The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design Reviews

• 
  Ahmad Sharabiani

  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.
  
  عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «ساعتساز نابینا»؛ «ساعتساز کور»؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داوکینز؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز نخست ماه دسامبر سال2014میلادی
  
  عنوان: ساعتساز نابینا؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داوکینز؛ مترجم: محمود بهزاد؛ شهلا باقری؛ تهران، مازیار، سال1388؛ در383ص؛ چاپ دوم سال1389؛ شابک9789645676757؛ موضوع تکامل - انتخاب طبیعی - زیست شناسی از نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده ی20م
  
  عنوان: ساعتساز کور؛ نویسنده: ریچارد داوکینز؛ مترجم: ایرج والی پور؛ تهران، ایرج والی پور، سال1390؛ در394ص؛ شابک9789640476932؛
  
  فصل اول: توضیح بسیار نامحتمل ها
  فصل دوم: طرح خوب
  فصل سوم: انباشته شدن تغییر کوچک
  فصل چهارم: ردیابی فواصل حیوانی
  فصل پنجم: قدرت و سوابق
  فصل ششم: منشاها و معجزه ها
  فصل هفتم: تکامل سازنده
  فصل هشتم: انفجارها و مارپیچ ها
  فصل نهم: نگاهی دیگر به نقطه باوری
  فصل دهم: یگانه درخت واقعی حیات
  فصل یازدهم: رقیبان محکوم
  
  عنوان کتاب به شکلی متاثر از تشبیهی است که: کشیش سده ی هجدهم میلادی «ویلیام پالی»، به کار برده اند؛ تشبیه «پالی» چنین بوده: (حتی اگر شما ندانید که ساعت چه چیزی هست، طراحی چرخ دنده‌ ها، 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 آنرا به منظوری خاص طراحی کرده‌ است؛ سازنده‌ ای که از ساز و کار 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 طراحِ هوشمند و هدفمندی دارند؟ این ساختارهای زیبا، پیچیده، ظریف، و آشکارا طراحی‌شده به مقصود خاص هم باید طراحی، ساعت‌سازی، داشته باشند - که همانا خداست)؛ پایان نقل از کشیش ویلیام پالی
  
  تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/10/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 05/11/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
• 
  Paul Bryant

  I should explain the point about the watchmaker.
  
  A SMALL ROCK
  
  If 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 WATCH
  
  
  Now, 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 SEMICOLON
  
  What 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 POPULAR
  
  God 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

  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.
  
• 
  Mohammad Hrabal

  کتاب هدیه عزیزی بود. کتاب خوبی بود. هر چند من متقاعد نشدم. چندین نکته برای کسانی که می‌خواهند کتاب را بخوانند:
  - برای این که این کتاب را درک کنید و برایتان خسته کننده نباشد باید حتما مقداری زیست شناسی خوانده باشید. در صورتی که زیست شناسی نخوانده‌اید و با مفاهیم آن آشنایی ندارید اگر این کتاب را نخوانید بهتر است. (البته این نظر شخصی من است).
  - من از ترجمه دکتر بهزاد و خانم باقری خیلی راضی نبودم و فکر می کنم این کتاب به ترجمه بهتری نیاز دارد.
  - متاسفانه تا حدودی غلط‌های املایی و نگارشی زیاد داشت.
  
• 
  Valeriu Gherghel

  O carte care merită cu siguranță citită - sau măcar răsfoită.
  
  Titlul cărții trimite la un cunoscut argument creaționist, formulat prima dată de William Paley, în Natural Theology (1802). Dacă natura poate fi comparată cu un orologiu (fiindcă vădește ordine, complexitate, finalitate etc.), trebuie să deducem că acest orologiu imens a fost realizat de un artizan (id est de un ceasornicar). În cazul lumii, acest artizan e Dumnezeu.
  
  În Ceasornicarul orb, Richard Dawkins respinge argumentul lui William Paley. Dawkins este un evoluționist care consideră că ipoteza unui Dumnezeu ceasornicar e inutilă, iar argumentul lui Paley lipsit de validitate. Viața și, în genere, formațiunile complicate sînt un rezultat al simplei „selecții naturale”.
  
  The Blind Watchmaker (1986) a provocat, firește, discuții foarte aprinse, polemici care nu s-au stins nici astăzi.
  
  Cîteva fraze:
  
  „Selecția naturală este ceasornicarul orb, orb pentru că nu privește înainte, nu plănuiește consecințele și nu are în vedere nici un scop. Și totuși rezultatele vii ale selecției naturale ne dau impresia copleșitoare că ar fi opera unui maestru ceasornicar, ne dau iluzia că ar fi planificate și proiectate. Scopul cărții de față e lămurirea acestui paradox” (p.35).
  
  „Subiectul principal al cărții de față e evoluția... ca explicație reală a fenomenelor despre care Paley credea că demonstrează existența unui ceasornicar divin” (p.309).
  
  Richard Dawkins scrie foarte bine; argumentele lui sînt convingătoare...
• 
  Bradley

  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?
• 
  Riku Sayuj

  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...
  
  
• 
  Saleh MoonWalker

  یکی از کارهای فوق العاده استاد داوکینز که خواندنش به همه توصیه میشه. عنوان اثر کاملا خود-توضیح دهنده ست و به بررسی تکامل و شواهدی که نشان می دهد این دنیا بدون طراح خلق شده و در حقیقت موجودات پیچیده بیولوژیک در واقع با تکامل به این مرحله رسیده اند و خالقی در خلق آنها نقشی نداشته است، می پردازد. از نکته های خوب این اثر میتوان به زبان به کار رفته در آن اشاره کرد. داوکینز علاوه بر استادی در زمینه تخصصی خود، توانایی لازم برای انتقال دانش خود به افراد دیگر در سطح های مختلف دانش را نیز دارد. تکامل یک تئوری نیست. یک حقیقت علمی ست.
• 
  Amirography

  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.
• 
  Laura

  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.
• 
  Mostephl

  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.
• 
  Sanjay Gautam

  I never really knew what evolution is till I read this book. Dawkins is great at explaining difficult concepts - making things as simple as possible, but no simpler. And his love and commitment for science is shown through his freely flowing, almost musical, prose. I loved this book. It has expanded my horizons.
• 
  Max

  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.
  
• 
  Mohamed Abo-Elgheit

  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 النظر��ة 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 …
• 
  Roy Lotz

  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.
  
• 
  Orhan Pelinkovic

  If you are interested in evolutionary biology I would highly recommend this book. The author is very aggressive in convincing the reader in evolution by means of cumulative natural selection compare to all the other beliefs (natural selection in one step, creationist, etc.)
  
  I've read the Serbo-Croatian translation Slepi Časovničar autora Ričarda Dokinsa Heliks 2010 publishing / 496 pages / 133,407 words.
• 
  L.G. Cullens

  As per the synopsis:
  
  The Blind Watchmaker is the seminal text for understanding evolution today. In the eighteenth century, theologian William Paley developed a famous metaphor for creationism: that of the skilled watchmaker. In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins crafts an elegant riposte to show that the complex process of Darwinian natural selection is unconscious and automatic. If natural selection can be said to play the role of a watchmaker in nature, it is a blind one—working without foresight or purpose.
  
  In an eloquent, uniquely persuasive account of the theory of natural selection, Dawkins illustrates how simple organisms slowly change over time to create a world of enormous complexity, diversity, and beauty.
  
  ---------------------
  
  This book is in part an evidenced argument for, and an explanation of evolution. As such it includes lengthy clarifications of how to interpret the terms used (there are fine distinctions in a number of different terms, such as with macromutations). In addition to delineating cumulative progression and natural selection, it also ranges in dissecting the utterly impossible, the improbable, and probable. A companion book that includes more functional detail is Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, and another more recent book that gets into detailed evolution workings is Sean B. Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom.
  
  This my second reading since about 1990, and what I still see in this writing is purpose without foresight.
  
  That is, given all the variations and complexity of extant biological life and extinctions that we know of, and awareness of many more we don't have evidence of, taken together with what we have discovered about cumulative progression and natural selection, a logical mind can see the reality of evolution over creationism and other lacking theories. That especially where objective inquiry seeks to free the mind from the human bubble, contrasted with creationism which in ignoring growing empirical understanding is supposition to dominate minds. Their are details that aren't yet fully understood, but the only real mystery remaining is how a self-replicating molecule that life descended from came to be, when and how did DNA/protein machinery develop in such, and if there was only one occurrence.
  
  The growing empirical evidence points to the path of our being as a punctuated cumulative progression under the influence of natural selection. How we ended up in the pickle we are in is due to natural selection being a blind, unconscious, automatic process that selects for seeming survivability and reproduction in an environment — genes are selected first and foremost, not for their intrinsic qualities, but by virtue of their interactions with their environments. The selection process has though, albeit selectively and possibly unintentionally, endowed us with the intelligence to potentially see where this path is leading us in a successively deteriorating conducive biosphere. All life forms alter their habitat, spurring environmental changes in geological time that adaptive evolution attempts to keep pace with through natural selection, but our weedy species is altering the environment at such an accelerated pace that we are witnessing worsening environmental changes and excessive extinctions within our lifetimes.
  
  One aspect that a serious reader might glean from this book isn't stated in so many words. That is, the more biologically complicated a life form is, the smaller the adaptive evolution steps because of the greater population of genes that must be interacted with in the life form. Thus, if significant, detrimental biosphere changes occur faster than adaptive evolution steps can keep pace . . .
  
  If one is interested in their and their children's futures, a realistic understanding of how we came to be, and the evolutionary baggage that includes, is important in learning what we have to overcome. Thus, this book is a good first step. Additional understanding to pursue are life sciences such as ecology (biodiversity and ecosystem balance are essential components in slowing biosphere changes).
• 
  Panthea

  این‌که هنوز توقیف نشده عجیبه.
• 
  Simon Cleveland, PhD, EdD

  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.
• 
  Seth Hanson

  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.
• 
  Mahdi

  بسیار ضعیف و سخت‌خوان. واقعا انتظار یک اثر دقیق علمی را داشتم که اصلا محقق نشد
• 
  Farid Ahmadian

  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:
  
  http://eh26.ir/post/65/%D8%A2%D9%81%D...
  
  http://eh26.ir/post/64/%D8%B3%D8%A7%D...
  
  http://eh26.ir/post/66/%D9%82%D8%B1%D...
  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 عمران
  
  در 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) نوح
  
  و 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) نوح
  
  و 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.
• 
  Jose Moa

  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.
  
  
• 
  Jim

  ...one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution...
  
  He managed the above, but I didn't enjoy this as much as
  The Selfish Gene or
  The God Delusion. It delves deeper & wanders around Darwinian Evolution & other theories more than I want or need. I hadn't planned to read this since I understood this from his updated edition of
  The Selfish Gene, but I found it cheap & needed to bump my Amazon order a bit for free shipping. I'm glad I did.
  
  My interest varied & I don't think I would have gotten through a text version without a lot of skimming. He addresses issues/controversies in great detail that I didn't know existed nor was I particularly interested in them, so I found the long refutation boring. Often he digressed to build the knowledge & logic which proves why the other theory or claim is wrong. I find about half of these wanderings interesting, while some just beat the particular subject to death.
  
  He starts the preface with the following:
  This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet...
  
  So, I was easily able to finish it & even wanted more due to the wonderful narration &, for all that my interest flagged occasionally, there was plenty of fascinating material. That's incredible in light of the age of this book. Quite a few of the science books & articles I've read that were half as old were terribly dated, but Dawkins is dealing with the theory itself, how genetic change & natural selection works over long time periods to build complex systems, instead of details which may have been superseded as technology runs on.
  
  Some of the best parts are his opinions of other scientists. He's very fast to give credit to others where it is due. He touts other books & scientists as better or more thorough on some points while he is obviously incensed at a few. At one point, he finished a particularly scathing denunciation & said perhaps he should go out & dig up the garden. He didn't try for a lot of humor, but when it popped up like that it was great. Even when he's peeved, he is polite & gives them their due, though.
  
  His ability to simplify & make sense of large numbers & statistical probability is absolutely masterful. It was great to be able to fiddle with the biomorph program. A search for "Biomorph Breeder Program" brings up several interesting ones similar to those Dawkins wrote & used. I understood Dawkins' explanations just fine, but actually playing with the program is really worth it. The extreme effects of random change over time are amazing. He's right, we aren't equipped to really understand large numbers or long times, the obvious problem with Young Earth Creationists' beliefs. Of course, those I know somehow make intentional ignorance & a belief in magic a positive attribute. I find their intellectual dishonesty infuriating, especially so when they try to foist them on me, especially in matters of public policy. (Beliefs should remain private. Public discourse requires facts & logic or there can be no reasoning with each other.)
  
  One thing I really missed was an explanation of what a species is. (Does he address speciation in
  The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene?) For years I thought the criterion was simply the ability to breed with the result of fertile offspring. Then I read this article:
  
  https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/08...
  IOW, I was certain in my ignorance & now that I know more, I'm unsure & somewhat bewildered - a good thing from a scientific point of view, but the lack weakened his arguments a bit for me simply because I spent too much time wondering about it. Still, it had no real bearing on his argument even in the chapter on taxonomy. I had no idea taxonomists disagreed so much. I thought I was the only person who made such a muddle of filing. I loved Dawkins' comparisons to library science. It really made a lot more sense of clades & the various other organization schemes.
  
  Table of Contents
  Chapter I: Explaining the very improbable
  Chapter 2: Good design
  Chapter 3: Accumulating small change
  Chapter 4: Making tracks through animal space
  Chapter 5: The power and the archives
  Chapter 6: Origins and miracles
  Chapter 7: Constructive evolution
  Chapter 8: Explosions and spirals
  Chapter 9: Puncturing punctuationism
  Chapter 10: The one true tree of life
  Chapter 11: Doomed rivals
  
  It was an excellent read & I'll be referring to parts of it the rest of my life. He says that Explaining is a difficult art. You can explain something so that your reader understands the words; and you can explain something so that the reader feels it in the marrow of his bones... He manages the latter most of the time. A truly gifted educator.
• 
  Amir ali

  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 م��‌داند 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 می‌آ��رد 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.
• 
  Ergun Coruh

  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.
• 
  Mario the lone bookwolf

  One of the best and most understandable arguments for evolutionary theory and natural selection
  
  Please note that I put the original German text at the end of this review. Just if you might be interested.
  
  In the spirit of Darwin, Dawkins argues soundly, comprehensively, in this form of a non-fiction book rhetorically above average and merely correct. In contrast to his later work "The God Delusion," which is so full of polemics, he refrains from doing so. He endeavors to provide factual and scientifically sound reasoning.
  Thus he celebrates the breathtaking emergence of highly sophisticated systems such as the human body with the apparent enthusiasm of an evolutionary biologist, who burns for his profession and also does not hesitate to lead various theses against the theory of evolution in the field. Mind you only around, to feed his lines, then enjoyable to dismantle piece by piece and to intone on their ruins a song of praise to the fantastic, developmental severe history of life.
  Ironically, the title of the work also refers to a book by the creationist pioneer William Paley, who wanted to use God in the form of a watchmaker to depict the "production" of all worldly components. Understandably, Dawkins could not resist alienating this clear image of his natural adversary for his purposes and turning the chronograph maker into an unconscious, a meaningless and blind metaphor for natural selection. As an illustration, object to be drawn through the book, the human eye was chosen. Its origins, shapes, and history of development make the reader pause in astonishment with fascinating insights into out of which amazing creatures our windows to the world have watched world eons of years ago.
  As long as Dawkins lingers in his field of study, the soundness of his lines of reasoning can hardly be counteracted, and until nowadays, this literature, which was published in 1986, cannot be compared with the writing of equal value.
  Unfortunately, an inappropriate and meanwhile more than obsolete attempt to show a kind of evolution based on the development of computer technology is to be found among the examples. This is a well-intentioned approach, to make the own theses seem even more comprehensive and to use artificial adaptations in as many subjects as possible to provide evidence. However, as in this case, it inevitably fails because of the dry basis and comprehensibility of the theses, which are too constructed and, funny enough, very much reminiscent of the custom of religious fanatics. These try to bend over and put a concept on everything.
  Also, the all specific too, rather short inserts on medicine and genetics are correct, but in contrast to the rest of the book exhausting to read. One notices that the actual primary operating field is left shortly.
  In general, the work would do a small renovation in the direction of the current state of research very well, so that the critical minds of the 21st century to have both well-founded and current reasoning for the hopefully eventually ended, meaningless dispute with ignorant people. Despite the small points of criticism an epochal work that seeks its equal in its timeless correctness and the significant, underlying concerns of the Enlightenment. It testifies to the enthusiasm to which professional occupation with the miracle of the creation of life can become.
  A fortunate coincidence, too, when this gift falls into the hands of a talented narrative man whose tactical acumen dictates that he should not encourage the prevention of water on the mills of his opponents. By withdrawing any basis of existence on a purely factual basis of any religious embarrassment, creation myth, and Genesis. Now the hard facts only have to flow into the consciousness of the people. Dropwise and very slowly. Sticky droplets.
  
  Eine der besten und verständlichsten Argumentationsführungen für Evolutionstheorie und natürliche Selektion
  
  Ganz im Sinne Darwins argumentiert Dawkins stichhaltig, umfassend, in dieser Form für ein Sachbuch rhetorisch überdurchschnittlich gut und schlichtweg richtig. Er hält sich dabei im Gegensatz zu seinem späteren Werk Gotteswahn, das vor Polemik nur so strotzt, zurück. Er ist bemüht, eine sachliche und wissenschaftlich fundierte Argumentation abzuliefern. So feiert er die die atemberaubende Entstehung höchst diffiziler Systeme wie dem menschlichen Körper mit der spürbaren Begeisterung eines Evolutionsbiologen, der für sein Metier brennt und auch nicht davor zurückschreckt, verschiedenste Thesen gegen die Evolutionstheorie ins Feld zu führen. Wohlgemerkt nur um, sich selbst geschickt den Ball zuspielend, sie anschließend genussvoll Stück für Stück zu demontieren und auf ihren Trümmern ein Loblied auf die erstaunliche, seriöse Entwicklungsgeschichte des Lebens anzustimmen.
  Ironisch ist auch der Titel des Werks zu verstehen, der sich auf ein Buch des kreationistischen Vordenkers William Paley bezieht, der anhand Gottes in Form eines Uhrmachers die „Fertigung“ sämtlicher weltlicher Bestandteile darstellen wollte. Verständlich, dass Dawkins nicht widerstehen konnte, dieses krasse Bild seines natürlichen Gegners für eigene Zwecke zu entfremden und aus dem Chronographenhersteller eine unbewusst, ohne Sinn und blind arbeitende Metapher für die natürliche Selektion zu machen.
  Als ein sich durch das Buch ziehendes Veranschaulichungsobjekt wurde das menschliche Auge gewählt. Dessen Ursprung, Formen und Entwicklungsgeschichte lassen mit den faszinierenden Erkenntnissen, aus welch unerwarteten Kreaturen unsere Fenster zur Welt vor Äonen von Jahren geblickt haben, den Leser vor Erstaunen innehalten.
  Solange Dawkins in seinem Fachbereich verweilt ist der Stichhaltigkeit seiner Argumentationsketten kaum etwas entgegenzusetzen und man kann diesem 1986 erschienen Werk bis heute wenig gleichwertige Literatur zur Seite stellen. Leider ist auch ein unpassender und mittlerweile mehr als nur veralteter Versuch, anhand der Entwicklung der Computertechnik eine Art von Evolution aufzeigen zu wollen, unter den Beispielen. Das ist ein gut gemeinter Ansatz, die eigenen Thesen noch umfassender erscheinen zu lassen und künstliche Adaptionen in möglichst vielen Themenkreisen zur Erbringung von Belegen heranzuziehen. Es scheitert aber, wie in diesem Fall, zwangsläufig an der unzureichenden Basis und Nachvollziehbarkeit der Thesen, die allzu konstruiert sind und lustigerweise sehr an den Usus der religiösen Fanatiker erinnern. Diese versuchen auch auf Biegen und Brechen ein Konzept über alles zu stülpen.
  Auch sind die allzu fachspezifisch ausgeführten, eher kurzen Einschübe über Medizin und Genetik zwar richtig, aber im Kontrast zum Rest des Buches anstrengend zu lesen. Man merkt, dass das eigentliche Hauptbetätigungsfeld kurzfristig verlassen wird.
  Generell täte dem Werk eine kleine Renovierung in Richtung des aktuellen Standes der Forschung sehr gut, damit auch die kritischen Geister des 21. Jahrhunderts sowohl wohlfundierte als auch aktuelle Argumentationen für den hoffentlich irgendwann beendeten, sinnbefreiten Disput mit ignoranten Mitmenschen haben.
  Trotz der kleinen Kritikpunkte eine epochales Werk, dass in seiner zeitlosen Richtigkeit und dem hehren, dahinterstehenden Anliegen der Aufklärung seinesgleichen sucht. Es zeugt von der Begeisterungsfähigkeit, zu der die berufliche Beschäftigung mit dem Wunder der Entstehung des Lebens werden kann.
  Ein glücklicher Zufall auch, wenn diese Gabe in die Hände eines noch dazu erzählerisch talentierten Mannes fällt, dessen taktischer Scharfsinn ihm gebietet, der Prävention des Wassers auf die Mühlen seiner Gegner keinen Vorschub zu leisten. Indem er auf einer rein sachlichen Basis jeglicher Art von religiöser Verbrämung, Schöpfungsmythos und Entstehungsmären jegliche Existenzgrundlage entzieht. Jetzt müssen die harten Fakten nur noch ins Bewusstsein der Menschen einfließen. Tröpfchenweise und sehr langsam. Klebrige Tröpfchen.
• 
  Brit Cheung

  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.
• 
  Stuart

  Analyzes all the various flavors of Darwinist evolution and some competing theories
  Richard Dawkins is a very lucid and intelligent proponent of evolutionary theory and biology when he isn't getting into vitriolic debates with Creationists, which is an exercise in futility for both sides I'd say. I admire him for trying, but frankly trying to use logic and scientific reasoning with people who think the world is 6,000 years old, was created by an all-powerful being who somehow still tolerates Donald Trump's existence, explain the fossil record and dinosaurs as just tests of faith, and really think the universe is centered around planet Earth is truly a tase of time.
  
  So it's good to listen to a book that focuses on evolution, but as this book explores some of the subtle variants of evolutionary theory, like gradualists vs punctuationalists, dismantles Lamarkism and Lysenko, it feels a bit turgid at times, and I thought his much later book The Greatest Show on Earth was more interesting and focused on explaining what non-random natural selection means rather than debunking some other "weak" theories.