"The Evolution Revolution" by Dr Lee Spetner
-
"The Evolution Revolution" by Dr Lee Spetner
"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 (out of 5) 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" by Dr Lee Spetner
"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 (out of 5) 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.
posted by Joe G @ 10:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home