Customer Reviews


71 Reviews
5 star:
 (40)
4 star:
 (7)
3 star:
 (2)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (21)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


89 of 115 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars It Doesn't Get Much Better Than This
Contrary to earlier reviewer who apparently doesn't understand that 'Natural Selection' is a SECONDARY process which does not *cause* or facilitate evolution but merely conserves or destroys the fruits of the core mutation process, THIS IS A GREAT BOOK.

Milton has worked for more than two decades as a writer for solid, mainstream scientific publications such as...
Published on February 9, 2001 by Karl

versus
57 of 82 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars A rehash of many tired anti-evolutionary arguments.
Although he draws on many examples and cites many references, I am having difficulty deciding if author Richard Milton is himself ignorant of biology, or is expecting his readers to be so.
His primary references for paleontology, mammalian evolution, geology, and other subjects are 20, 30, or 40 years old. There are certainly classics this old still worth reading...
Published on January 11, 1998 by doog@cassiakeyensis.com


‹ Previous | 1 28 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

89 of 115 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars It Doesn't Get Much Better Than This, February 9, 2001
By 
Karl (England, Great Britain) - See all my reviews
Contrary to earlier reviewer who apparently doesn't understand that 'Natural Selection' is a SECONDARY process which does not *cause* or facilitate evolution but merely conserves or destroys the fruits of the core mutation process, THIS IS A GREAT BOOK.

Milton has worked for more than two decades as a writer for solid, mainstream scientific publications such as New Scientist. Does anyone 'seriously' believe that he is some kind of creationist 'sleeper'? I suspect that in their heart of hearts even his most trenchant opponents do not, though I note that evolutionists, broad minded rationalists that they are, have a remarkable inability to think outside of a strict "Them" and "Us" scenario.

Anyway, what Milton has provided in this book is simply a well-laid out description of the many 'facts' that conventional evolutionary theory seems unable to deal with and which therefore tend to get swept under the proverbial carpet.

Milton DOES NOT support creationism, he doesn't even discount evolution as a scientific reality - he merely asks WHY the self-styled Darwinists and neo-Darwinists don't stop mouthing off at anyone who disagrees with them and start finding some answers to these unanswered questions.
Alternatively, if Darwinism, in all its variations, CANNOT provide the answers, for goodness' sake let's move on and find a bigger and better theory.

Trouble is, of course, most academics owe their comfy positions to having toed the party line. How on earth do they admit they've got it at least partly wrong for so long without looking like total wallys?

Milton's only crime - if crime it is - has been to pull some highly inconvenient skeleton's out of rather a lot of closets. If you really want a reliable measure of the value of this book, check out its detractors. And see how many of them offer genuine scientific criticism, and how many do little but descend into childish name calling.

If you have the faintest interest in the evolution controversy, and your job doesn't depend on you sticking to the officially approved stories, I'm guessing that you'll love this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


80 of 105 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The evolution debate continues..., March 21, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Hardcover)
Based on the one star reviews of this book I expected a "creationist rehash." As a biologist trained in animal behavor I read nothing of the kind. Milton's arguments are clear and well argued; he is at his best at demonstrating the circular and nonexplanatory arguments used to keep neo-Darwinian "theory" viable. A previous negative review tells the reader to go and read a book on Darwin's finches--Milton devotes a full chapter to the arguments for "speciation" taken from the finch research. The finches of the different islands mate with one another and are not geograpically isolated from one another--while their beaks may differ in size and shape the finches are no more separate species than a poodle is a separate species from a bull dog. Variation within a species does not prove neo-Darwinism as "the origin of the species." To the potential reader and Mr. Milton (if he reads these reviews), I would urge a review of the most recent research of Hall on the specificity of adaptive mutagenesis and a reading of Ted Steels's new book "Lamarck's Signature" on retrogenes. Both lines of research are mentioned briefly by Milton--I believe a third edition incorporating these new theories and findings is needed. Milton looks like a young man--I hope he keeps up the search for truth in evolutionary biology gives us a new edition of this important work.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


76 of 100 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Milton not a creationist, November 15, 1999
This review is from: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Hardcover)
After reading the reviews and then this book, I can't help but wonder - did the people who only gave this book one star read the same book I did? Milton is clearly not a creationist, all his arguements are based on documented scientific evidence. He does not even refer to evidence presented by many creationists, as valid as that evidence may be. The only conclusion I can reach is that the "one-star" crowd are the same people that Milton contends have accepted Darwin as their God and evolution as their faith, one they must fight to protect despite all evidence to the contrary. This was a great book!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars No beating around the bush..., May 24, 2010
By 
Pharoah Bak (Winnipeg, MB, Canada) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Hardcover)
I highly recommend this book should anyone desire to purchase it. Right to the major points and no fooling around with too much biology jargon, which is to say, it is all layman material. I found at times it was hard to put the book down even at mealtimes, which is not like me. My food is important stuff and I don't like my tastebuds having competition...haha. Anyway, I don't think I am surprised they teach this Neo-Darwinism in schools as absolute fact when it is not. The "science establishment" is an owned Institution and the Money Masters that provide all monies in salaries and grants and owns all the mags and education foundations have a major "say" in what passes for truth in Science. Without sidetracking too much, they have knowingly lied to us in other matters too. The Science establishment cannot be trusted. No institution on the face of the planet can be trusted with all our heart, because money always corrupts. Religion, Politics, Science,...haha...sleep with one eye open. Read Mr Milton's book I say. Cheers!!!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A truly objective look at the flaws of Darwinism, December 31, 2010
Its been a while now since I purchased this excellent book, and I regret not writing a review for it earlier. Well, here goes.

I've read many good books on so-called "alternative science" by many brilliant authors. Out of all of these, the best I've come across so far would have to be Richard Milton. He manages to do what so many people fail at- investigate controversial topics in a truly objective manner. In the book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Milton points out the numerous flaws in the doctrine of Darwinism.

Many intellectual fascists, including Richard Dawkins, John Maddox and Robert Todd Carroll, have flamed Richard Milton and accused him of being a creationist or "creationist ally". These absurd accusations only show that Milton's critics have not bothered to review any of his claims properly, but have merely attacked his persona because he dared to claim their "absolute truths" were not so absolute after all.

Anyone who has read Richard Milton's books or been to his "Alternative Science" website will know that he is NOT a creationist. As a matter of fact, he has no religious beliefs whatsoever, nor any interest in religion. Furthermore, the book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism is in fact NOT a criticism of evolution itself. It is a criticism of Darwinian evolution- the idea that life evolves through a gradual step-by-step process through chance mutations coupled with natural selection.

The book uses well-supported scientific arguments to show the numerous flaws in Darwinism. Firstly, single-celled organisms evolving by pure chance would take a lot longer than the time available in Darwinian models. Furthermore, the various dating methods used on rocks and fossils are majorly flawed, and the Earth could be a lot younger than the 4.6 billion years generally assumed. This may sound creationistic, but it should be noted that Milton does NOT claim the Earth is mere thousands of years old, but instead points out that we there is currently no way of knowing how old the Earth is, apart from the obvious fact that it predates us humans.

Many of the Earth's geological features, including all fossil formations, can only form through rapid cataclysmic changes, reducing the long timescales needed by Darwinism. Furthermore, the concept of "transitional fossils" linking different species of lifeform in a step-by-step evolutionary process is a concept that only works if you report your evidence selectively.

Concerning natural selection, Milton acknowledges that this process exists, but points out that it would not work as a viable evolutionary mechanism. Concerning mutations he points out that the concept of chance mutations leading to evolutionary changes is flawed as most mutations are harmful and the chance of beneficial mutations occuring in a cumulative process is a mathematical absurdity.

Richard Milton is honest enough to admit that as a journalist, rather than a scientist, he does not have an alternative to Darwinism in his back pocket. He does, however, discuss a number of topics in biological research that hint at what Darwinism may be. These include evidence supporting the Lamarckian concept of acquired characteristics, evidence of spontaneous generation and evidence of morphogentic fields. He also briefly discusses panspermia- the idea that life on Earth has an extraterrestrial origin- though he admits that one would still need to account for the origin of life on the originator planet.

Milton points out that a number of biologists, including German biologist Hans Driesch, have found evidence suggesting that evolution is guided by a non-physical life force that organises life. He shows how physicist are already acknowledging less mechanistic models to the universe and points out that would only make sense that biologists do the same, especially in light of the scientific evidence.

Overall, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism is an well-written, well-argued and compelling book that convincingly shows that while evolution does occur the way it occurs is nothing like what Darwinism would have us believe.

Now before I end this review, I have something to say to those who would persist in spouting the lie that Richard Milton and all others who question Darwinis are creationists. I am a hardcore atheist who cares nothing for religion. Yet I agree fully with Milton's claims that geological dating is flawed, geological formations formed rapidly and Darwinian evolution is wrong. Why? Because everything Milton says backed up by the scientific evidence. The scientific community needs more people like Richard Milton, who can review the evidence objectively, instead of being blinded by dogmas.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


31 of 44 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Evolution is soft science, not hard..., July 11, 2001
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Although Creationists will probably like this book, it's really a fresh, broad survey of the scientific inquiry into evolution and the earth's history.
The author is not a creationist and in fact claims to have "no religious beliefs", but I expect that creationists will be more open to this book than most neo-Darwinists. What Milton does is collect and clearly describe several serious scientific problems with the Darwinist model of evolution. It is well written and has good references to original source material to back up his claims. Some of the interesting facts described:
- the age figures that scientists toss around for the age of the earth, strata, fossils etc are little more than educated guesses. Radiometric dating is not an objective science, and there is no objective proof of the earth's age.
- a well-known scientific law "genetic homeostasis" means that animal or plant species cannot give rise to a new species by accumulating normal genetic variation. There are no "green mice" in nature and never will be.
- there is no scientific evidence (none whatsoever) that random mutation can give rise to the variety of life found in the fossil record. The process of natural selection by itself provides no mechanism for evolutionary change to arise.
- the widespread acceptance of Darwinism in academic circles is mostly due to political pressure and arguements from personal authority. It is not based on scientific evidence.

Milton is quite reasonable is his call for rational debate on the scientific evidence, rather than the personal attacks and attempts to censor him by leading Darwinists like Dawkins. Some truly shameful behavior by leading academic figures is described. The author does admit that there is at present no clear alternative theory of evolution. Milton does not make any mention of the recent biochemical challenge to Darwinism (Behe, Dembski, Spetner) but this book dovetails with it quite nicely. Clearly, Darwinism is a theory collapsing under its own weight, the baggage of nineteenth century materialist asumptions. But what will take its place? Milton doesn't explore this much. My personal hunch is that some kind of information theory must be applied to nature, to describe how genetic data is so amazingly organized.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


57 of 82 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars A rehash of many tired anti-evolutionary arguments., January 11, 1998
By 
doog@cassiakeyensis.com (Doug Scofield, Pompano Beach, Florida) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Hardcover)
Although he draws on many examples and cites many references, I am having difficulty deciding if author Richard Milton is himself ignorant of biology, or is expecting his readers to be so.
His primary references for paleontology, mammalian evolution, geology, and other subjects are 20, 30, or 40 years old. There are certainly classics this old still worth reading in these and many other fields, but as he is using textbook-level surveys, and citing them as examples of incomplete or murky knowledge in scientifically contentious, heavily researched areas, it is a false use of authority. There are several up-to-date references available in these fields. Two of many examples:
* He cites an encyclopedic entry from 1982 as evidence for the mystery of enzymes; this predates modern molecular biology.
* He uses Simpson's 1961 book _Horses_ to attempt assaults at this classic evolutionary progression; evidence of a reading of MacFadden's 1992 _Fossil Horses_ is strangely missing.
He either misunderstands or deliberately misstates many aspects of biology. Examples:
* His dual use of individual variation both for and against Darwinian evolution;
* His statement that there is clearly no widespread "struggle for existence" (ask any insect);
* His statement that taxonomy is purely arbitrary (classification is a constant attempt to flesh out and depict evolutionary relationships);
* He says that uniformitarianism is false because there are many catastrophes, but uniformitarianism includes the existance of catastrophes of many scales;
* His suggestion that mountain ranges must have lifted much more quickly and much more recently than every other geologists would believe;
* His dismissal of plate tectonics using creationist energy calculations, followed by the silly proposition that the Wisconsin ice cap melted miraculously quickly, giving us the Flood while prying apart the continents (if this were true there would be so much evidence of this catastrophe there would be 17 journals devoted to its study);
* Following this, he suggests that convergent evolution of placentals and marsupials will clearly have to be rethought, implying that convergent forms are closely related because they look alike ("only a professional zoologist could tell their skulls apart"). He offers no clue as to how they could have developed, in so short a time, the fundamental difference between placental and marsupial development;
* He says that primordial abiogenesis is impossible, yet later cites claims of spontaneous germination (probably due to contamination [he was after all citing Pasteur from the 19th century]) as evidence of some mysterious life force;
* He says homologous structures should have homologous genes (what does he say about homeobox genes, which control early development of nearly all metazoan animal embryos from rotifers to humans?);
* He ignores or misstates much embryology and development.
He gets much of his science from old textbooks and popularized accounts and exploits the inherent debate within science, much the same as politicians resistant to doing anything about global warming, or environmental degradation.
If scientists were so resistent to changing their dominant theories, there would have been little of the amazing scientific progress seen this century. Milton is proof that, if you put a conspiratorial spin on resistance to your case many people will be deceived into thinking you must be telling the truth.
There are many point-by-point debunkings of this book on the Internet. Search for the book title.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


19 of 27 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars What's wrong with challenging Darwinism?, October 30, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Hardcover)
I thought Milton's book was well written. There are basic assumptions of Darwinism that he challenges. Who says Darwinism is a perfect theory? Milton provides some relevant questions to the idea that every living species on this planet somehow evolved from the slime. I have real problems with Darwinism. I also have real problems with creationism. This book and others are important in that they challenge assumptions and "scientific" conclusions that many times don't add up. Why are Darwinists so afraid to admit there may be problems with the theory? This book is very informative. If you're interested in the subject, read it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


25 of 36 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars We are perhaps witnessing the Twilight of an idea !, April 21, 1998
By 
Reader and Listener "IMHO" (Erewhon, NY United States) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Hardcover)
Excellent book. With carefully reasoned logic, Richard Milton explains why most scientists privately accept that there are serious objections to Darwinism... and privately they will admit to the objections. He then shows why they have become reluctant to discuss them in public (and why in a public forum like the Internet, they will deny them altogether) because they fear that they will aid their critics and unwittingly discredit their own profession.
Contrary to some criticisms, I have found that his _primary_ references are from most recent literature (typically the last decade but including references from only _months_ before the book was published). There are in total more than 200 references and inevitably, many old references have been included for the sake of completeness (eg Darwin, Lyell, Huxley, Simpson, Mayr, etc etc). Had he not included references for his quotations of these authors, critics would have complained that they were unreferenced.
Among the many fine points presented in his book....
1) Takes apart the rash claim made by Francis Crick (made as long ago as 1966) that biologists will have no difficulty in synthesising an enzyme from scratch. Milton shows that, even in 1996, such a synthesis has still not been done. The relevant fact is that the optimism of Darwinist biologists like Crick that life is mechanical and simple was (and remains) misplaced.
2) Convincingly demonstrates the dishonesty of some Darwinist palaeontologists. Simpson for example, claimed a perfect unbroken chain of evidence when there was none. MacFadden's book makes no difference to Simpson's (and other Darwinists). Dishonesty not does it repair the gaps in Simpson's charts. The criticisms Milton make in his book remain unanswered to this day. For instance there is still a gap in the fossil record before _Eohippus_ and there is still a gap in the miocene. Thus the crucial first putative horse ancestor was (and still is) isolated in the fossil record and is not part of a gradual chain of fossil evidence as claimed.
These two 'examples' are sufficient to show why the 'many examples' paleontologists claim are figments of their imagination.
3) Explains why among modern neoDarwinists only a few isolated extremists such as Richard Dawkins continue to believe that a 'struggle for survival' contributes measurably to evolutionary processes -- no-one else does. Any critic who refer to the life of ants only shows how they are confusing struggle as a "factor" in the life of the individual and the species with struggle as a "driver" of evolutionary processes. Very rigorous logic here.
4) Cites no less an authority than Ernst Mayr, professor of zoology at Harvard, as saying that the categories of taxonomy are arbitrary in that they seek to describe relationships which cannot be demonstrated experimentally. In doing so, Milton draws attention to the fact that the status of taxonomy has been the subject of debate for 2,000 years and that anyone attempting to base a theory of evolution on taxonomy (as Darwin and his successors have) is bound to fall into the trap Mayr describes.
5) Shows why belief in pure uniformitarian process is a doctrine not borne out by evidence from Geology and that recent experiments (such as those by Guy Berthault at Colorado University) and findings in the field (as at Mount St Helens) have contradicted long-held basic beliefs about uniformitarian processes of sedimentation. In support of this, Milton quotes a number of professional geologists who have pointed out that the evidence for recent mountain building is compelling, direct evidence ( adequately referenced too ).
6) Carefully explains why currently accepted plate tectonic mechanisms do not provide enough energy. Milton recommends glacial loading as a more likely mechanism for the prying apart of continents.
7) Explains why the Darwinian idea of 'convergent evolution' is not an explanation of the existence of placental and marsupial counterparts but merely a tautology which disguises our ignorance of a key biological problem -- and one which the Darwinian mechanism of random genetic mutation coupled with natural selection is incapable of explaining ( this logic echoes the problems pointed out by Prof. Philip Johnson in his book, Darwin on Trial ).
8) Cites recent studies in molecular biology and information theory that shows why the Darwinian and post- Darwinian concepts of abiogenesis _through random mutation and natural selection_ are exceedingly unlikely and why any rational person must seek other more likely mechanisms.
9) Quotes molecular biologists such as Michael Denton and embryologists such as Gavin de beer as pointing out that anatomical homology at the macroscopic level is not maintained at either the embryo level or the molecular level. Milton then gives counter examples of individual cases. NOTE: The Darwinian doctrine of homology as evidence for common descent and common genetic inheritance is invalidated by a single counter-example. He shows more than one.
Far from simply exploiting the inherent debate within science, Richard Milton shows why evolutionary biology is alone among the sciences in lacking intellectual rigour, in permitting urban scientific myths to flourish, and in substituting old wives tales like Simpson's horse charts for real data and rational thought.
His book achieves the objective of conveying his primary message, Which is :
"The world is full of people who want you to believe in their "ism" -- Darwinism, Freudianism, Marxism and the rest. Don't accept anything they say unless they can substantiate it with scientific evidence, however persuasive their arguments, and however authoritative their position. Insist on consulting the primary sources of evidence yourself and make up your own mind."
This book is an eye opener for any person open enough to take a deeper and more rigorous look at the evidence. I hate to say this, but books like these ( and others like, Walter Remine's "THE BIOTIC MESSAGE", Michael Behe's "DARWIN's BLACK BOX" and Michael Denton's "EVOLUTION, A THEORY IN CRISIS ), are pointing us to a trend --- We are perhaps witnessing the twilight of a once attractive idea.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


78 of 114 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Extremely helpful, December 13, 1999
This review is from: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Hardcover)
Before reading this book, I did not understand how evolution is supposed to have happened. I had the idea that natural selection acted upon normal variation. Obviously, there is great variety of form within each species. It makes sense that some individuals within a species are better fitted to survive by virtue of being stronger, faster, smarter or in some other way better adapted. These individuals will survive more often, mate more often, and leave more offspring, pushing the species in the direction of greater survivability. Eventually the species evolves into an altogether higher form of life.
This notion of evolution is wrong. It is a misconception of the unsophisticated; scientists know that evolution does not work this way. Many intelligent non-scientists, however, probably share this misconception, and most evolutionists do not bother to clear up the confusion. The dirty little secret, in fact, is that some of them encourage it.
The evolution scenario described above is merely selective breeding, with nature doing the selecting. We know that selective breeding can never lead to a new species. Humans have been practicing artificial selective breeding on plants and animals for centuries, probably millenia, without ever having bred a new species.
Milton recounts the evidence in Chapter 12, "Of Green Mice and Blue Genes." Plants and animals can be selectively bred for a specific characteristic, but that characteristic can only be pushed so far away from the norm for that species, and no farther. One example is the sugar beet, which, when botanists began trying to increase its sugar content, was about 5% sugar. Selective breeding managed to push this percentage to 17%, but there it stopped and there it remains. Another example is afforded by the numerous experiments on fruit flies conducted by Dobzhansky. One such experiment set out to vary the number of bristles on the body of the fly, starting from a stock of flies having an average of 36 bristles. By selecting for lower-than-normal number, scientists were able to reduce the average number of bristles to 25. After thirty generations, however, the line became sterile and died out. The second group was selected for higher-than-average number of bristles. Over twenty generations the average bristle count rose from 36 to 56. Again, however, sterility became so common that the experiment was terminated. Again and again, these experiments showed that variability is limited. Moreover, the most frequent response to one-sided selction is a drop in general fitness. Ernst Mayr terms this phenomenon "genetic homeostasis." It is a natural barrier that has been encountered by all plant and animal breeders throughout the ages.
Thus, a new species has never evolved by breeding, that is, by the normal recombination of genes through sexual reproduction. To get anything really new for natural selection to act upon (thus bringing about Darwinian evolution), there must be new genetic material. Where does this new genetic information come from? According to evolutionists, from genetic mutations. Mutations occur when the DNA molecules of the parent organisms fail to correctly join, or when a single DNA molecule fails to correctly replicate itself. Evolution, according to Darwinists, is due basically to copying errors.
Mutations can be spontaneous or caused by radiation or highly toxic chemicals. The results are dismally familiar: cancer, Down's syndrome, dwarfism. Probably about 99 percent of mutations are harmful, about 90% are fatal.
As Milton points out in Chapter 14, "Of Cabbages and Kings," no one has ever observed a spontaneous inheritable genetic mutation that resulted in a changed physical characteristic, aside from a small group of well-known and usually fatal genetic defects. A beneficial spontaneous genetic mutation, though necessary to the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, remains a hypothetical event. Moreover, Darwinism provides no theoretical support for supposing that a mutation will be one that the organism needs or will find useful in its environmental niche. On the contrary, mutations are strictly random.
Against this background, the notion that mutations will ever yield anything significantly helpful to the organism, much less a complex new organ such as an eye, seems extremely unlikely. The faith of the evolutionist is truly an extravagant faith, putting the creationist's faith to shame.
Some evolutionists are honest about the unlikeliness of their theory. Ronald Fisher, author of an influential 1930 book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, observed that natural selection is "a mechanism for generating improbability." Stephen Jay Gould frankly admits that the odds of getting any species as smart as humans is "extremely small" and that "we are, whatever our glories and accomplishments, a momentary and cosmic accident that would never rise again . . ." In the 12/13/99 issue of the New Yorker, Robert Wright criticizes Gould for being so open about the improbability of evolution. Wright, however, is one of those evolutionists I mentioned earlier who propagates the false notion that selective breeding can lead to Darwinian evolution. He writes, "male chimps spend lots of time scheming to top each other. They form coalitions that, on attaining political dominance, get prime sexual access to females. So savvy males should, on average, get the most genes into the next generation, raising the average level of saviness. And, the savvier the average chimp, the savvier chimps have to be to excel in the next round. There's little doubt that this arms race has helped make chimps as smart as they are, and there's no clear reason that the process should stop now." No clear reason except the experience of hundreds of years of selective breeding. The range of intelligence of chimpanzees is genetically limited by the gene pool of the species. To get beyond that limitation, a chimp must be the beneficiary of a random genetic mutation that makes it smarter (as opposed to killing it), that does not weaken it in some other aspect, and that can be passed on to the next generation. The offspring must survive and pass the favorable mutation on to succeeding generations, one of which must have another favorable heritable genetic mutation that makes it smarter, if the species is to continue to progress toward intelligence. Clearly, Wright's "just so" story has less to do with evolution than with explaining the behavior of Bill Clinton.
I've reviewed only a couple of chapters in a 25 chapter book. Suffice it to say that this book really educated me as to what the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is, and what its weaknesses are. It is very well written and extremely readable. I recommend it without reservation.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 28 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton (Hardcover - July 1997)
Used & New from: $1.99
Add to wishlist See buying options
Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.