18 of 18 people found the following review helpful
BEWARE OF THE 2010 PAPERBACK VERSION,
This review is from: The genetical theory of natural selection (Paperback)
The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is a classic and should be owned and read by all students of evolutionary theory. The low star rating that I have given is ONLY with respect to the 2010 paperback version.
The copyright for the first edition is expired and the company that published the 2010 version scanned a library copy from the University of Toronto (which is entirely legal, I think). The first page of the scanned reproduction reads "You are holding a reproduction of an original work published before 1923...". This is strange because the title page indicates that the book was written in 1930, which is accurate.
THE PROBLEM: The copy of the book from which the 2010 version was scanned has markings throughout, underlining, comments, and some of the pages are out of order (e.g., page 34 faces page 37).
If you want a "New" copy of the book, I do not recommend buying this version. It is well worth the extra money to get a clean copy, if that's what you're looking for.
I am returning mine.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 9, 2012 10:57:49 PM PST
Thanks for the info!
Posted on Nov 27, 2014 7:10:13 AM PST
This book should be read but also with the understanding that modern study of genetics refute this book. Evolutionary theory states on rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature
Posted on Apr 15, 2016 8:54:33 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 15, 2016 8:55:08 AM PDT]
Posted on Apr 15, 2016 8:55:46 AM PDT
Joe Ward says:
R. Donahue's objection to this classic treatise is creationist drivel.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2016 4:13:43 PM PDT
And obviously the only thing you can believe when it comes to the reason, purpose, and origin of all life when naturalism has none of the above
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2016 4:23:43 PM PDT
N. L. Ratterman says:
It might help you to gain a more complete understanding of evolutionary theory before you misrepresent it and then point out all of the reasons why your straw man is wrong. It is clear from what you have written that you do not understand Fisher's book (assuming you have read it), that you lack a basic understanding of genetics and biology as a whole, and that you have an irreducible complexity agenda to propagate. Learn a little bit about a topic before you attempt to discuss it. Maybe you can start by reading this extremely important contribution to our current understanding of the evolutionary process.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2016 6:21:53 PM PDT
That's a little hard to do since evolutionary process changes from one writer to the next. The theories just keep growing but in the end they are still with no answers where life comes from nor why it even exist. When you do not address my statements other than I have and agenda but at least I have an agenda that is believable, I see that you cannot deny theses facts of genetics I have presented. Evolutionist have the agenda of trying to decrepit that belief only with the lie of evolution. Try learning what Christian scientist say in this field of study it might surprise you that you might learn that evolution can be so easily debunked that somebody like me can do. By the way its not a theory its really a hypotheses there is no facts of evolutiuon
‹ Previous 1 Next ›