scientific approach. At once several evolutionary dogmas go down without a whimper, if accident is not the hit. Now we have data for a new explanation: Not the accident calls for variation in the genetic material, rather it is the designation! Designation comes from Design! More concrete: the free will of man, letting him do this or that, hence having effects on the body and right into the genetic material. And this seems to be the undeniable scientific found. These self-eveloping genes have their limits, of course, but it is apparent that man has more responsibility for himself and others than can be welcome by those who like to do what they want.
The not very respectful assertion of Dawkins and his purporters that human genetic material is nothing more than the rather minor valuable rest of evolution falls somehow very un-gently back on them. Not the genetic material is garbage, but it could be advisable, that many meters of bookshelfs of evolution publications must be tidied out. They suffered a wondrous evolution, from accredited professional literature to scrap paper!
Sortieren: Ältester zuerst | Neuester zuerst
1-5 von 5 Diskussionsbeiträgen
Ersteintrag: 07.09.2009 12:09:52 GMT+02:00
L. Brokers meint:
You have not read the book it seems.
The main points you criticizing are also discussed by Dawkins, in what he calls memes, in a sense cultural replicators. The main thrust of Dakwins theories are that where there are replicators, there will be evolution. This aèèlies to genes of course but as well to culture and knowledge. However, cultural is likely to be transmitted from one person to another with much less accuracy than genes on chromosomes. Evolution in the sense of memes evolving will therefore be much quicker and diverse than genetic evolution.
Anyway, Dawkins ideas are always denigrated by religious pundits or theists, because it contradicts the core of their beliefs.
Veröffentlicht am 08.10.2009 15:11:00 GMT+02:00
This guy seems to be a creationist with no idea of neither evolution nor epigenetics.
His imbecile rantings should be taken as seriously as the ol' creationist canard that the earth is about 6,000 years old.
Boring, dogmatic and bogus!
Veröffentlicht am 05.11.2013 01:21:51 GMT+01:00
Mato Pavlovic meint:
you haven't read the book, have you?
Veröffentlicht am 25.07.2014 03:08:56 GMT+02:00
Oh no! Another creationist :-(
Antwort auf einen früheren Beitrag vom 25.07.2014 21:13:16 GMT+02:00
Roman Nies meint:
Yeah! The most funniest thing is that God is also a creationist! I heard that there are still some people who ignore the Bible! Think! The Bible - God`s word! Hard to believe. But I also heard that there are still some indio tribes still to be detected in the Amazon Forest!
‹ Zurück 1 Weiter ›