The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People Are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution

Many people might have read, or at least heard of, Spetner's well-argued 1996 book, Not By Chance. Now Spetner (who holds a PhD in physics from MIT), has published this sequel titled The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People Are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution (Judaica Press, 2014). The book provides some wonderful arguments that challenge common descent and neo-Darwinian explanations of evolution.Spetner goes through many examples of non-random evolutionary changes that cannot be explained in a Darwinian framework. He covers some of the natural genetic engineering mechanisms reported by James Shapiro, which can modify an organism’s genome during a period of stress. Of course the big criticism of Shapiro's arguments is that he never explains how those "natural genetic engineering" mechanisms arose. Whatever the case, these abilities appear to be built-in mechanisms designed to allow an organism to adapt to a changing environment. Spetner comments:"An organism thus has the built-in ability to adapt to a new environment heritably by altering its DNA. These adaptations occur just when they are needed, because they are triggered by an input from the new environment. Since they are triggered by the environment, their occurrence in a population s not rare. They will occur in a large fraction of the population, leading to rapid evolutionary changes -- possibly even in one generation! If such adaptive changes had to be achieved by random DNA copying errors (point mutations), they would require long expanses of time, if they could be achieved at all." (p. 49)Spetner thus proposes what he calls the “Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis” (NREH) where changes in populations occur due to nonrandom processes, as if they are preprogrammed to evolve in certain ways.One of the best examples he gives for his NREH is the prevalence of "convergent evolution" in biology. He argues that convergent evolution undermines the theory of common descent, and really doesn't explain anything:"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)Spetner goes on to list nearly six pages worth of striking examples of convergent evolution. You’ll have to pick up the book to get the full impact of this, but here are some highlights:- Similar physical mechanisms are used to transmit sound waves from the ear to the brain in both vertebrates and certain insects.- Unrelated frogs from Madagascar and India “converged” on similar morphological, physiological, and developmental traits.- Hawaiian honeyeater birds and Australian honeyeater birds look and act very similarly and thus were once classified together, but their DNA shows they’re not closely related and are “a particularly striking example” of convergent evolution.- Spetner writes: “Convergence is invoked for evolutionary similarities among the proteins in the venoms found in all animal phyla, including arthropods, cephalopods, and vertebrates.” (p. 95)- Spetner explains “The ATPase of the monarch butterfly and of the leaf beetle … are said to have arrived at the same ATPase molecule by convergent evolution.” (p. 96)He aptly concludes:"These examples are labeled 'convergence' and are called 'surprising,' 'spectacular,' 'remarkable,' and 'striking.' They are 'surprising,' but only under the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Under the NREH, they are not surprising but expected." (p. 145; internal citations removed)Many other topics are covered in The Evolution Revolution. I highly recommend this short, up-to-date, well-informed, and well-written book for a review of some key, compelling evidence showing that species did not arise through neo-Darwinian mechanisms.

"The Evolution Revolution" is a masterful follow-up to "Not By Chance" First, any book that exposes evolutionism and universal common descent as unscientific materialistic dogma deserves 3 stars. Dr Lee Spetner did that with "Not By Chance" and does so again with "The Evolution Revolution". Now he takes it further by saying that the "theory of evolution" doesn't come close to meeting the status of a theory. He is not alone when it comes to saying that. Add to that the fact that Dr Spetner does that along with exposing the equivocations, strawman arguments (the fixity of species nonsense) and defending his own evolutionary hypothesis- the non-random evolutionary hypothesis- and he gets 5 stars for this effort. And just for effect he takes on the always colorful theological arguments- "No Creator would have done that!"What equivocations? That because we observe anti-biotic resistance, the change in beak lengths, the change in coloration, that means that it is evidence for universal common descent via natural selection. He exposes the canard that macroevolution is just microevolution upon microevolution. He just points out that there aren't any known microevolutionary events that have a chance at being part of macroevolution. And it is also a Bozo no-no to use microevolution to refute a position no one adheres to, ie the fixity of species.Dr. Spetner approaches the topic of evolution by way of information and probabilities. Information in this sense is Dr Crick's version, ie the functional sequence specificity of nucleotides to form proteins, along with the information required to build organisms, which, for whatever reason, it seems he is willing to grant is also in the genome (along with epigenetic factors). Perhaps he does so just to show that even given evolutionary premises, evolutionism fails.As for probabilities he states the obvious- that it is up to evolutionists to provide them and they have failed. Why is it up to the evolutionists? Because it is their premise that culled random changes/ differing accumulations of genetic accidents produced the diversity of life (extant and extinct). And seeing that they say it takes too long to actually test they need to provide the probabilities of random changes' ability to do such a thing. Until they do theirs is outside of science and hence not a theory.Dr Spetner also observes that it is easier for populations to change their behavior- move or hunt differently-than it is to wait for some accidental change to come about and provide some advantage. However if organisms had some built-in capability to change when change is needed, that would be much better than waiting for some genetic accident. With such a mechanism many individuals would change and facilitate the spread of the advantageous trait. Enter epigenetics. We have observed instances of organisms being placed into a new environment and having substantial change occur within a few generations. This is evidence for something faster than natural selection and that something is "built-in responses to environmental cues" (Spetner 1997).Both "Not By Chance" and "The Evolution Revolution" are required reading for people interested in the evolution debate for the very reasons presented above, namely that "evolution" in a broad sense is not being debated, the blind watchmaker isn't the only option to explain the observed variations within populations and those observed variations are not indicative of the type of change required by macroevolution, ie universal common descent.

The Evolution Revolution - Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution is a very readable exposition documenting why ascent from single cells to humans by mutations and natural selection has been falsified. The main part of the book documents what Specter calls the nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis, and others call microevolution, and creationists call variation within the genesis kinds. In short, Professor Spetner shows that much of the microevolution observed in nature is a result of epigenetics and other inbuilt mechanisms that are influenced by the environment to turn certain genes off and others on. Examples of this process are well known in bacteria. If certain types of sugar are present in the environment, and the preferred type is not, the bacteria produce the enzymes to utilize this less preferred type of sugar. If the preferred type of sugar is present, the bacteria does not produce the enzyme to process the other sugar. Thus the environment affects the bacteria gene expression.

Concise, devastating critique of neodarwinism and common descent. The arguments are literature and fact-based. His logic is much more intellectually satisfying than neodarwinist arguments, most of which are necessarily committed to the materialist worldview. Anyone truly open-minded will find this book refreshing and enlightening. No one should be duped by the "settled science" arrogance of neodarwinists, there is always more to be learned in this field, just as in the field of medicine most of the conventional wisdom is found false after a few decades, origins science should have the same level of humility and open-minded approach to unorthodox ideas. If you truly let the evidence lead you to the conclusion, it will lead you in the direction of Dr Spetner's logic.

Layman's terms are used by Lee Spetner in his book,makes for better understanding of the complexity of cellular biology.Excellent.

This book is a unique critique of the theory evolution. The author, Spetner, explains how examples of animals, plants and bacteria evolving are in fact cases where pre-existing genetic information is triggered by environmental input, allowing life to adapt to different conditions. Spetner calls this the Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis (NREH). The crucial point is that no new genetic information is created in examples provided by evolutionists, instead, existing dormant genetic information is activated and this explains why organisms can adapt rapidly (sometimes in a couple of generations) to new environments. Many examples supporting the NREH are provided, including an experiment with yeast where each of its 6000 genes were deleted one by one and it was found only 34% of the 6000 genes were required for proper cell functioning. However almost all the remaining 66% of genes showed growth defects under various environmental changes, indicating that about two-thirds of the genes allow the yeast to adapt to environmental changes (pge 51-52).The author emphasizes the crucial importance of probability calculations, with the probability of a DNA nucleotide substitution (mutation) occurring during reproduction being 1/10**9 (pge 9). Instead of calculations, evolutionists only offer imaginary scenarios. Spetner refutes the evolutionist’s argument that gene duplication adds new information to the genome (pge 33). Evolutionists have failed to show the mutations required to a duplicated gene and the cellular control of the gene to bring about a new functioning, useful protein.Spetner shows that the evolutionist’s phylogenetic tree is not consistent with Common Descent and he claims: ‘If trees constructed by comparing several different organs or physiological systems are identical, then one would have some confidence that the tree is meaningful. If comparing all possible biological features yields the same tree, then the tree could have some objective reality.’ (pge 87). Spetner cites articles that show that anatomical data and molecular data do not give the same tree and large portions of genomes used for phylogenetic studies have made the problem even worse (pge 88). Evolutionists typically try and explain away problems with the tree by what is called ‘convergent evolution’, which is the appearance of the same trait or character in independent lineages. Spetner mentions that ‘convergent evolution’ has been invented solely to address the failure of the phylogenetic tree (pge 89) and no evolutionists have done any probability calculations to show that it works. ‘Richard Dawkins (2010) seems to revel in describing numerous examples of convergent evolution without realizing that any one of those examples destroys his case for evolution.’ (pge 89). Spetner quotes L. L. Parker et al. (2013): ‘Convergence is not a rare process restricted to several loci but is instead widespread’. (pge 91). Spetner cites numerous examples of ‘convergent evolution’ including the similarity between the auditory system of mammals and that of insects, the strong similarities between the olfactory and taste systems in mammals and insects, and the eye, which is supposed to have evolved independently at least forty times and probably as many as sixty-five times. ‘Convergent evolution’ has been made up to keep the phylogenetic tree from falling apart (pge 92).The ENCODE project has refuted evolutionist’s junk DNA argument which was not based on science but was an argument from ignorance (pge 124). Spetner explains how evolutionist’s arguments about ‘poor design’ are not science and he refutes the evolutionist’s argument about the ‘inverted’ retina being a bad design (pge 125-126). Spetner mentions that some evolutionists cite the vas deferens in the male reproductive system as an example of poor design because the vessel takes a long route to the prostatic urethra. Spetner does not provide an explanation for the long length of the vas deferens, however, functionally the vas deferens stores sperm which can remain viable for up to several months. The likely reason for the long length of the vas deferens vessel is to store the required amount of sperm needed during ejaculation. It is important to note that evolutionists have absolutely no explanation for the origin of the male and female reproductive systems, so out of desperation about the only argument they can muster is a pseudo-theological argument against intelligent design, instead of any scientific argument for the naturalistic origin of the male and female reproductive systems.I have read this book twice and agree with the author who concludes that ‘…neo-Darwinian theory must be retired.’ (pge 11).

I'm still reading this book at the time of writing but I can already see that transposable and re-arrangeable genetic elements that facilitate organismal adaptation are under such strict cellular control by pre-existing cellular capabilities as to render the Neo-Darwinian theory of spontaneous biogenesis followed by random, chance mutations and natural selection completely untenable. A real eye-opener which makes me wonder why mainstream science holds so tenaciously to a theory in which serious cracks seem to be appearing. I read Dr Spetner's earlier book 'Not By Chance!' which gave me a helpful background when reading 'The Evolution Revolution' which I regard as a highly recommended book.

Dr. Spetner argues very convincingly, on scientific grounds - not theological - why the theory of evolution has no legs to stand on. He offers compelling evidence that the data we have does not support the “fact” that all living species have evolved from some primitive, single-celled life form, nor does the data support the theory that it all happened by means of random mutations and natural selection. Dr. Spetner acknowledges that evolution does happen, but rapidly, as we witness in many examples that occur today, whereby plants and animals do evolve to become better adapted to their environment. But these organisms do so, he proposes - in what he terms the non-random evolutionary hypothesis - because they have a built-in capacity to adapting to a changing environment, not because of random mutations. Dr. Spetner’s book is written not only with the scientist in mind but for the lay reader as well. The author strives for clarity and readability. He offers us a theory that could have a far-ranging impact on how humanity regards itself, and can influence greatly future scientific research. As such, it makes for compelling, fascinating, and elucidating reading.Shoshana Rose Pantel Zolty, Ed.D.

Spetner’s first critique of neo-Darwinian Theory ( Not By Chance! , 1997) bore the marks of thorough research and clear presentation. The author presented cogent arguments why random mutations are not capable of producing the required raw material for natural selection to work its magic of increasing the structural and functional information in an organism’s genome, in the way that neo-Darwinian theory (NDT) proposes. The improbabilities against this are astronomical.Spetner offered an alternative hypothesis, that major heritable genetic changes of an adaptive kind are achieved through an organism’s inbuilt genetic control mechanisms that enable it to respond to environmental changes. These changes occur to a large proportion of the population, instead of to a single individual. Hence they rapidly take over the whole population. This model is thus fundamentally different from the neo-Darwinian model. Spetner called it the Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis (NREH), and provided empirical evidence in support of it.The NREH is further developed in “The Evolution Revolution” (2014). The author includes evidence that has accumulated in the interval between the writing of the two books. Examples that are discussed in some detail include bacteria, fish, lizards, birds, as well as various plants. The data are shown to be compatible with the NREH, but are an anomaly within the neo-Darwinian model.As in his 1997 volume, so here Spetner emphasizes the inadequacy of speculative scenarios. Scientific rigour demands quantitative assessment:“NDT is not like Newton’s theory of mechanics, whose equations describe the motion of a physical body under a force. Nor is it like Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, whose equations describe the effects of electric and magnetic fields on electric charges. These theories are checked against experiment by solving those equations. NDT describes evolution as the result of random mutations that may or may not yield an adaptive phenotype. These are chance events. The theory can be checked only by calculating the probabilities of the required events to see if they are reasonably large. The theory has not been shown to have passed this test and is therefore not a valid theory. Whatever evidence is given for Common Descent is circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence cannot stand alone. It needs to have a theory tying the evidence to the conclusion. But instead of a theory, imaginary scenarios are offered to suggest how evolution might work. No calculations of probabilities are made.” (p9)Darwinists “obscure the element of randomness in evolution” by stressing that natural selection makes it non-random (p132). But natural selection can only work on the mutations they acknowledge are random. They assume that the desirable mutations are sufficiently probable, an assumption they have failed to demonstrate by probability calculations.Donald Johnson echoes this concern ( Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability : A Call to Scientific Integrity , 2009, p5):‘one should not be able to get away with stating “it is possible that life arose from non-life by ...” without first demonstrating that it is indeed possible (defined in the nature of probability) using known science. One could, of course, state “it may be speculated that ... ,” but such a statement wouldn’t have the believability that its author intends to convey by the pseudo-scientific pronouncement.’Spetner describes his theory as “evolution”. However, he uses the word in the sense of adaptive modifications within limits, i.e., living organisms are able to undergo limited genetic changes to enable them to adapt to environmental changes. Although these changes can be quite major, and lead to new phenotypes, they cannot go beyond certain limits. He further argues that the genetic mechanisms responsible for these changes are inherent, designed features. Thus Spetner’s “evolution” model has far more in common with the views of biblical creationists than with those of hydrogen-to-microbe-to-microbiologist evolutionists.There is a fascinating reference to a work published in Hebrew in 1852, in which Rabbi David Luria pointed out that the numerous varieties of animals and birds are merely subgroups of higher categories, which “split up and differentiated into many species according to their niche in their territory, and according to what they ate and what they experienced” (Spetner’s translation from the Hebrew). This is consonent with the modern creationist view. Luria even cited estmates for the number of created kinds.The book’s subtitle is “Why thinking people are rethinking the theory of evolution”. Many people embrace evolution uncritically as the result of their educational background, and have never given serious thought to any alternative. Among them are those who are passionately wedded to the ideology, and refuse to examine its flaws. Such doctrinaire evolutionists are more likely to dismiss the book than to address the issues raised. For them:‘Darwinism will have to be right after all, will always be resuscitated, will have to be resuscitated, even in the face of Bateson’s “endless absurdities” and Owen’s non-adaptive Bauplans, even when it is so obvious that “he got it wrong,” until evolutionary biologists put aside their metaphysical commitment to a contingent worldview, and biology finally embraces the realm of law - a realm whose only defect in the eyes of the agnostic mainstream is that it might be construed as supporting a return to a more teleological view of life and its place in the cosmos.’ (Michael Denton,  Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis , 2016).OTOH, open-minded people, of whatever persuasion, can learn a lot from this book. The author makes frequent reference to topics that he had discussed in greater detail in the 1997 volume, so it is worthwhile to read (or re-read) that first. Not By Chance!Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability : A Call to Scientific IntegrityEvolution: Still a Theory in Crisis