Read Ceasornicarul orb by Richard Dawkins Simona Mudava Online


După 150 de ani, teoria evoluţiei prin selecţie naturală continuă să lase iluzia că e uşor de înţeles – şi în genere e greşit înţeleasă, ba chiar e încă respinsă de un număr surprinzător de mare de oameni, în ciuda dovezilor zdrobitoare în favoarea ei care s-au adunat de la Darwin încoace. În Ceasornicarul orb, Richard Dawkins îşi asumă sarcina de a explica în detaliu pentDupă 150 de ani, teoria evoluţiei prin selecţie naturală continuă să lase iluzia că e uşor de înţeles – şi în genere e greşit înţeleasă, ba chiar e încă respinsă de un număr surprinzător de mare de oameni, în ciuda dovezilor zdrobitoare în favoarea ei care s-au adunat de la Darwin încoace. În Ceasornicarul orb, Richard Dawkins îşi asumă sarcina de a explica în detaliu pentru publicul larg tot ce pare la prima vedere imposibil de explicat pe cale naturală: apariţia primelor forme de viaţă pe Pământ, dezvoltarea organelor complexe cum sunt ochii sau aripile, aşa-zisele "verigi lipsă" despre care vorbesc paleontologii, precum şi numeroase aspecte stranii ale lumii vii. Cheia explicaţiilor lui Dawkins e înţelegerea corectă a caracterului treptat, pas cu pas, al evoluţiei şi a raportului dintre întâmplare (mutaţia genetică) şi determinism (selecţia naturală). Ceasornicarul orb e o demonstraţie de forţă intelectuală care îşi are locul, alături de Originea speciilor, între marile cărţi de biologie....

Title : Ceasornicarul orb
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789735024611
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 400 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Ceasornicarul orb Reviews

  • Paul Bryant
    2018-11-26 16:28

    I should explain the point about the watchmaker. A SMALL ROCKIf you’re walking along in the countryside and you come across a rock, you don’t say, well, where the hell did that come from and who made it? It’s a rock. No one cares. There’s no notices stuck on trees or printed in local free newspapers anywhere saying “have you seen this rock? Description – roughly three inches by four by three; last seen in the Dorchester area; undistinctive grey colouring; answers to the name of “rock”; reward – please call this number; WE MISS YOU ROCK” . It’s a rock. ON THE OTHER HAND, A GOLD WATCHNow, if you saw a beautiful gold watch on your walk in the countryside, you would say – lo! a watch – I deduce that someone has lost a watch and it is here; also, I furthermore deduce that there must be a God.” Richard Dawkins says that watches, or indeed anything complicated, do not infer the existence of a watchmaker. Or, to use a different analogy, a book, which can be a complicated thing, does not infer the existence of an author. You could say well, here’s a book called The Blind Watchmaker and it says it’s by Richard Dawkins, so we see that Richard Dawkins is the author and he wrote this book, but Richard Dawkins would say NO! it doesn’t, have you not been paying attention, have you been giggling and passing notes in the back row again? EVOLUTION OF THE SEMICOLONWhat happened is that gradually, over many billions of years, language formed, inconceivably slowly, for instance it took ten million years for commas to evolve out of a full stop, and another ten million for the exotic semi-colon to evolve out of the comma. So this book The Blind Watchmaker (like all other books) evolved slowly. We have fossils to prove this. They show the missing links. We have, for instance, copies of the book which are called The Blond Watchmaker dating from the Devonian period – it took several millions of years for the Blond to evolve into the Blind, you see. I read that Mexican paleontologists recently unearthed a copy called The Bland Watchmaker. Going back further , we find all sorts of evolutionary byways that, because of natural selection, died out eventually. One manuscript from the late Pleistocene period which is currently on display at the University of East Anglia shows a strange hybrid between an early version of The Blind Watchmaker and Alice in Wonderland in which the famous teaparty scene features a pterodactyl, a plesiosaur (so very unlikely) and a crazed archaeopteryx. This unviable literary form did not survive, as we know. Natural selection, although brutal from our limited human perspective, explains the evolution of complex things. RELIGION CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY TWILIGHT IS POPULARGod cannot explain why the book species “Stephanie Myers” and “Dan Brown”, for instance, proliferate wildly in many varied habitats, whilst arguably more beautiful forms like Henry James, Proust, and the Golden Tamarin dwindle to the point where human intervention from libraries and literary professors are the only thing keeping them from sinking into oblivion – no, God cannot explain this. But Richard Dawkins (also known as "Science") can.Sorry, that should be “Richard Dawkins”.

  • Manny
    2018-12-07 17:37

    Dawkins loves explaining evolutionary theory, and this is one of his best books. My favourite bit is the section on long-tailed birds (peacocks, etc). From the point of view of simple utility, they are rather baffling. What use could you possibly have for that long, stupid tail?But, as Dawkins keeps reminding us, it's not about survival of the species, or even of the individual, but rather of the gene. Suppose there's a sex-linked male gene that disposes towards long tails, and a sex-linked female gene that disposes towards finding long tails attractive. A child born of a union between two individuals carrying these genes will be likely to have both of them. Hence, if it's male, it'll have a long tail, and if it's female it will prefer males with long tails. If this combination becomes common, long-tailed males will have a larger and larger advantage in terms of being preferred by females. Tails will lengthen until the practical downside (being unable to fly, avoid predators, etc) counterbalances the upside of efficiently attracting potential mates.I read this, and suddenly looked at supermodels in a new light. God, they're hot! In fact, if they were any hotter they'd be dead.

  • Saleh MoonWalker
    2018-11-22 19:50

    یکی دیگه از کارهای عالیه استاد داوکینز هست. خوندنش به تمام خردگرایان و علم گرایان پیشنهاد میشه. عنوان کتاب هم که کاملا گویاست، در واقع عنوانش کامل، شامل و واضحه و حرفی برای زدن باقی نمیزاه. جالبیش اینه که من دیدم که این اثر ترجمه شده و کنار خیابون به فروش میرسه. واقعا در عجبم که جوری به این مرحله رسیده توی ایران ولی خب ... امیدوارم همین مسیر ادامه داشته باشه و شاهد ترجمه بقیه آثار این استاد بزرگ باشیم که مسلما و قطعا به خیلیها توی مسیرشون برای آگاهی و شناختن هستی کمک میکنه. ترسی که بعد از فهمیدن اینکه چجوری به این نقطه از دنیا که توش قرار داریم رسیدیم، فقط و فقط با مطالعه و کسب علم و آگاهی بیشتر از بین میره و زندگی رو روشن تر میکنه. فقط توی این حالت میتونیم زندگی خوبی رو تجربه کنیم، نه اینکه دست به دامن چیزی مثل دین و خدا بشیم که با داستان های زیبا باعث از بین کاهش ترس از مرگ ناشی از جهل و همچنین کنترل زندگی انسان ها میشه. فقط با مطالعه و تفکر میشه زندگی بهتری داشت، میشه آزاد بود و شاد بود... به امید پیروزی نهایی خرد بر جهل و خارج شدن کامل دین و خدا از چرخه زندگی تمام انسانها.“The Bishop goes on to the human eye, asking rhetorically, and with the implication that there is no answer, 'How could an organ so complex evolve?' This is not an argument, it is simply an affirmation of incredulity.”

  • Riku Sayuj
    2018-11-09 22:50

    It is a good thing that Dawkins himself takes the trouble to think about which chapters of his books will be of vanishing interest in the near future. Of course, he turned out to be more accurate than he must have wished for. This must be the most boring of all Dawkins’ books, but I do not want to give up on him till I read ‘The Extended Phenotype’ which just might prove to be the best (scientifically) of all his works. With whole chapters devoted to the driest taxonomy problems and to disproving outdated theories, the book was a massive waste of time once I went past the mildly interesting first half. But, it still provides an opportunity to use Dawkins’ own method of caricature-based argument to paint a caricature of his own positions in ‘The God Delusion’ based on his own vitriolic stands in this book. I will try to examine in detail how Dawkins has betrayed his own principles of scientific grounding and rational rigorousness in The God Delusion by using arguments and structures from this book in the review. Hopefully that will happen by tomorrow...

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2018-11-30 16:41

    The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design is a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins, in which the author presents an explanation of, and argument for, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. عنوانها: ساعتساز نابینا؛ ساعتساز کور؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داوکینز؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: اول دسامبر سال 2014 میلادیعنوان: ساعتساز نابینا؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داوکینز؛ مترجم: محمود بهزاد؛ شهلا باقری؛ تهران، مازیار، 1388؛ در 383 ص؛ چاپ دوم 1389؛ شابک: 9789645676757؛ چاپ دوم 1389؛ موضوع: تکامل - انتخاب طبیعی - زیست شناسی - قرن 20 معنوان: ساعتساز کور؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داوکینز؛ مترجم: ایرج والی پور؛ تهران، ایرج والی پور، 1390؛ در 394 ص؛ شابک: 9789640476932؛ چاپ دوم 1389؛ موضوع: تکامل - انتخاب طبیعی - زیست شناسی - قرن 20 منام کتاب به شکلی متاثر از تشبیهی است که کشیش قرن هجدهمی ویلیام پالی به کار برد. تشبیه پالی به طور کلی چنین بود که: حتی اگر شما ندانید که ساعت چیست، طراحی چرخ دنده‌ها و فنرها و طرز چینش آنها در کنار همدیگر برای یک مقصود خاص، شما را وامی‌دارد که نتیجه بگیرید که «این ساعت باید سازنده‌ ای داشته باشد، کسی که آن را به منظوری خاص طراحی کرده‌ است؛ سازنده‌ ای که از سازوکار آن آگاه‌ است، و کاربردی برای این طراحی داشته‌ است». «اگر این نتیجه‌ گیری در مورد یک ساعت ساده درست باشد، پس آیا کاملاً درست نیست که در مورد چشم، گوش، کلیه، مفصل آرنج، و مغز هم گفته شود که طراح هوشمند و هدفمندی دارند؟ این ساختارهای زیبا، پیچیده، ظریف، و آشکارا طراحی‌شده به مقصود خاص هم باید طراحی، ساعت‌سازی، داشته باشند - که همانا خداست. ا. شربیانی

  • Bradley
    2018-11-24 22:35

    As the title's extension spells out, this is a definitive (as of '87) rebuttal against all comers in favor of Darwinism, but don't let my saying so prove it. Read it for yourself.All his arguments are crystal clear, but he takes extra time to caricature the caricature of Darwinists, pointing out exactly how the ad absurdum argument really works while also elucidating the fine points of what Darwinism IS versus what it is NOT.He steps us through the first third of the book showing us how Selection works: from an energy standpoint, a competition standpoint, and a sexual standpoint... from the basic building blocks of proteins to more and more complex forms of DNA and the combo cells that collect all the wonderful multicellular creations, including bacteria, that eventually wind up creating us. The descriptions are quite beautiful and clear and all the while, we've got all the foundations for life... without Intelligent Design. The argument is simple, of course. If we can explain everything, and I mean everything that is life and physics, then what purpose does adding a superfluous layer to the explanation serve?This is ten years worth of hate mail for the author, people. He has been beset on all sides with genuinely curious and well-meaning seekers of the god-fearing sort and inundated with screaming lunatics telling him he'll burn in hell for his first book, The Selfish Gene, which, by the way, didn't really give a rat's ass about creationism or the people who support it. It just laid out a very cogent theory that fit all the copious mountains of data in biology. And yet, after that point, a Mr. Dawkins who professes not to want or need a PR team or lawyers, decides to put his foot down and tackle the problem that has reared its muti-angled head in his direction and DEFEND Darwinism.He does so beautifully, I might add. Every step of the way, he defines the complaints with due diligence and proceeds to demolish them sonar-producing batlike grace, with light humor, sharp intellect, and sometimes he makes of his opponents an overzealous meal. Can you blame him? Granted, by this point it's only been a decade of Creationist hate. Give it a decade or a decade and a half more before we see a truly flame worthy attack from Mr.Dawkins. I'm looking forward to seeing some of it in his books. I hope it's there and not just in his interviews which I still haven't seen. Alas.Seriously, though, this book is pretty wonderful for its lucid and quoteworthy passages and vivid descriptions of how Darwinism works, from gene level to the kinds of time-spans that can only be described as geological when it comes to real changes in evolution. I particularly loved the fact that he used computer terminology to describe how our genes are nothing more than complex computers. I've heard this before, of course, but the way he laid it out was particularly enlightening.This stuff is pretty damn great. Just from the science viewpoint, even leaving out the whole defense, it's well worth reading and not nearly as acerbic or rabid as certain other mass-produced troll-attacks make him appear. But then again, I've only read one of his later books, the The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, which was just a charming bi-modal description of science versus magical thinking which also happened to "gently" draw people away from having to add that extra layer of explanation to reality. :) I guess I'll see what the other books bring, no?

  • Amir The Fat Bookworm
    2018-12-03 15:34

    A rather well-written book. I like the writing style of Pr. Dawkins. It was not as challenging as "Selfish gene". But I guess its complexity is pretty relevant to the level of articulation many have. However, it was a great read and made me think more about the topic.

  • Mostephl
    2018-12-10 20:40

    wow and double wow. i read this through and turned back to p.1 to read it again. blind watchmaker has been amazingly influential in the way i think about just about everything- the world, existence, life forms, physics- down to the micro, myself and my craft. it's sent chills down my spine, made me euphoric and angry. the first for finally addressing questions that have long been in my mind (but receive no echo in society as i've known it), the second for the willful repression of information and large-scale institutionalized dumb-down that is the public school system i grew up in. it makes me want to cry to think that i didn't learn about evolution until i already had a master's degree. i am learning now, though, largely through dawkins, stephen j. gould and others who've been able to bring the complexities of this subject to the laypeople. still angry that whatever my daughter learns about evolution, she'll have to learn from me, a social scientist and by no means an authority. nonetheless, in a college classroom if her professor asks if anyone's heard of darwin, her answer will be a resounding, "yeah!!". small victory, but something.p.s. there's a great, great BBC documentary on Galapagos- highly worth checking out.

  • Roy Lotz
    2018-11-22 23:35

    Two summers ago, I did myself the favor of reading The Selfish Gene. Well, I didn’t quite read it; rather, I listened to Dawkins and his wife, Lalla Ward, narrate the book, as I took long walks in the forest near my house. Incidentally, I think Dawkins (and, to a slightly lesser extent, Lalla) has a magnificent voice; it’s a pleasure to hear him speak. But that’s a matter of taste; what is not a matter of taste is the quality of that book. Agree or disagree with Dawkins, one must admit that The Selfish Gene is a book of the finest quality. Indeed, I must say that I wasn’t quite prepared for how good it was. I was expecting an entertaining book of popular science; what I got was an eloquent, subtle, and powerful book which managed, in a just a couple weeks of long walks, to completely transform my understanding of animal behavior.This book, The Blind Watchmaker—also listened to in a few long walks—is not of the same caliber. But it is quite good. (Well, if it were written by almost anybody except Dawkins himself, I would say it was very good—but I know the heights he can reach.) I know close to nothing about his advocacy of atheism, and frankly I don’t much care, but I think the public has a rare treasure in Dawkins; what other popular biology writer can compare?Dawkins is, to an almost remarkable extent, as much a philosopher as a scientist. This book, as well as his first, is jammed full of thought experiments; Dawkins simply can’t get enough of them. This emphasis on philosophical argumentation allows him, so to speak, to take the reader inside the logic of Darwinism (as well as inside the fuzzy logic of Darwinism’s opponents). He doesn’t simply tell the reader things biologists think—like a reporter sending dispatches from the front lines—but tries to get the layreader to understand exactly why biologists think what they do. As a result, his books can actually be a bit dense and exhausting; but the patient reader is amply rewarded with a deepened understanding.The main reason that this book wasn’t as enjoyable as his first was that Dawkins spends an awful lot of time dealing with contemporary controversies. This was, I believe, a time of the famed ‘Darwin Wars’, when Gould and his followers had highly publicized debates with team Dawkins. Apparently, reporters were very eager to report anything even slightly critical of Darwinian theory—whether it be from taxonomists, paleontologists, or priests—so Dawkins was forced to spend a lot of time on material that, to today’s reader, may be of limited interest. For example, Dawkins becomes almost pedantic in his chapter on punctuated equilibrium, as he argues again and again that Gould is not a ‘true’ saltationist, but only a modified gradualist. Having read Gould, I was personally interested in this; but I would understand if others were not.Perhaps I was not the book’s target audience, as I needed no convincing that Darwinian evolution is both a well-supported and a powerful theory. Nonetheless, Dawkins did manage to clear up some of evolution’s finer point for me. I was particularly excited when (not to take too much credit) Dawkins confirmed a suspicion that I had expressed a few years back, when I was learning about human evolution. I was actually in Kenya, studying with the Leakeys, who—being the Leakeys—had plastic casts of several dozen important hominin fossils in their lab. As my anatomy teacher enjoyed pointing out, the vast majority of hominin fossils for any given species can fit inside a shoebox. Most of the fossils are distorted, broken, or otherwise fragmentary. Yet from these scant remains, paleoanthropologists expend tremendous energy arguing about the hominin family tree. Is this skull cap Homo erectus or Homo habilis? Is this thigh bone from an early homo or a late autralopithecus?Somewhat exasperated by all this ambiguity—about what appeared to me to be a matter of words—I got an idea: what if the idea of ‘species’ itself breaks down in an evolutionary timescale? After all, if we believe that species change via gradual selection one to another, it follows that there must be individuals intermediate between any two given hominin species, and, furthermore, individuals intermediate between the intermediates—and so on. Eureka! Well, it turns out Dawkins (as well as many other, probably) had the very same idea long before; it appears that convergent evolution is even more prevalent among memes than genes. (As a side note, if one believes, like Gould, in punctuated equilibrium, then ‘species’ would still be valid in an evolutionary timescale. Perhaps this is why the paleoanthropologists are still arguing?)I got sidetracked—back to the book. (Speaking of sidetracked, Dawkins is the master of the interesting aside and the lengthy digression; and, even more impressively, he always manages to tie his asides and digressions neatly back into the main theme under discussion.) Well, I’m afraid I don’t have very much more to say, other than this: if you find yourself with a supply of long walks, and need an audiobook as accompaniment, you might as well download Dawkins’s crisp, dry, whispery voice, and deepen your understanding of the flora and fauna around you—whether it be this book or, if you want a real treat, his first.

  • Laura
    2018-12-01 21:48

    This book was okay, but since I already am convinced evolution occurs by natural selection, I felt like he was not preaching to the choir, but trying to convince the choir. Of course, I got tired of it after a while (but I had to keep going, because I had to read it for a class). He comes up with many different arguments/theories for how evolution/natural selection could occur, many of which are interesting, but I would just rather read a science book rather than a philosophical book on evolution. For instance, I recommend The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner, which shows how scientists study evolution and natural selection in action.

  • Farid Ahmadian
    2018-11-22 16:35

    هنوزم در تعجبم که چنین کتابی چه طور اجازه نشر در ایرانو گرفته؟ گرچه ظاهرا تنها کتاب منتشر شده از آقای ریچارد داوکینز در ایران هست ولی بسیار خوشحالم که این کتاب ترجمه شده و من هم خوندمش. بهر حال این کتاب رو یکی از دوستان در رد آفرینش بهم معرفی کرد و حقیقتا تسلط نویسنده بر روی مباحث فرگشت باعث شده تا به زبان ساده مفاهیم علمی به خواننده های عادی منتقل بشن.در این کتاب با مفاهیم علمی بسیار زیادی آشنا شدم و از خوندنش بسیار لذت بردم و به همه ی دوستان هم توصیه میکنم حتما بخوننش، ولی برای من به هیچ عنوان دلیلی برای رد آفرینش نبود و نباید یادمون بره که آقای داوکینز در اشاراتی که در کتابش به سخنان مذهبیون داشته بسیاریش ربطی به اسلام و قرآن نداشت، حداقل بنظر من!در نهایت در اینترنت جستجو کردم ببینم از مذهبیون ما کسی این کتابو خونده و نظر داده که به لینک های زیر رسیدم:از اونجا که مطمئن نیستم این لینک ها تا چند وقت دیگه در دسترس باشن پس قسمتی از مطالب یکی از لینک ها رو اینجا هم نقل میکنم:"مسئله خلقت در قرآن نیز آیات بسیاری را به خود اختصاص داده است. دید اشتباهی که برخی جاها نسبت به خلقت به صورت سنتی وجود داشت دید خلقت کن فیکونی یا آنی بود که شاید آیاتی از این دست در شکل گرفتن آن نقش داشتند:َديعُ السَّماواتِ وَ الْأَرْضِ وَ إِذا قَضى‏ أَمْراً فَإِنَّما يَقُولُ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ (117) بقره [او] پديد آورنده آسمانها و زمين [است‏]، و چون به كارى اراده فرمايد، فقط مي‌‏گويد: « [موجود] باش» پس [فوراً موجود] مي‌‏شود. (117)با اینکه در بسیاری جاهای دیگر قرآن از آفرینش مرحله‌ای و تدریجی انسان سخن گفته شده است و در ادامه به آن‌ها خواهیم پرداخت باید در مورد این آیات این نکته را مورد توجه داشته باشیم که خلقت آنی برای خداوند آنی است، برای درک این موضوع توجه به این نکته بسیار مفید است که خداوند خود زمان را آفریده است و تحت زمان نمی‌باشد و بدیهی است که اراده و انجام کاری برای خود خداوند زمان‌بر نمی‌باشد. برای اعتقاد به این تصور غلط باید اینگونه تصور کرد که خود خداوند تحت قوانینی قرار گیرد که خلق کرده است. با این وجود خلقتی که برای خدا آنی است برای انسانی که تحت زمان و دیگر قوانین طبیعی خلق شده به صورت تدریجی اتفاق می‌افتد. برای جزئیات بیشتر در مورد خلق زمان به پست «ساعت‌ساز نابینا» مراجعه نمایید.گواه دیگر این مطلب آیه‎ای است که خداوند در مورد خلقت عیسی آورده است:إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسىَ‏ عِندَ اللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ ءَادَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ(59) آل عمراندر واقع، مَثَلِ عيسى نزد خدا همچون مَثَلِ [خلقت‏] آدم است [كه‏] او را از خاك آفريد سپس بدو گفت: «باش» پس وجود يافت. (59)همانطور که مشاهده می‌شود در اینجا خلقت حضرت عیسی هم به صورت کن فیکونی (آنی) گفته شده است در حالیکه توسط ما به مانند دیگر موجودات به صورت تدریجی درک شده است. این آیه در بررسی منشأ حیات آیه‌ای بسیار کلیدی است که در پست «منشأ حیات» به آن پرداخته شده است.و اما در مورد خلقت تدریجی آیات زیادی در قرآن وجود دارد که مطالب زیادی نیز در مورد آن‌ها نگاشته شده است و ما قصد تکرار آن‌ها را نداریم و سعی می‎کنیم به آن آیاتی که کلیدی‌تر بوده و کمتر بدانها توجه شده است بپردازیم. کلیدی‎ترین و واضح‌ترین آیه‎ای که تا بحال اینجانب در مورد خلقت تدریجی در قرآن با آن مواجه شده‎ام آیه زیر می‎باشد:وَ قَدْ خَلَقَكمُ‏ْ أَطْوَارًا(14) نوحو حال آنكه شما را مرحله به مرحله خلق كرده است. (14)لحن و صراحت این آیه به گونه‌ای می‌باشد که نیاز به هیچ گونه تفسیر و تأویلی ندارد. همچنین در ادامه در آیه‌ای دیگر از سوره نوح خلقت انسان را به مثابه گیاهان ذکر می‌کند:وَ اللَّهُ أَنبَتَكمُ مِّنَ الْأَرْضِ نَبَاتًا(17) نوحو خدا [ست كه‏] شما را [مانند] گياهى از زمين رويانيد (17)با نگاه به تئوری خلقت فرگشتی انسان و درک آن مشاهده می‌شود که این این رویانده شدن از زمین تعبیری بسیار با مسما و جالب است."در آخر تاکید میکنم که شخصا خودمو در مقام قضاوت نمیبیم، فقط به عنوان یک آدم عادی دوست دارم نظرات همه رو تا جای ممکن بی طرفانه مطالعه کنم و مسلما در این راه این کتاب یکی از بهترین مراجع فارسی داروینیسم بود.

  • Simon Cleveland, PhD
    2018-11-22 18:35

    Dawkins is one of my top picks for the most articulate, engaging and proficient scientists I've read to date. The Blind Watchmaker turned out to be a very prolific piece. I was baffled by his logical analogies, most excellent examples and extremely engaging vernacular. In this work, one learns much about the evolutionary adaptations of numerous species, of which the sonar technology of baths, dolphins and other mammals seemed most shocking.His reasoning of what constitutes miracles, probability theory and reasoning behind the drawback of the Lamark's theory of acquired characteristics is exceptionally enticing. The book should be a required high-school reading. A very, very high recommendation.

  • Max
    2018-11-09 23:44

    Having thoroughly enjoyed Dawkins’ outstanding The Selfish Gene, my initial impression of The Blind Watchmaker was a bit of a letdown. Dawkins wrote the book to counter creationist thinking, but for a firm believer in Darwinian evolution, his lengthy arguments were unnecessary. However, if Dawkins converted any creationists, I would consider the book a great success. With that said, there were a number of things I did like. Below are some items that caught my attention.Darwin’s concept of gradual evolution overturned the ideas of the catastrophists, who believed the earth and its creatures were formed by sudden drastic changes. Gradual evolution was then challenged by saltationists who believed large genetic changes or macro-mutations could explain much of evolution. A more refined view is that of Stephen Jay Gould who posited punctuated equilibrium. This view recognized varying rates of change, periods of relative stasis with intervals of rapid modification. Keep in mind rapid was on a geologic time scale where 50,000 years is a short time. Thus Gould’s rapid change could still have evolved step-by-step in line with Darwin. The effect of gradualism that struck me was the notion that speciation is contingent on the demise of intermediate individuals. Otherwise one could not tell where one species began and another ended.An upshot of Dawkins’ idea concerns our own connection with our ancestors. The view of chimpanzees as property is made more acceptable because there are no living intermediaries that show our close relationship. This made me wonder how Neanderthals would be treated if some were found alive. Would they be treated like chimpanzees as a different species? Since they are beings who can successfully interbreed with Homo sapiens, would they be given the same rights? Would Christians consider them as individuals with souls that should be saved? I enjoyed Dawkins explanation of the development of the eye in support of gradualism. The book’s title comes from a pre-Darwin argument that if one found a watch, one would have to assume someone made it. The watch is too intricate to have formed naturally. Post-Darwin, like the watch, some held that the eye was so complex as to defy gradual evolution. Dawkins counters. He takes us from a cell with a light sensitive spot to a creature with several such cells that is helped by this sense of light or dark. Then if the light sensitive cells are recessed, the creature can tell the direction of the shadow. If the recess takes on a cuplike shape, this sense of the light’s direction is enhanced. Next if the walls of the cup build up and protrude partially over the cup, a pinhole camera is formed casting an image on the cup. Then, protecting the cup by extending a membrane over the pinhole forms a lens. And so on…I enjoyed the section on bats and echolocation. Dawkins also offers a reasonable explanation of how this seemingly amazing ability could develop. Dolphins, whales and some birds have independently developed this use of sound showing such development not to be quite as extraordinary as one might think. Dawkins pondering of how bats experience this sense I found fascinating. Do the nerve impulses get mapped by the brain to a model similar to the one we experience as vision? And then there is the fish that senses its environment from disruption to an electrical field – elctrolocation. How is this sense perceived? Another intriguing topic was how sexual selection augments natural selection. Unlike environmental factors which wax and wane in intensity, sexual selection forms a positive feedback loop. A female bird’s preference for long tails in her mate not only promotes the gene for long tails but the gene for the desire for long tails. As both genes proliferate tails will grow longer until a practical limit is reached. The bird still has to be an able flyer to survive. One’s mind quickly turns to how this idea works in humans.This book will mean different things to different readers. Every creationist should read it although I suspect few will. For the rest of us, the book is still worthwhile just to get Dawkins’ unique views on odd and end topics, a few of which I covered. If you get bored reading why creationism is wrong, keep in mind the book is written to be easily read, so you can get through those sections quickly.

  • MohamedAbo-Elgheit
    2018-11-25 23:33

    صانع الساعات الأعمى كتاب جيد، وترجمة جيدة …كاتب يتكلم كثيراً، مجادل أكثر منه عالم، يرهقك أحيانا من كثرة ما يخلط من أفكار بالفكرة الأساسية، غير أن حجته في النهاية وفي أغلب الأحوال تستحق التأمل. الذي يريد أن يقوله دوكنز في هذا الكتاب هو أن التطور لا يمكن إلا أن يكون داروينياً. يرى دوكنز أن كل من يريد أن يفسر ظاهرة تطور الأنواع بطريقة أخرى غير الداروينية، إما أن يصل في النهاية إلى حارة مسدودة، أو لا يصل على الإطلاق. والداروينية هي تفسير للتطور على مبدأ الانتخاب الطبيعي: الطبيعة تنتقي العناصر الأكثر كفاءة، وهذه العناصر هي المجموعة التي تورث صفاتها للأجيال اللاحقة، وحدها دون العناصر الأقل كفاءة التي تموت وتموت معها صفاتها، مما يؤدي إلى تحول تدريجي للمحتوى الوراثي للمجموعة. وهذا هو التطور. وفي نظر دوكنز الداروينية هي "النظرية الوحيدة المعروفة القادرة من حيث المبدأ على تفسير أوجه معينة من الحياة " ويقول "أنا أتنبأ لو حدث قط أن اكتشف شكل للحياة في جزء آخر من الكون، فمهما كان شكل الحياة هذا غير مألوف وغريب وعجيب في تفاصيله، إلا أنه سيتبين أنه يشبه الحياة على الأرض من وجه رئيسي واحد: أنه قد تطور بنوع من الانتخاب الطبيعي الدارويني". هذه الجزئية هي مهمة جدا في فهمنا للتطور الدارويني، فالأفضلية دوماً محسومة في صالح التطور الدارويني، بغض النظر إلى أي شيء أدت إليه الملاحظة. والسبب؟ السبب يبسطه دوكنز مقعداً في الفصل الأخير، ولكن لب هذا السبب أن الداروينية تفترض في مبدأها أبسط الميكانيزمات، والذي لا يعتمد على أي شيء من خارجه، إنه شيء في بساطته كقانون الجاذبية: تنتقي الطبيعة الأكثر كفاءة كما تجذب الأرض اليها الأجسام اعتماداً على كتلها النوعية. ثم كل شيء بعد ذلك يحدث كنتيجة لذلك الحدث البسيط. والحقيقة أن الداروينية كانت أقل قبولاً قديماً مقارنة بالآن، أما الآن فصارت، مع قبولها، أقل تأكداً، فالنظرية التي تبدو تصلح أن تكون مناوئة للداروينية ليست هي النظرية التي تفترض ميكانيزم آخر للتطور، ولكن هي النظرية التي تقول إن الانتخاب الطبيعي يصعب أو يندر أن يؤدي إلى تكيف عضوي، وبمعنى آخر فليس له دور في انحدار الأنواع. هذه النظرية تعرف باسم neutralism، وهي لا تفسر كيف حدث التطور كما ترى ولكنها تستطرد على الداروينية لتبين عدم كفايتها (ما بعد الداروينية). لذلك يصعب على العقلية العلمية "الاختزالية" أن تفرط في الداروينية بسهولة، حتى وإن كانت الداروينية تثير بعض التساؤلات حول مدى كفايتها لتفسير كل ظواهر التطور من حولنا …

  • Seth Hanson
    2018-11-19 19:25

    At the time, this was a tough book for me to read. Considering the way I was raised - in a heavily religious atmosphere - it was hard for me to accept the theory of evolution. However, Dawkins very clearly lays out the theory in a way that anyone can understand if they are willing to open their mind just a little and put in just a little effort. It might be hard to accept but its even harder to dispute. Reality is like that. I think everyone should be required to read this book.

  • Brit Cheung
    2018-11-15 18:31

    Some parts of the book are quite intriguing while a few chapters carry some ponderousness, leaving me in a bewilderment of what Dawkins intends to convey .Just put aside the evolutionary theory and natural selection and find something amusing. In the female birds' preference for a long tail section, it seems the female birds were in a dominant position in choosing what kind of male birds she likes, be they long tails or short tails. This reminds me of a hilarious essay of James Thurber which he wrote for The New Yorker in 1939 called Courtship Through the Ages."Surely nothing in the astonishing scheme of life can have nonplused Nature so much as the fact that none of the females of any of the species she created really cared very much for the male, as such. For the past ten million years Nature has been busily inventing ways to make the male attractive to the female, but the whole business of courtship, from the marine annelids up to man, still lumbers heavily along, like a complicated musical comedy. I have been reading the sad and absorbing story in Volume 6 (Cole to Dama) of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In this volume you can learn about cricket, cotton, costume designing, crocodiles, crown jewels, and Coleridge, but none of this subject is so interesting as the Courtship of animals, which recounts the sorrowful lengths to which all males must go to arouse the interest of a lady.” I don't know why this essay suddenly occurred to me but I confess it is Quite an amusing story to read.

  • Amir ali
    2018-12-03 20:26

    کتاب «ساعت‌ساز نابینا» نام تنها اثری است که از ریچارد داوکینز در داخل کشور ترجمه و چاپ شده است. چاپ کتابی از این اندیشمند که یکی از معروف‌ترین آتئیست‌های حال حاضر جهان می‌باشد در ایران علاوه بر اینکه مایه شگفتی است حرکتی بسیار قابل ستایش است، چرا که علاوه بر اینکه جوانان جویای علم را با زبانی ساده و قابل فهم با نظریات روز علم زیست‌شناسی آشنا می‌سازد، فرصتی را نیز فراهم می‌کند تا به دلایل این نویسنده برای رد آفرینش انسان و طبیعت آشنا شده و در مورد آن به تفکر پردازخته و حتی با پیشرفت نظری، امکان نقد و بحث و گفتگو درباره آن‌ها فراهم آمده و این دلایل به چالش کشیده شوند.مطالب ذکر شده در کتاب از بسیاری جهات برای فهم طبیعت، کلیدی بوده و بینشی عمیق و شگفت‌انگیز در مورد حیات و جنبه‌های مختلف آن به انسان می‌دهد. لحن دشمنانه‌ی داوکینز نسبت مذهب که خود به آن معترف است، در این کتاب نسبت به کتاب‌های دیگرش کمرنگ‌تر است و آن هم به دلیل پرداختن بیشتر به مسائل زیستی مورد تخصص داوکینز و دور شدن نسبی از مسائل فلسفی و مذهبی می‌باشد. با این حال در جای جای کتاب و مخصوصاً در اواخر آن، تئوری آفریده شدن طبیعت و انسان را با توجه به یافته‌های علمی‌اش به طور کامل و قاطع رد می‌کند و آن را توضیح مناسبی برای این همه عظمت و پیچیدگی نمی‌داند.نظریات داوکینز نتیجه قرن‌های متمادی تفکر انسان در طبیعت و به طور خاص بیش از یک قرن داروینیسم بوده و علاوه بر قابل ستایش بودن، رد کردن آن‌ها از لحاظ علمی کار آسانی نیست امّا اشتباهی که داوکینز در هنگام جدا شدن از مباحث مورد تخصص‌اش و وارد شدن به وادی فلسفه و خداشناسی می‌کند نباید از نظر دور بمانند. داوکینز آفرینش تدریجی و اینکه هیچ نیروی غیرطبیعی در آفرینش موجودات نقش نداشته است را دال بر این می‌داند که این موجودات توسط نیروی ماورایی آفریده نشده‌اند و حاصل چند میلیارد سال فرگشت می‌باشند. این نظر زمانی درست است که آفرینش انسان و دیگر موجودات را آنی و نتیجه‌ی مستقیم نیروهای ماورایی بدانیم حال اینکه با توجه به آیات و روایات در قرآن و احادیث آفرینش انسان به صورت آنی نبوده است و تدریجاً صورت گرفته است که در پست «آفرینش تدریجی یا آنی» به آن مفصلاً پرداخته شده است. از طرف دیگر خدا جهان و طبیعت را طبق قوانینی که آفریده است اداره می‌کند و دخالت مکرر خداوند در سیر آفرینش علاوه بر اینکه کامل نبودن سیستم افریده شده توسط وی را می‌رساند این تصور را هم بوجود می‌آورد که خداوند تحت زمان قرار دارد. همانطور که مشاهده می‌شود داوکینز اشتباهی را که امروزه بسیار در علم تجربی رایج است تکرار نموده و با نگاه جزئی به طبیعت و نیروهای طبیعی آن‌ها را محور قرار داده و وجود آفریننده را برای آن‌ها در نظر نمی‌گیرد.یکی از مسائل جذاب دیگری که در این کتاب مطرح می‌شود بررسی فرضیات شروع حیات می‌باشد که دو مدل اصلی که تابحال برای شروع حیات ارائه شده‌اند را مورد بررسی قرار می‌دهد. این دو مدل عبارتند از مدل «سوپ بنیادین» که قبلا در مباحث علمی زیاد به آن پرداخته شده است و مدل جدیدتر و پیشرفته‌تر شروع حیات از بلورهای کانی مواد معدنی خاک رس و گل می‌باشد.

  • Jose Moa
    2018-11-23 18:23

    This book is a more nail in the coffin of creationism.It develops the darvinian theory of evolution,change and selection,but at a more deep level than the original Darwins theory,the deeper level of molecular biology and molecular genetics,subjects this unknown in the Darwins time as the quantum electrodinamics was unknown in the Maxwells time but explains at a deeper level the electromagnetic fenomenology.The first chapters explains the incredible aparition of wonderful organs as the human eye as a long series of very small changes and steps as consecuence of mutations by chance each step selected between many others possibles by efficacy and supervivence along unimaginable for the human mind long period of time,millions of years,as the human mind is unable of make a idea of what a light year is in distance.He also explains the deep work of evolution making software models resembling the working of genes.In the mid chapters underlined the mportance of the fact of the cooperation of the genes in the evolution throught the relation with epigenetics and embriology,also explains the concept of punctuated equilibrium as a long standby followed by a fast evolution and it important role in the peciation and the existence of molecular clocks for measuring times and distances in evolutionary processes.In the final chapters confronts the different schools of taxonomy in clasifyng species and discuss the other failed schools of explanation of the origen of the species : creationism,saltationism,Lamarckism ( inherited features ) and some other.A excelent book in giving another perspetive of darvinian evolution,full of subtle concepts and reasonings that dismantle the creationism and other wrong theories.

  • Charles
    2018-12-05 17:46

    Enchantingly beautiful fiction, 23 Mar 2007 Musings of a fideist (a materialistic fideist). Richard Dawkins has a breathtaking gift for expressive, catchy writing. His handling of illustration and narrative flow like silk. Yet he reminds me of an eloquent 19th century clergyman. His persistent dedication to the high altar of gradualistic explanation, however incredibly improbable, stretches credulity to breaking point. Take for example his extraordinary leap on p.134, para 1, where self-replicating RNA will almost magically come into being - 'all so utterly simple and automatic'. There it is by fiat - Dawkins wishes and so it must be! Abracadabra! Those who have worked in the field know how fasitidious and temperamental RNA and enzymes can be even in the best conditions - yet here it is in rock pool. There are some problems even billions of years won't solve - ask the mathematicians. Or take his extraordinary and uncharacteristically rambling tautology about the peacock's tail, pp 203-206, which boils down to an unexplained discrepancy in tail length (p204) and majority female taste (p205)! This is no cogent defence of evolution of an extraordinarily complex structure, just a mystical will-of-the-wisp-like weaving of concepts to meet his desired end. He reiterates Darwin's acid test of his own theory, on p 91, but if really believed what he wrote there, he would have abandoned neo-Darwinism years ago - I have long since published one very clear example of what he seeks, and his written answer to me was that he couldn't answer it, and there are myriad more. Dawkins is a magician with words, though not as self critical and cautious as he ought to be with scientific argument.

  • Ergun Coruh
    2018-11-26 22:25

    The Blind Watchmaker is probably one of the best introductory books on evolution.Dawkins takes his time, explaining step by step how Darwinian evolution works.Dawkins explains at great length, how species that look like a "complex design" evolve with accumulating small changes via natural selection, why natural selection is "blind"; ie. it lacks purpose, how random mutations combined with non-random natural selection is necessary for evolution to take place, and why a "complex design" does not necessarily mean a "good design" (such as ganglion cells which make the electronic wiring interface between the photocells and the brain, face light directly, whereas photocells sit away from the light source in human eye; compared to octopus eye that has photocells facing the light source).Then the structure of genetic blueprint (DNA) is explained; how DNA archives are being copied from cell to cell and from individual to individual, how copy errors are made, and how mutations can occur.In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins' first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity of pure randomness as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection. He demonstrates this by the example of the Weasel program. Dawkins then describes his experiences with a more sophisticated computer model of artificial selection implemented in a program also called The Blind Watchmaker, which was sold separately as a teaching aid.If you are curious about evolution and choose the best introductory book on the subject this is the one.

  • Inanc Gumus
    2018-12-02 15:42

    This book was a real eye opener for me. I couldn't understood what the evolution was and was finding it non-sense. When they say: 'the nature designed this creature like this.', 'it gave them wings' etc. etc. I was thinking: 'how non-sense this is that the nature designed them, it is not possible, the nature is not a smart thing to do that'. But, I was all wrong.Because, the nature doesn't have to be smart to design such creatures. It even doesn't need to design. They don't emerges by luck or chance but from necessity. Small and gradual steps makes them climb mount improbable of highly designed looking creatures.I recommend this book to anyone who would have an open mind about how the living creatures emerged by natural laws only. Not by a grand designer. Cause, if that was the case, the designer should have been designed too, and it is even not a probability. Therefore, as the book shows, there is no design, only emergence. Only you need to have an open mind, that's it. Think logically, you will find the truth. The true way not always resides within your gut instincts and common sense.

  • Paul
    2018-11-10 23:31

    I have only ever read one other Dawkins book before, The God Delusion, and really didn't like the style or attitude of the writing, so was not completely looking forward to this one.The primary aim of the book is to look at all the evidence and theories that make up the Darwinian theory of evolution and natural selection. He considers all the evidence from real life examples, in particular the eye, and buy using a computer program that he wrote, demonstrates how new variants of a species can evolve with very simple initial amendments. Later on in the book he looks at how DNA works, the effects of positive feedback on evolution and the way that mutations works of evolution and selection. He also considers the complexity of trying to document the tree of life.Overall I thought this book was a better read than the previous one I had read. Bearing in mind it was written originally in 1986 most of it is still valid, though we now understand far more than we did then. He can get on his high horse quite often, but thankfully not so much in this book.

  • Navid Asmari Saadabad
    2018-12-04 22:44

    I suggest everyone interested in the origin of life and especially those who were born fundamentalist creationists, to read this book. I would like to quote a paragraph from the book:“A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics. He might think that biology is a trivial subject compared with physics. It would follow from this that, in his opinion, Darwinism is of trivial importance to science. But he could not sensibly conclude from this that it is therefore false!”Understanding how Darwinian evolution works can change your attitude toward life and self, substantially. What we learned about Darwin at high school is inadequate. This book provides you with simplified biochemistry, biology, math, physics, and reasoning so that you can easily conceive why Darwinism is the most reasonable answer to world's complexity.I would like to quote another part:“In Darwin’s view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution. In the light of this, it is easy to see why Darwin constantly reiterated the gradualness of evolution.”This way of thinking is not just confined to the past. Evolutionary-based science is taking over a lot of fields. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University is a leading one. You can find out more at:

  • David
    2018-11-25 15:42

    I enjoyed this book very much, despite the difficulty of reading the very small typeface. Dawkins' style is almost folksy, and not at all the arrogant, condescending style that some reviewers mention. The first chapter, about echolocation in bats, is fascinating. I also enjoyed reading about the different philosophies involved in taxonomy, the classification of species. Some reviewers mention that Dawkins' explanations are "old hat", and that the computer simulations are primitive; but they do need to keep in mind that the book is already 25 years old! While I do appreciate the arguments Dawkins puts forward against saltationists and punctuationalists, I found them to be repetitive and boring after a while.

  • Maar Naap
    2018-11-11 17:44

    على عكس الشائع عن دوكنز في الأوساط الإسلامية أنه غير منطقي و أطروحاته ربما ترقى إلى السخافة, لم أجده كذلك في المجمل. بل يطرح رؤية ثم يستدل عليها بأدلة علمية و عقلية منطقية (سواء اقتنعت بها أم لم تقتنع). و ربما يدعو هذا إلى النظر في باقي كتبه.الكتاب يتحدث أساسا عن قضية التطور و أسسها من طفرات عشوائية و انتخاب طبيعي (غير عشوائي حسب وصفه) مع إتاحة الزمن الكافي, و هو ما يقاس بملايين السنين. و عن أن هذا التطور قادر بذاته بلا توجيه من أحد (إله) على صنع كل ما يبدو في الكون على أنه تركيب زكي و تنظيم معقد مثل العين البشرية أو آلية الرؤية عند الخفاش.لا يتحدث الكتاب بشكل مباشر عن الإلحاد و لكن ظلال الموضوع لا تخلو منه.ضرب الأمثلة الكثيرة و الاستطراد في الشرح كثيرا و طويلا و الخروج من الموضوع الأساسي لتبيان و توضيح مواضيع فرعية سمات تتكرر كثيرا في الكتاب..

  • Arjen
    2018-12-06 22:23

    This is the third book by Richard Dawkins I read and another winner. The other two being The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene.Whereas The God Delusion is an angry book and The Selfish Gene a book of insight, The Blind Watchmaker is a book of calm and lucid explanation. Dawkins explains Darwins theory of evolution in his trademark clear, witty and highly readable style. He has the talent to break down complex concepts in understandable bits and often uses enlightening analogies to clarify his reasoning.One of the things I especially liked about this book is that it not only provides an explanation and insight about the inner working of Darwinian evolutionary theory, it also shows why, where and how rival or opposing theories are wrong. Or even cannot be right. Dawkins does this in a most respectful way. With one exception, my favourite chapter, chapter 10: The One True Tree of Life; it starts with about 25 pages of explanation of the interesting science of taxonomy and classification and treats all schools of thought with depth and respect. Until you arrive at the final pages of the chapter where you can just feel the anger seeping through the pages. It builds up a brilliant tension towards the conclusion in which he absolutely crushes Nelson and Platnicks sensationalism in the most British of ways, only the end the chapter with the genius sentence:"Now I'd better go out and dig the garden, or something"

  • Brian Cloutier
    2018-11-13 22:53

    The good part: Dawkins is a great writer. His style is very conversational and the book very quotable. His arguments follow a defined path but still manage to meander through welcome asides. He uses metaphors and thought experiments well, most of the book was very easy to follow.And what arguments he makes! The probability of miracles, potential precursors of RNA, the importance of gradual change. His goal is to show that it's possible to explain the rise of complexity from a simple world and he spectacularly succeeds.However, I'm likely not the intended audience of this book. He spent more time arguing against alternative theories than I would have liked. I had no idea what Mutationism was before he explained it but it sounded dumb within the first few sentences; he didn't need to spend as many pages dismissing it as he did. Same with the entire chapter on Punctuationism. The first few pages went over some really cool notes on speciation and how some large mutations fit into darwinism that the book wouldn't have been complete without. The rest of the chapter tried to defend darwinism from a media I had never paid attention to in the first place.The last third of the book is worth reading because it contains a few insights. But, finishing it is true drudgery and tarnishes my impression of the book as a whole.

  • Tyauvinon
    2018-11-21 22:34

    There was a lot of interesting items in the book, but it became a bit tedious at times. I suppose since I did not need convincing on the validity of evolution, i was ready to move onto the next section, but Dawkins continued to expound the argument, way beyond what I felt was required. Also it was very dated, the computer analogies were so out of date. (Many people would have no idea about computer tape, or the reference to it lying on the floor). My feeling was that both genetics and computers are advancing very rapidly, and i was left concerned that the genetics information may be as out of date as the computer information, but I do not have the background know.There was some interesting information in the book, but if you are OK with the principle of evolution and you just was to get more detailed information, I do not think this is the book.

  • Anabela Mestre
    2018-11-10 15:26

    Um excelente livro de divulgação científica, embora um pouco desactualizado, pois foi escrito em 1983.No entanto, deu-me muito prazer ler este livro, já que me fez lembrar de muitas das coisas que dei no liceu e na faculdade, algumas estavam esquecidas, e foi bom relembrá-las. Aconselho vivamente, a quem se interessa por ciência e sobre a vida, como é que ela surgiu e como têm evoluído. São questões sempre actuais e que nos levam a sentir pequeninos perante a imensidão do Universo.

  • Ericthehamster
    2018-11-28 23:51

    "I don't agree with Dawkins much of the time (I find his atheism as fanatical as the religions he criticises), but find him an intelligent and entertaining read. He posits the other side of the coin to the argument for ""intelligent design"". Some very funny correspondence in the Guardian this month (October 2005), included one query that GWBush might be evidence against intelligent design."