Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's new book has biologists and geneticists across the country praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "Dr. Spetner has an extraordinary ability to present complex mathematical, statistical, and biological issues in a comprehensible manner."--Rabbi Joseph Elias, The Jewish Observer "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University
Author's comments on the significance of the book."NOT BY CHANCE!"
Lee M. Spetner
After having seen comments made about my book--some correct, some incorrect--I think it appropriate to post here my own comments about the significance of my book.
In the book I show that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot do what is claimed for it. The theory cannot account for the development of life from some simple beginning. It cannot account for the broad sweep of evolution.
The book is a bit technical in spots, but I have tried to write it in a form that a layman could follow, even if it takes some effort. I had to make it somewhat technical because I attack a paradigm to which most biologists declare allegiance. I had to present my argument comprehensively enough to withstand any potential criticism from evolutionists. Indeed, several respected biologists, including a Nobel laureate, have praised my book and have acknowledged the force of my argument. Others have criticized the book, but none of the criticism so far has been substantive. No one has yet been able to point to a flaw in my basic argument. No one has so far refuted my conclusion.
When prominent biologists claim that "evolution is a fact", they are stating a half-truth that means far less than what they would like the public to believe. The theory states that the development of life is a purely natural process, driven by known mechanisms. This is simply not true. There is no evidence that life developed, or even could have developed, by a purely natural process.
According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection. The theory says that evolution is built up by a long series of many steps. In each step many random changes occur in the hereditary storage of organisms. If one of these random changes should by chance happen to make the organism better adapted to its environment, then natural selection will spread that change through the population. Each of these changes is said to be small, but the accumulation of a long series of them is said to account for large changes in populations adapting them to their environment. This process is assumed to work, and on the basis of that assumption evolution is said to account for the development of all life.
Experiments have also been performed to show that the process of selection does indeed work under the right conditions. Moreover, random mutations have been observed that do improve the adaptivness of the organism under certain conditions. From these observations, evolutionists have extrapolated to say that random mutations and natural selection can account for the development of life.
I have shown in my book that the broad sweep of evolution cannot be based on random mutations. I have shown it on both theoretical and experimental grounds. On theoretical grounds, I have shown that the probability is just too small for random mutations to lead to a new species. On experimental grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. I go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Now, clearly, if random mutations could account for the evolution of life, then they must have added a lot of information to the genome from the time of the putative first simple organism until the appearance of all present life. If this vast amount of information was built up by an accumulation long series of random mutations and natural selection, then each of these many billions of mutations must have, on the average, added some information. Yet after all the molecular studies that have been done on mutations, not a single one has been found that adds any genetic information! They all lose information!
There is, however, evidence that some evolution has occurred. There is some indirect evidence and there is even some direct evidence. How did it occur? In Chapter 7 of my book, I suggest that although significant evolution cannot occur by random mutations, it could occur by nonrandom mutations. Nonrandom here means that the environment itself influences what mutations can occur. I cite a lot of evidence for evolution by nonrandom mutations-evidence that spans life forms from bacteria through vertebrates.
Whereas standard neo-Darwinian theory relies on point mutations that are essentially mistakes in replicating the DNA, there are other kinds of mutations that are not mistakes. Genetic rearrangements are complex genetic changes. They are carried out with precision and are driven by sophisticated cellular mechanisms. These mutations appear to be triggered by cues from the environment and they do not appear to be the product only of chance. I suggest that these genetic rearrangements are part of a built-in mechanism that permits a line of organisms to adapt to a new environment. I suggest that built into the genetic program of the organism is a set of genetic switches that can be triggered by the environment and enable a heritable switch in the organism to one of a limited set of alternate forms. An interesting feature of this mechanism is that it can cause a population to adapt rapidly to a new environment.
Since my book has been published I have seen that biologists are beginning to acknowledge the importance of these nonrandom mutations in evolution. They suggest, though, that these built-in mechanisms have themselves evolved. Can this be? Classic neo-Darwinian evolution calls for many steps, each consisting of a large number of trials whose duration is a generation. For the evolution of these built-in mechanisms one must invoke the same kind of process, but each trial would have a duration of millions of generations. Can this really be?
