Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (Paperback)

Spetner claims research findings like these which don't fit approved doctrine are simply ignored by evolutionary biologists. That charge is echoed with gusto by renowned biologist Lynn Margulis, who issues scathing denunciations of their obscurantist tactics in "Slanted Truths." She believes the "stranglehold" of the Darwinian "religious movement" can only be broken by a rational counter-force from outside the fold. Spetner's authoritative book is an ideal instrument for this deliverance. Critics of the NDT will savor the hard-science rigor of molecular arguments adduced against a theory they believe is largely based on speculative just-so stories.

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.

A number of these myths are spun in "The Blind Watchmaker" by one of evolution's high priests, zoologist Richard Dawkins. Spetner searched this work for traces of solid science and found mainly false assumptions and technical inaccuracies instead. He notes that, "like many passionate believers, Dawkins did not examine his evidence critically." Indeed, his vaunted cumulative selection thesis is riddled with unfounded assumptions. He built his case for it entirely on the power of the concept, with not one word of proof. His biomorph and lexical computer simulations are demonstrated not to represent natural selection as his uncritical disciples may believe, only artificial selection, as in pigeon breeding.

The author's diversified background, which also includes lectureships in information theory and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, enables him to speak expertly on a host of technical issues surrounding this subject. Laymen who've fallen behind the dazzling pace of microbiology will be intrigued by his lucid account of the counter-intuitive adaptive strategies in Nature's arsenal. The architecture and mechanisms of the DNA molecule are examined in depth, introducing lay readers to a host of basic concepts like introns, transitrons, point mutations, mutation rates, genetic information and heritable genetic switches. This potent brew is spiced with liberal doses of humorous asides and amusing anecdotes.

It should be noted that Spetner's work is narrowly focused on the purely secular, scientific aspects of his topic. It rarely strays into the domains of metaphysics or theology. Amazon reviewers of this book who parrot mindless shibboleths about creationism and gods of the gap as they did with Michael Behe's ground-breaking "Darwin's Black Box " will clearly establish they either didn't read the book or have been hopelessly brainwashed in orthodox biology classes.

To appreciate the extent of evolutionists' distortions in the classroom, one has only to browse through a current biology textbook after reading Spetner. To cite one case, he has found thousands of examples of convergence, or parallel evolution, buried in the literature, so one might assume they are a significant fact of biological life. He demonstrates mathematically the impossibly long odds against these uncanny near-identities of features in unrelated species, like wings in birds and bats, being evolved by any feat of natural selection. Evidently academic biologists prefer not to dispute this conclusion. A typical nationally distributed college text, "Biology " by N.A. Campbell, contains 1200 pages saturated with evolution mythology, but just one short paragraph on convergence. An equally inextricable companion phenomenon, mimicry, is completely ignored. Other slanted omissions and distortions abound.

Spetner's definitive treatise on what many consider an extremely important issue deserves a much wider audience than it presently commands. Whereas the shelf space afforded the evolutionist tomes of Dawkins and Steven J. Gould in the mega book stores Barnes & Noble and Borders is measured in linear feet, "Not by Chance" is nowhere in sight, not even in inventory. These giant outlets are rapidly driving out alternative book sellers. The inability of an author of Spetner's stature to address a substantial segment of the population that would be sympathetic to his message amounts to de facto censorship by a quasi-monopolistic distribution system. Although most of them will never have the opportunity, avid evolutionists would find this slender volume an eye-opening read.

Spetner quotes Fisher's conclusion based on the latter's quantitative work in population genetics: "A mutation, even if favourable, will have only a very small chance of establishing itself in the species if it occurs once only." In other words many favourable mutations which occur in individuals never get passed on to their populations. This is contrary to the assumption of Darwin, Dawkins and Dobzhansky. This problem is of course much more acute for small isolated populations.

Using numerical data provided by evolutionary paleontologists from their study of horse evolution, Spetner computed one small evolutionary step to require about 50 million births. Ledyard Stebbins estimated that it takes 500 such steps to generate a new species. Assume each of these steps consists of establishing a single transcription error (the most trivial mutation available) in the population. Suppose only one in every million species needs to be successfully generated for NDT to work. Spetner calculated that it would require at least a million adaptive transciption errors. This does not take into account the fact that macro-evolution demands mutations which are not just adaptive, but which also contain novel information. This is a demand that evolutionists prefer not to discuss, as apparently not even a single such mutation is known to exist.

It is extremely unlikely that a population's genome contains so much potential for adaptive errors, let alone information-enhancing ones. But Spetner goes on to demonstrate quantitatively that if there were, then they would provide such an enormous number of potential evolutionary paths as to rule out the possibility of convergent and parallel evolution, which are a major feature of NDT. So either way, NDT loses.

Richard Dawkins' famous computer simulations come under scrutiny. They are doubtless clever, and fun to play with, but have little to do with the real world of biology. The `weasel' program is deterministic, not stochastic. Moreover, good mutations invariably get established in the population, and are frozen, the mutation rate is far too high, and the `genome' has far too few symbols. The same calculation mentioned earlier that shows speciation cannot happen under NDT also shows that the `weasel' algorithm will succeed in a relatively few trials. But "If he had run a more realistic simulation he would have been at his computer for a long time."

The `biomorphs' program is equally irrelevant to the biology of the real world. Selection is artificial, based on the selector's whim with no predefined criteria; at any stage any mutation could be chosen as adaptive; there are no lethal mutations and hence no limit on the mutation rate. "Because of the way it's built, the simulation sidesteps the reason evolution doesn't work in real life."

Spetner agrees with the `tachys' that the evolution that is observed to occur, i.e. micro-evolution, is effected by the action of recombination on regulatory genes, but he argues that these mechanisms require far too much precision and therefore micro-evolutionary changes cannot be random.

One very important basic fact is that mutations are known to cause loss of information, while macro-evolution demands gain in information. "Just like a fortune can't be made by losing money, evolution can't build up information by losing it. Moreover before you can lose money, or information, you first have to make it." This is a problem that NDT advocates must honestly address.

Evolutionists often make the bland assertion that a 5 billion year earth provides plenty of time for even for the most improbable events to occur. In doing so they often pull the wool over their own eyes. As an example, Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker) asserts that a hypothetical alien with a lifespan of 100 million years would not be surprised to be dealt an occasional perfect hand at bridge. He will "scarcely trouble to write home about it when it happens." This is an example of how a non-quantitative argument can mislead. Spetner assumed that this hypothetical alien played 100 bridge hands every day of his life! Even so the probability of his ever getting a perfect hand comes to less than two in a thousand million million! Anyone with a basic knowledge of probability theory can verify Spetner's result.

The ICR newsletter Acts & Facts (June 1999) relates the following incident:

One student related a recent incident when her teacher challenged the class: "If your car breaks down, could you open the hood, step back 20 feet, throw a wrench at the engine, and fix your car? No. But what if you threw the wrench one million times. Chances are you'd fix it."

This is the kind of absurdity evolutionary thinking generates! That a treatise as specious as The Blind Watchmaker can be embraced with so much uncritical enthusiasm is symptomatic of such mental aberration.

Needless to say there is far more to the book, and this review is only able to give a flavour of what is in store for the reader. You have to read the book itself to appreciate the full force of the arguments.

Diehard evolutionists usually react to serious challenges to their cherished theory in two ways: ad hominem attacks on the challenger, and the hand-waving technique. However, intellectual integrity requires them to provide a detailed and rigorous scientific response to those challenges.