Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis

In 1985, Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis let the cat out of the bag: Darwinian evolution had failed to explain much of anything. And this wasn't coming from a creationist, but a biochemist who believed (and still does) common descent to be valid. While other scientists may disagree with him on that point, what has changed in the past three decades? Darwinian evolution has faltered even further, the gaps far wider. That is not be the story that evangelists of the Darwinian faith claim — but that's where they're at now: Just-so stories and trying to keep people from looking behind the curtain. That's exactly what Denton does, marshaling the latest science that has further shown, among other things, the failure of Darwinian evolution to explain fundamental biological patterns (homologs, Bauplans), cellular and genetic structures, to the emergence of language. This is a book heavy on the science, but it's worth diving into and understanding. This is something the dutiful adherents of the Darwinist faith never do, nor do their leaders want them to. But while they have chosen to leave science, Denton and others are showing us the path back. Had any other theory had so much science against it, it would have been discarded long ago. Evolution holds on propped up, not by science, but by materialism and other philosophies. Check out Denton's other books that expand more on these issues:  Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe , Fire-Maker , and  The Wonder of Water .

Evolution: Still A Theory in CrisesBy Michael DentonPublisher Discovery Institute Press 2016Reviewed by Jack KettlerA brief bio:Michael Denton is a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Formerly a Senior Research Fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Otago in New Zealand, he earned his MD from Bristol University and a PhD in biochemistry from King’s College in London. He is author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, and he has published articles in journals such as Nature, Nature Genetics,BioSystems, and Human Genetics.What others are saying:“A devastating critique.” - Jonathan Wells, PhD, Biologist and Author, Icons of Evolution“Denton moves adroitly from the history of ideas to scientific explanation…It is a rare and powerful combination that demands careful reading.” - Gunter Bechly, PhD, Paleontologist“Darwinist often deflect trenchant criticism by kicking the can down the road. In ten or twenty years science will surely show their theory is correct, they say. Now thirty years after his groundbreaking book, Evolution” A Theory in Crisis, Michael calls their bluff. Not only hasn’t Darwinism overcome its challenges, severe new problem have made the crisis much worse.” - Michael Behe, PhD, Professor of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, and author of Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution.Michael Denton’s book:After more than thirty years, Michael Denton revisits his earlier thesis about the inability of Darwinism’s enthusiasts to explain the functional adaptive beneficial mutation mechanisms leading to the complexity of biological life as we know it today.Subsequent to more than thirty years, evolutionary biologists still cannot explain the tetrapod limb, the pentadacyyl limb, the origin of feathers, the flowering plants, the wings of the bat, the origin of the endometrial cell, human language, the origin of the cell, the origin of ORFan genes, the reduction of the aortic arch, protein forms, folded proteins, lipid forms and DNA and gene sequencing.During the last thirty years, knowledge of the complexity of cellular mechanisms has exponentially increased. Yet, still evolutionary biologists have no answers on how random mutations could have produced life as we know it. It must be said they are still hopeful and willing to attack anyone has doubts about the prevailing orthodoxy.Denton’s analysis of the Darwinian crisis is devastating:“The complexity of living systems is so great that there is now an almost universal consensus, as we saw in the discussion of ORFan genes, that the simplest of all biological novelties—a single functional gene sequence—cannot come about by chance mutations in a DNA sequence. And if an individual gene sequence is far too complex to be produced by chance, then the sudden origination of a morphological novelty like a feather, a limb, or even such a comparatively simple novelty such as an enucleate red cell—all novelties vastly more complex than an individual functional gene sequence—is by any common-sense judgment far beyond the reach of any sort of undirected “chance” saltation. Only if nature were specifically pre-arranged for the actualization of such novelties would it be conceivable that they could originate in saltational jumps. According to Fred Hoyle’s famous calculation, the probability of the evolution of cellular life by chance is about one in 1040,000 “(226)This is why Goldschmidt’s ‘hopeful monsters” have repeatedly reared their ugly heads… (228) No worry, the evolutionary faithful will keep beating these monsters back into place.In wrapping up his analysis, Denton says: “The sheer bankruptcy of the claim that novelties which are not led up to via empirically known incremental functional sequences might have been put together by “chance” macromutations which “just happened to put together” complex structures like a mammalian hair, a diaphragm, a bat’s wing, a branched bipinnate feather, etc., is only to obvious. Evolutionary biology is clearly a theory in deep crisis if evolutionary biologists have to enter Darwin’s realm of miracle to account for the emergence of evolutionary novelties that are not led up via Darwin’s long chain of “innumerable transition forms.” (229)In summary:Denton’s argues against Darwinian adaptive mutational functionalism, opting instead for a typological antecedent structuralism utilizing the entire display of DNA, RNA protein folding, amino acid and gene sequencing complexity leading to the intricacy of life as we know it. The most brilliant scientists can't make the simplest form of life in a test tube. And yet we are to believe that billions and billions of beneficial mutations and accidents brought us life as we know it today out of nothing.One thing we are certain of, the future knowledge of the extraordinary complexity of micro-cellular life will continue to unfold, exposing the gate keepers of Darwinian orthodoxy of having no clothes. At some point, the Darwinian will no longer be able to take to the bank, “we know evolution happened, we just don’t how.” Evolution most certainly is a theory still in crisis!Even though quite technical, I highly recommend this book!Mr. Kettler is the owner of Undergroundnotes.com a conservative web hub and the author of the new book, The Religion That Started in a Hat: A Reference Manual for Christians who Witness to Mormons that is available at Amazon.

I may write a more detailed review later, but this is an excellent look from an agnostic/neutral perspective at how the scientific discoveries of the last thirty years (since his first book) have continued to make Darwinism not just less and less scientific, but barely even logical - how even the biological evidence we knew about 30 years ago should have been huge red flags for any thinking person, let alone biologists. Also how the field of evo-devo has been turning against the adaptationist view due to these discoveries.He presents examples such as the enucleation of red blood cells, feathers, genes, angiosperms, cells themselves, the tetrapod limb, etc. leading to the evolutionary bugbears of the human language and higher mental faculties, as examples of Darwinism's utter explanatory failure. The arguments for such seem to be watertight and are even more damning since these are taxa-defining novelties.A brief summary of once such example: how did the enucleation of red blood cells ever evolve, taking into account the complexity of the cell structure and the thousands of structural changes needed to move the nucleus out of the cell? What fitness could a quarter-out or half-out cell provide to ensure it was passed on? How did the rest of the organism prepare for this change, since it could not be "tested" until it was fully functional? The other examples are similar and seem to be similar to irreducible complexity - so many things had to change all at once for these features to work.The one deficiency is Denton's alternative proposal of some sort of biological plan or inevitability, that these novelties were just how life works out due to some sort of overarching biological laws. There's not much meat there, but then again, the only other logical possibility - and the one you may arrive at after reading through this menagerie of amazing apparent design - is the existence of an amazing Designer.

Le livre est sorti en 2016. Cette chronique a donc trois ans de retard et c’est bien dommage mais mieux vaut tard que jamais. En fait, s’il n’y avait pas eu ce titre malheureux – comme le reconnaît l’auteur lui-même (et on a donc le droit de penser que c’est un choix de l’éditeur pour les raisons habituelles) – je n’aurais pas attendu si longtemps pour le lire. Naturellement, comme le dit malicieusement Denton, à demi-mot, le titre de son premier livre aurait dû être Darwinism, A Theory In Crisis et il n’aurait pas été plus difficile de trouver le titre de celui-ci. On peut donc dire que c’est la faute (supposée) du premier éditeur.Le titre n’est bien sûr pas la seule raison qui m’a fait différer cet achat qui s’est avéré certainement un de mes plus utiles et pertinents. J’étais persuadé, encore une fois à cause du titre, que ce livre n’était qu’une version enrichie et corrigée de son premier livre, Evolution : A Theory In Crisis (EATIC). Je me figurais que Denton, âgé et peut-être has been, avait fait ce que font généralement les vieux fatigués, à savoir refaire ce qu’ils ont fait de mieux en moins bien. Je supposais que j’aurais droit à quelques anecdotes biologiques amusantes ou croustillantes pour la partie divertissement (en matière de sexualité des espèces, il y a toujours moyen) et me faire oublier que le livre n’avait aucune nécessité. Je me trompais complètement. Le dernier livre de Denton est précisément l’inverse de ce que je subodorais. Il est tout sauf anecdotique. Il n’est en rien une redite usagée et pâle de son excellent premier livre mais rend le premier aussi superflu sans la lecture du second que peut l’être celle de l’Ancien Testament sans le Nouveau, si on me permet cette comparaison audacieuse. Il révèle une évolution considérable de la pensée de l’auteur et est à mon avis un de ces livres de vulgarisation scientifique qui fera date, tant il marque un retournement des valeurs admises depuis un siècle et demi.Michael Denton est un cas un peu spécial pour le profane, une de ces personnes qui adorent tellement étudier qu’après avoir fait de longues études de médecine, couronnées de succès, il en a repris à peu près autant pour devenir Docteur en biochimie (sa véritable spécialité, pas toujours bien décrite par les titres universitaires, étant en réalité la génétique et la biologie du développement). Il est donc à la fois médecin et biologiste, ce qui l’a évidemment servi dans ses recherches, centrées sur les maladies génétiques. Denton a obtenu ses deux diplômes dans deux écoles parmi les plus prestigieuses du monde, Bristol University et King’s College, toutes deux classées parmi les trente meilleures universités mondiales. Il a non seulement cherché mais trouvé. Lui et son équipe ont ainsi découvert le gène responsable d’une maladie dégénérative de la rétine et permis un peu plus tard la toute première thérapie génique réussie à la fin des années 90. Rappeler son background n’est pas inutile car les critiques du Darwinisme sont généralement déboutés sans autre forme de procès par des attaques ad hominem sur leur manque de crédits scientifiques. Et dans le cas de ce livre, il ne s’agit pas d’une simple critique après un millier d’autres mais d’une proposition de changement complet de paradigme.Quel est le cœur du sujet de ESATIC ? Un basculement des valeurs. Là où la théorie de Darwin se voulait le moteur central, voire unique, de l’évolution de la vie, Denton montre qu’elle n’en est en fait qu’un agent très auxiliaire, destiné au fignolage, à l’ultime retouche, plutôt qu’au plan d’ensemble. Darwin explique assez bien des évolutions mineures comme la taille ou la forme d’un bec mais est incapable de fournir une explication convaincante pour les innovations majeures telles que l’apparition du bec justement, de l’aile, de la plume ou de la pentadactylie. En somme, la sélection naturelle est le sommet de l’iceberg. Elle sert de glaçage au gâteau mais n’entre en rien dans la confection et la cuisson qui l’ont précédée.Toute la partie immergée, de loin la plus importante, est selon Denton la conséquence des lois physico-chimiques ordinaires, diffusion, élasticité, tension de surface, etc. qui règnent dans le milieu cellulaire et moléculaire. Les contraintes naturelles (Lawful dans le texte) sont les facteurs causals qui déterminent l’expression des gènes. Et donc, les gènes sont soumis à la physique et non l’inverse, comme c’est impliqué dans le darwinisme. On quitte donc un mécanisme externe et contingent (la sélection naturelle, c’est-à-dire l’ensemble des contraintes environnementales, s’appliquant sur des mutations aléatoires) pour un mécanisme interne et prédéterminé. Outre les très nombreuses preuves fournies par la science de ces dernières décennies, Denton montre que ce mécanisme est bien plus à même de forger les innovations majeures de l’évolution, d’une complexité redoutable, et en réalité impossibles à expliquer par de minuscules changements s’incrémentant, qui doivent toujours apporter un plus adaptatif (par exemple comment faites-vous pour passer d’un carré parfaitement efficient à un cercle parfaitement efficient en exécutant de multiples petites modifications toujours avantageuses ? c’est en version simplifiée le problème que pose l’œil de la langouste ; naturellement la réponse la plus évidente est que le changement a dû s’opérer d’un coup et non graduellement comme l’implique obligatoirement la théorie de Darwin).ESATIC marque aussi une profonde évolution avec EATIC dans la pensée de l’auteur. Bien que Denton à l’époque de son premier livre, 1985, était très critique de la théorie de Darwin (critique dévastatrice mais sans proposition alternative), il restait de son propre aveu inféodé à l’utilitarisme de son époque. En gros, chaque innovation devait présenter un avantage adaptatif pour son possesseur et si le mécanisme principal n’était pas celui envisagé par Darwin, le but restait le même. Sa position a complètement changé sur ce point. Bien sûr, les progrès considérables de la biologie, l’apparition de l’épigénétique et de tout ce qu’on appelle Evo-Devo ont dû bien l’aider à modifier ses conceptions. Ses propres recherches ont fini de le convaincre qu’il s’était mis une œillère comme beaucoup d’autres. En réalité, si une grande partie des innovations du vivant ne semblent fournir aucun avantage en termes d’adaptation pour ses acquéreurs, c’est tout simplement qu’elles n’en ont pas. La pentadactylie est un exemple parmi beaucoup d’autres. La sexualité et le cycle des anguilles en est un autre (très divertissant celui-ci : pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire très… très compliqué).Comme toujours avec Denton, je suis impressionné par la rigueur, la méticulosité, l’acuité de son argumentation. Bien qu’il semble aimable et très gentil dans le civil, quand le scientifique Denton tient un os, il ne le lâche plus tant qu’il reste une miette de viande ou de moelle à tirer. Cela implique des répétitions et parfois des lourdeurs de style mais quelle démonstration impeccable ! Un peu à mon étonnement, il est aussi bon dans la construction que dans l’éreintement, comme l’était, de fait, EATIC.Littérairement, ce dernier livre de Denton est certainement plus aride, plus abstrait, plus difficile que son premier mais il est aussi bien plus fondamental. Je crois pour ma part que c’est le livre de science le plus important qu’il m’ait été donné de lire jusqu’ici dans ma vie. Le plus important parce qu’il nous dit quelque chose du futur.Pour finir, je ferai une remarque sur les conditions de publication de ce livre aussi admirable que remarquable. Publier avec la marque du Discovery Institute n’est sans doute pas infamant mais certes pas non plus ce qu’on peut souhaiter de mieux pour un scientifique (DI est l’organe américain principal prônant l’Intelligent Design). Que Denton, dont le livre ne se veut nullement l’avocat de l’ID – on peut toujours gloser sur les intentions cachées d’un auteur, gloses aussi gratuites que stériles – soit obligé de passer par là pour publier en dit long sur l’état de la libre expression de nos jours. Toute parole sur un sujet à controverse non adoubée par l’establishment est devenue un vrai parcours d’obstacles quand elle n’est pas purement et simplement étouffée. Et l’évolution est le sujet à controverse par excellence, plus fondamental bien que moins médiatisé que le climat.Denton nous dit à la fin de son livre que le changement de paradigme qu’il souhaite attendra sans doute encore quelques décennies, bien que tous les éléments de son abandon soient déjà présents : telle est la force d’un paradigme. Combien de décennies a-t-il fallu attendre avant que la théorie de Wegener, pourtant si bien étayée et qui semble si évidente de nos jours, soit reconnue et diffusée dans les écoles ? Je vais répondre tout de suite : cinq, au minimum. Un demi-siècle. Wegener n’a sans doute pas réglé la question de l’évolution de la Terre une fois pour toutes, comme certains charlatans s’en vantent régulièrement à propos d’autres sujets, mais sa théorie est certainement bien supérieure à celle qui l’a précédé.Ainsi de la théorie de Denton.

One of the good things about reading books is that you sometimes get to realise that someone else out there in the world has thought the same strange things that you have. Reading this book, as someone who has thought a great deal about the problem of evolution, it is a relief to know that someone else has delved deeply into the problem and been left with some baffling difficulties. As an atheist though, I am a bit concerned that Michael Denton, though he calls himself agnostic, works for an organisation known for its encouragement of religious creationism.Denton has recognised the simple indisputable fact that 'genes' cannot and do not make the organism - they only make the protein building blocks - the structural proteins and enzymes, but it is gene expression; where and how much, that builds us. It seems incredible to me that Richard Dawkins (the man who I credit with getting me into this fine mess), and his many disciples, still talk of genes as if they somehow magically conferred characteristics on an organism. They just don't, they make proteins; and the gap between making proteins and the development of an organism, the subject of morphology, is not explained by genes alone. In fact it is quite clear that the same genes can have widely differing functions and effects in different cells and at different stages in the life of an organism. Yet still the talk is of a 'gene for schizophrenia', or autism, or homosexuality, as if this was even remotely possible. It isn't! On this I am with Denton, as are many others now in the light of recent developments in genetics.The book, which is quite a hard read, and really requires that you know the basics of genetics - DNA, transcription, translation and so on, presents several well-reasoned problems that appear insurmountable in the accepted neo-Darwinian explanation of evolution by the accumulation of small changes resulting from random mutations. Some of these concern large-scale development, such as the existence of distinct clades; features that persist in non-adaptive ways, although they might be expected to be changed in all directions by constant mutation and selection. A similar problem arises with orthogenetic features - the observed tendency for some characteristics to keep changing in the same direction over often very long periods of time. More convincing for me, though, are the small-scale problems that arise in the cell itself, which call up a 'chicken and egg' dilemma.Take, for example the evolution of the basic mechanism of triplet coding in the DNA, which codes for 20 amino acids, plus redundancy, while also allowing for the coding of binding sites. This triplet coding can only achieve anything in conjunction with the translation machinery, which in turn can only function if it has the right amino acids available. How could there possibly be any intermediate steps to this process that enhanced survival of the cell or organism? The adoption of a simpler system of translation, for example, would result in all organisms being killed off by any mutation that led to a more advanced system, as the decoding would simply be broken. The eye is often quoted as a seemingly impossible problem without intermediate forms, but of course there are in fact intermediate forms that can be imagined and that exist throughout nature for eyes. The cellular problems seem much more intractable. How could introns evolve without there being a splicing mechanism already in place, without completely breaking translation to proteins? The red blood cell is something that Denton worked on that he has a special interest in. It loses its nucleus. Why? So that the smaller cell can squeeze through tiny blood vessels, we think. But the ejection of the nucleus is a complex process involving many mechanisms. There cannot be a red cell with the nucleus half ejected! What conceivable intermediate forms can we possibly imagine that would be selected for their beneficial effect? Denton also marvels at the fact that DNA just happens to be capable of modification in so many ways, such as by the many forms of epigenetic modification that have recently been discovered. Everything seems to point, as is often said in physics) to a universe that was 'designed' to enable life, and yet, for me, there just has to be another answer, although that is certainly not the accepted one!Denton, who is not exactly a creationist, then looks at the alternative of saltation - large 'lucky' changes in the DNA that happen to create the mechanisms in one go, but concludes as others have (and I am pleased to see that he mentions Sir Fred Hoyle) that the chance of this happening is not just very low, it's as good as zero! I well remember going to a lecture by Fred Hoyle in 1967 at Bangor University, but sadly this fascinating man fell into disrepute, despite being knighted, and as many others have, for daring to espouse unconventional views. Many people do not even realise that neo-Darwinism would be disowned by Darwin, were he still around, because he realised that he did not understand the mechanism of change in living things that is the raw material for selection, and turned in fact to Lamarck's idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics to create his own hypothesis called pangenisis.In the end, Denton is drawn to the idea of emergence, in complex systems, as the only answer he can imagine. The idea that somehow, the universe embodies in it's very laws the possibility of living things just coming into being, rather as some molecules embody the possibility for crystals to come into being. For me, this is not a much better answer though than the idea of a creator. I want a mechanistic solution, but I do not dispute the difficulties. Summing this up (p282), he tells us that the famous J B S Haldane famously proclaimed nature to be, 'not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can ever suppose.' 'And certainly far, far queerer than conventional Darwinian evolution supposes,' Denton adds. Those 'experts' who assure us that evolution by natural selection has been 'proved' and is accepted by all sane scientists, need to take note. Darwinian evolution is in fact accepted by almost none of the really serious scientists who have worked in the field and discovered the intractable problems. An excellent, daring, totally honest and well-reasoned, if ultimately not very satisfying, book.

Cumple perfectamente la razón por la cual compré este ebook. Con un análisis más profundo que en su primera versión, el autor con una mayor experiencia derrumba las teorías materialistas que en mi opinión, muchos siguen por falta de información o por intereses corporativos.

ネオダーウィニズムへの批判ではあるけれどインテリジェント・デザインではない。そして虚心に向き合えば間違いなく知的興奮に酔える、重要度を抜きにしてもよく書けた、面白い本だと思う　彼が注目するのはダーウィンの登場によって葬られた感のあるプレ・ダーウィニスト、特にオーウェンの「種」の独立性を強調する進化論だ。もちろんその主張を繰り返すのではなく、新しい概念として練り直している　独立性というからには種から種への漸進的変化は否定される。自然淘汰は種が確立したのちに個体に対してのみ働くのであって、進化の全体像の中では極めて部分的な役割しか持たない。この種のありようをデントンはstructuralismと呼び、ダーウィン風にすべてを適応によって説明する理論をfunctionalismという　前者は構造主義と訳すべきなのだろうが、哲学上のそれとの混同は避けたい。また日本では池田清彦氏が構造主義進化論を提唱しておられ、ウィキペディアもそれに準拠した記述になっている。しかし氏の著作を読んだ限りでは、ネオダーウィニズムへの批判という点では同じだが、発想は全く逆の方を向いている。池田氏の説を、デントンはおそらく究極のfunctionalismととらえるのではないか。池田氏の構造とは環境全体のことで、それと個体との（特に情報の）ダイナミックなやり取りを進化の原動力とするが、デントンの構造は「種」の動かしがたい本質を指す。簡単にどちらがよいかということは判断保留としておくが、本書は思弁的な要素をできるだけ控え、本流の哲学と一見似ていても全く違う発想に拠ることがしつこいほどに強調される（違いが読者に十分伝わるかは別にして）。池田氏は最初からソシュールの成果を借りたことを宣言し、フーコーなども引用され、積極的に構造主義哲学との類縁性が語られる。私などは人文学にちょっと寄りすぎかなと感じてしまう　逆に言えばデントンの本には明示的ではない哲学的危うさを秘めているということだ。種の構造を実在論的に認め、波動方程式やプランク定数と同様に、それ以上の理屈付を拒む実体として扱うということは、何かしら私たちの感覚からずれるところがある。しかし私には、一見同じような意見であっても、観念的思弁によるものと観察による経験的な結論によるものとでは全く異なるのだという、彼の言いたいことも何となくわかるような気がするのだ。そのあたりを考えることも、この本の面白さの一つ　三十年ほど前にEvolution:A Theory in Crisisで衝撃を与えた著者が、その後この分野にもたらされたさまざまの知識を加味して書いた、続編というか改訂版というか、そんな感じの本。前著も重要だが、こちらだけでよいだろう　スティーヴン・ジェイ・グールドがダーウィニズムにあけた風穴をさらに広げた功績は大きいのだが、日本で読まれているとはいいがたい。しかし前者が広い読者を獲得できたのなら、もう少し抵抗なく読まれてしかるべきだった。一般受けする知識（パンダの親指とかカンブリア紀の奇怪な生き物とか）が盛り込まれていないということかもしれないが、グールドがあくまで進化論内部からの反抗ととらえられたのに対し、もっと根幹を揺るがしかねない、外部からの攻撃とみなされたのかもしれない

Denton's original book " Evolution: A theory in crisis", changed many people's point of view on this subject.This book expands on the discussion and explains many observations that prove difficult for mainstream evolutionary thought.