Updated : Feb 09, 2020 in Art


Not by Chance! has 59 ratings and 10 reviews. Qhlueme said: Spetner, PhD in physics and years of specialized study in organic evolution, takes the reader. The core of Dr. Lee Spetner’s chal- lenge to neo-Darwinian theory (NDT) is in chapters 4 and 5. He points out that evo- lutionists have repeatedly stressed that. Remarkably Spetner does not straightforward deny macro-evolution, he claims that.

Author: Tarn Felabar
Country: Malaysia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 7 March 2013
Pages: 358
PDF File Size: 3.91 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.84 Mb
ISBN: 130-5-91211-671-2
Downloads: 97469
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Akizilkree

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Nonetheless, due to his nonconformist analyses, the result is an intriguing, informative text for anyone not already ideologically committed to the two chief rival dogmatic alternatives. On page 73 he actually claims that “one step of evolution cannot, on average, bring to the genome more than one bit of information.

Lee Spetner – RationalWiki

Made for a very boring read. Spetner first became interested in evolution after moving to Israel. Spetner derives non-random evolution from the Talmud By Mark Perakh. Each has a problem with specific aspects, mutation and complexity respectively. I enjoyed this one immensely, and highly recommend it as an antidote to less rigorous treatments of the issue. I got this book because R’ Eli Mansour quoted it in a shuir.

Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

It seems to me that if the details he spetnwr, each of which involve hundreds more specific biochemical interactions which he spares the reader, were to occur a step at a time, then the first living cell would still be struggling to get itself into a biochemically coherent, inheritable, living organism, and still have millions of years to go. A fair criticism must take into account the details from those references, on which Spetner bases some of his reasoning and conclusions. Open Preview See a Problem?

Just such an unpleasant book. Spetner developed what he called his “nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis,” which proposed rapid microevolution chnace he attributed to a “built-in ability” in animals and plants to “respond adaptively to environmental stimuli”and suggested that even some cases of macroevolution could be wpetner by his hypothesis.


There is a mathematical limit to what blind luck can accomplish.

Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Lee Spetner

Spetner is also a signatory to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Spetner published several papers on the subject of evolution between and If such lef changes had to be achieved by random DNA copying errors point mutationsthey would require long expanses of time, if they could be achieved at all. Philosophical Christian rated it it was amazing Mar 17, Philosophical11 rated it it was amazing Apr 05, Wpetner and Behe seem to be common go-to arguments for the anti-evolution crowd.

Thaddeus Schickling rated it liked it Dec 30, Nov 19, Yeedle rated it liked it. Evolution has no problem on this front. One of the worst books I have ever read on the Evolution vs Creationist debate.

Spetner became best known for his book Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolutionwhich attacks a strawman version of modern evolutionary theory, claiming wrongly that that theory portrays evolution as “random”, when in fact bh theory holds that non-random natural selection selects for adaptive changes.

It is quite clear from his religious views that he has no interest in embracing any evidence for evolution. I also learned more about different methods of dating materials like rock, earth, trees, fossils, etc and how they don’t always match up. It makes no claim that scientific evidence proves a sppetner creator. Spetner’s latest book “The Evolution Revolution: John Waldrip rated it really liked it Jan 19, Spetner continued his attack on the modern synthesis in his book Not by chance!

Spetner is often vhance mined by young earth creationistsother Christian creationists and Intelligent design advocates who pretend he is a “non-creationist” who only rejects the mutation element of the modern synthesis. This no a guy who knows what he’s talking about, bby he’s so readable. Scientists and scholars across the globe praise this work as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution.

  6ES5 460-7LA13 PDF

Perhaps it had no nucleolus.

Many other topics are covered in The Evolution Revolution. I thought that spetner refutes the “fact of evolution”.

Spetner, an avowed theist, has been described as a Jewish Creationist. Spetner claims that random mutations lead to a loss of genetic information and that there is no scientific evidence to support common descent:. Hard to say which one Spetner is. Flip to chapter 4 for the whole basis of his critique. Josylaine rated it liked it Jul 25, Jul 24, Kevin Chnace rated it did not like it. Although he mentioned the Cairn-Smith theory and the old myth of life originating in some indecipherable primeval soup, Dawkins just assumed that cumulative spetnsr could lead to mAcroevolution.

Hasanuddin rated it liked it Jul 02, Lee Spetner is an American physicist and Jewish creationist. Retrieved from ” https: The author shows in fine fashion that randomness cannot be the progenitor of the wealth of information that has developed in living organisms.

He attempts to replace this strawman version of the modern synthesis with a mixture of divine spettner and an idea of “non-random evolution theory” well, duh, we know it’s non-random. Lee Spetner at a Jerusalem restaurant in August Like the title suggests it went on quite a bit about the probable impossibility of one species’ DNA mutating enough to become another sustainable species.


In Israel he attempted to search for evidence which “contradicted evolution” – based on his religious views. Some question the ability of random mutations plus natural selection to account for the information in DNA. Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. Perhaps it had no vacuoles. Creationists Authors Jews Living chaance Physicists.