Rating: 
Summary: Irrefutable
Review: This is a good book that presents solid arguments against the modern Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution (NDT). Spetner uses his particular areas of expertise: physics, statistics, probability, and biology to add his part to the SCIENTIFIC dialogue surrounding the fascinating topic of evoltuion. Spetner is by no means an accomplished writer and many of his points and metaphors are a little akwardly put. This is a meaty book, worth reading twice. The NDT is an outdated theory that needs serious revision. Some of the one star reviewrs need to read the book a second time. (that is if they really want to understand the issues)Erica Peters: God help us if this woman is a PhD teaching at a university somewhere. Peters claims that Spetner has no right writing a book about evolutionary biology since he is not a leading expert in the field. In my opinion that is a good thing. Most evolutionary biologists are just that: evolutionary biologists. DNA is not complex. I studied genetics for over four years in college (apparently the minimun requirement allowing me to discuss it intelligently, according to Peters) Every single graduate student that I know, every single professor of genetics and biology that I know DOES NOT spend their time studying the structure or basic function of DNA. Why not? Because we know how it works and it is beautifully simple. Instead, they are studying particular genes, mutations, AA sequences, proteins ect... You don't need to dedicate your life to genetics to understand how DNA works. Spetner has been studying the field since 1964 and more than sufficiently explains the basics in his book. In his review, Dale Franks comments, "I find it fascinating that the main criticisms of evolution come from physicists, engineers, and chemists, rather from the people who actually study it, such as biologists, and paleontologists." - There are plenty of biologists who have criticized the NDT in writing. Some are even mentioned on this page. Why can't scientific experts in their respective fields add to the ultimate search for truth that is the evolution debate? Dick Fosbury wasn't an athlete, he was an academic, but he changed the way we high jump forever. Anyone in search of the truth is qualified to comment, especially when his or her comments are as valid as well thought out as Spetner's. The Blue Angels aerobatic team is comprised of arguably the best pilots in the world (experts in their field), and yet when they are all in formation diving towards the earth and imminent disaster, each one looking out the window at the other's wing tip, sometimes it takes an outsider watching from the control tower to tell them all to pull up! Mr. Franks goes on..."Even more interesting is the fact that this and similar critiques of evolution are almost entirely an American phenomenon. In nearly every other country in the world, evolution is uncontroversial." - How is this interesting? What does this have to do with anything?? I think Mr. Franks is trying to imply something about America but I just don't know what it is. That the US has the best facilities? That the US has the most resources? Or maybe that the US has the largest community of scientists in the world? What surprises me is that it took until 1997 for a book like this to finally gain some credibility here in America. Mr. Frank's "car" analogy is also out of context. Spetner uses the "tree-like maze" primarily to discuss CONVERGENT evolution. True, while driving your car and turning randomly at each intersection, you may wind up in Akron, Ohio but the chances of someone else arriving there as well are impossibly slim. Yet throughout nature we see many examples of different creatures all "arriving in Akron." If the mechanism of evolution is based on RANDOM DNA copying errors and mutations then it would be impossible for so many different organisms to all randomly end up together in Akron. The point is not to explain how it is that we got here, but rather how is it that we are here and that there are so many others here with us?? In his review Joseph Meert says, "...Spetner discusses DDT resistance in insects and notes that they gain resistance through a loss of a binding site through mutation. What Spetner does not bother to point out is that through this mutation the insect gains survivability. In fact, Spetner's examples demonstrate evolution at work." - He does point out that they gain survivability, but at the expense of overall general fitness. This is MICROEVOLUTION at work. Spetner's book is about MACROEVOLUTION. Complex organisms (for the most part) have complex genomes. If complex organisms arose from simple ones (says the NDT), then genomic complexity and information must have been added somwhere. Spetner is simply saying that nowhere has anyone observed a random mutation that has ADDED information to the genome. A fly becoming resistant to DDT is an example of information being REMOVED from the genome. I wouldn't call being resistant to Malaria because you have sickle cell anemia a step forward in evolution. Read the book and tell us what you think. I have read only one good negative review of this book (the guy from Israel on the last page) and the rest are all 5 sentence hissy fits.
| 
