Michael Denton

> Babelio : https://www.babelio.com/livres/Denton-Evolution--une-theorie-en-crise/153651
> BAnQ (AFP., La presse, 28 oct. 1989, p. 7) : https://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/2263150
> BAnQ (Bischof V., La tribune, 23 septembre 1989, p. 8) : https://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/3722802
> BAnQ (Québec science, 1993, Juin, p. 63) : https://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/2874170

> « L’influence de la théorie de l’évolution dans des domaines très éloignés de la biologie est un des
exemples les plus spectaculaires de l’histoire : il illustre comment une théorie hautement spéculative,
dépourvue de preuves scientifiques réellement solides, peut réussir
à façonner le mode de pensée d’une société tout entière et à dominer
les perspectives d’une époque … Enfin de compte, la. théorie
darwinienne n’est ni plus ni moins que le grand mythe cosmogonique
du XX siècle ... En dépit du prestige de la théorie de
l’évolution et des efforts intellectuels considérables dépensés
pour enfermer les systèmes vivants dans les limites de la pensée
darwinienne, la vérité est que la nature refuse de se laisser
emprisonner »
—Michael Denton, Evolution, Une théorie en crise, Londreys, 1988.

> 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. — 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. Editions Londreys, 1988 - 385 p.
—3e millénaire, (13), Automne 1989… (mehr)

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.… (mehr)