Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

NotByChanceSuggested by Brad Nelson • Each new revelation in genetic research, no matter how bizarre and unforeseen, is construed as a ringing confirmation of the theory of evolution. With this book, Dr. Lee Spetner risks the wrath of the evolution establishment by challenging the validity of the neo-Darwinian theory, or “dogma” as he calls it.
Buy at
Suggest a book • (940 views)

This entry was posted in Bookshelf and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This book caught my eye last night, particular with this review at Amazon:

    In a historical overview, the author reminds us that when the so-called synthetic theory was first crafted fifty years ago, DNA had yet to be discovered. Darwin himself was blissfully ignorant of the functions and structure of the cell. We now know that mammals are composed of trillions of cells, each containing an information-packed DNA molecule and hundreds of interacting organelles. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask: What if Darwin’s quaint theory were advanced today for the first time? The proposal that a clumsy hypothetical mechanism modeled on eighteenth century economic theories and pigeon breeding practices could possibly account for the origins of EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT in the incredibly complex universe of microbiology unfolding before our eyes would be laughable. The hodgepodge theory of evolution has become a religious faith so deeply ingrained in its adherents they appear oblivious to its absurdities. This book relates how stunning advances in biotechnology in just the past two decades have dramatically widened the gulf separating the realities of empirical science from the myths of neo-Darwinism.

    I went ahead and purchased the soft-cover version (there is no Kindle version) and will report back.

    One assertion that isn’t controversial is that evolution happened. But Darwin’s tree is completely backwards. As Jonathan Wells notes in the video, “Darwin’s Dilemma,” instead of a tree the proper analogy would be a lawn…with various blades of grass representing the phyla that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian. From their the phylum did indeed diversify (evolved), but the basic body plans staying much the same, and no interaction or melding between phyla.

    A later book by Spetner on the same subject is The Evolution Revolution. If the first book proves interesting, I’m almost sure to get this one. Spetner is not a proponent of intelligent design but recognizes the huge problems with Darwinism. And he understands that is is barely (if at all) an actual science because it hasn’t proven even one of its core convictions. Neo-Darwinism seems to be a religious-like thing where people invent myths and stories so that they can shoe-horn in their basic assumptions. The idea of “convergence” is one such idea that is shoe-horned in to try to bolster the idea of common descent. One reviewer quotes from the book:

    “If comparing all possible biological features yields the same tree, then the tree could have some objective reality. Richard Dawkins (2009, pp. 321 ff.) offered what he calls “powerful evidence” for Common Descent based on the (presumed) existence of a phylogenetic tree. … An argument for Common Descent would be helped if anatomical data and molecular data would always lead to the same tree. However, the fact is they don’t. Phylogenetic trees based on different genes are known to give contradictory results. There was hope that the use of whole genomes, or at least large portions of genomes, for phylogenetic studies would resolve those contradictions, but that only made the problem worse.

    The lack of uniqueness of the phylogenetic tree is usually explained away by what is called ‘convergent evolution.’ Convergent evolution is the appearance of the same trait or character in independent lineages. It is, however, an invention. It was invented solely to avoid addressing the failure of phylogenetic trees to support Common Descent. There is no theoretical support for convergence, and whatever evidence has been given for it is the product of a circular argument. Richard Dawkins (2010) seems to revel in describing numerous examples of convergent evolution without realizing that any of those examples destroy his case for evolution. … Convergent evolution is the Darwinists’ lollapalooza. They made it up to keep their phylogenetic tree from falling apart, but they can’t say how convergence happens. As Joseph Keating (2002) wrote in another context, it is no more than a ‘pseudo-explanation, and may deceive us into believing we have explained some aspect of biology when in fact we have only labeled our ignorance.’” (pp. 87-89, 92; internal citations removed)

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As I’ve noted before, the genetic clock (computing the separation between any 2 species) should get the same results no matter which closely related species are chosen — thus, for example, all gibbons should be equidistant from all other anthropoid apes, and all primates should be equidistant from all canines (just to mention a few specific examples). Apparently you even get different results with different genes, which disproves the basic theory.

      • David Ray says:

        You’ve been called a liar and an idiot. Many who read your reflections know otherwise, but rarely cop to it.

        Neither has it escaped my observation that us mortal creatures hate religion (top religious gents are the ones who nailed Christ to the poll/cross/tree/thing)
        Neither has it escaped my observation that the more Darwin bullshit is debated, the more it reassures me. But that’s only my observation.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.”

          From everything I’ve read it’s clear the neo-Darwinism is a dogma. It’s committed to a few core ideas (common descent, that all of biology must be understood via neo-Darwinism, that time/mutations/natural selection is the one and only force needed to explain all of life, that to even question neo-Darwinism is to question the process of science itself…similar to the zealotry seen in global warming). And quite literally no matter how ridiculous the theories they come up with, they keep coming up with them in order to try to smash any evidence into the existing theory.

          Therefore the opinions of those holding neo-Darwinist opinions are nearly worthless. It’s like asking a child’s opinion about how babies are made. The child might tell you that its a function of storks and stick to that story because he knows nothing else and has decided the story must be true because it pleases him so much.

  2. GHG says:

    It strikes me odd that Dawkins is afforded so much acclaim when he is so often proven wrong, and the fact that he is such a non-amiable dunce heightens the mystery.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Neo-Darwinism first and foremost serves as a vehicle for a worldview rather than a theory for which one finds evidence that either fits it or refutes it. The way neo-Darwinism works in practice is that any evidence is made to fit it — even if they have to invent new terms (terms that often work to hide their circular reasoning).

      In Wells’ “Icons of Evolution” one of the icons is Archaeopteryx, a fossil that was long heralded as one of the “missing links” — this one a supposed missing link between birds and reptiles. It was later demoted because it didn’t (for some reason) fit correctly in their “tree of life” drawing.

      Oddly (but not odd or surprising once you stick your face in the rampant illogic of the movement), Archaeopteryx was eventually replaced as the icon of the missing link between birds and reptiles by a newer fossil. But this fossil, for whatever reason, looked more like what the Darwinists expected to find.

      But how can a newer fossil be a better “missing link” ancestor to birds and reptiles than the older Archaeopteryx (which somehow came up short morphologically)? Well, somehow it did. What the Darwinists proclaimed (by Papal fiat, one presumes) is that this new fossil species also existed before Archaeopteryx and in the exact form (it had not evolved much) as the one they found in a later period.

      Their thinking is akin to that of Stephen Hawking where he finds it more logical to propose 10500 universes (all of which are somehow created by an unstated agency, and all with different physical constants) rather than just state that our one universe may have had a creator. For the committed Darwinist, they will say that “2 plus 2 equals 5” if it is necessary to fit something inside their theory. But the theory itself is beyond reproach. In fact, these Darwinists are so kooky that they state that to criticize Darwinism to is be anti-science.

      As they say, everything the Left touches it makes worse. That includes science. These people are cracked.

      • David Ray says:

        You gotta love it:
        Over 500 Doctorial Thesis’ were written over “Piltdown Man”. Piltdown man was a proven fraud and an embarrassing one. It’s another shinning example of how PhD’s are only worth face value. (How much you wanna bet that each and every student stood by their PhD dissertation on that ridiculous fraud.)

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It took 40 years to expose the Piltdown fraud, and one of the reasons they decided to check it out was that it made a hash of their evolutionary tree. Incidentally, when I was young we had a set of encyclopedias (Richard’s Topical Encyclopedia) which included a brief mention of the Piltdown Man in their coverage of human evolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *