LEE SPETNER NOT BY CHANCE PDF

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: Gardakazahn Tygojind
Country: Grenada
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 8 June 2014
Pages: 161
PDF File Size: 5.19 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.62 Mb
ISBN: 942-7-96121-917-1
Downloads: 54316
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Momi

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.

Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling spetmer about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Not xpetner Chance! Scientists and scholars across the globe praise this work as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution.

The author presents compelling scientific evidence that life on Earth could not have arisen by chance. Paperbackpages. Published September 26th by Judaica Press first published June 1st To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

To ask other readers questions about Not by Chance!

Lists with This Book. Oct 08, Qhlueme rated it it was amazing Shelves: Spetner, PhD in physics and years of specialized study in organic evolution, takes the reader step by step, sometimes mini-step by mini-step, with the frequent reiteration necessary for the novice, convenient for the layman, but unnecessarily repetitious for the expert.

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. His book addresses the neo-Darwinian theor Spetner, PhD in physics and years of specialized study in organic evolution, takes the reader step by step, sometimes mini-step by mini-step, with the frequent reiteration necessary for the novice, convenient for the layman, but unnecessarily repetitious for the expert.

Can the variation be random? At this point, someone not keen on math will appreciate that previously mentioned use of reminders and reiterations. Not to worry, for Spetner provides appendices that take the reader more gradually through the processes of life. It seems to me that if the details he describes, 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.

But perhaps the first living cell was simpler, as they say. Perhaps it had no vacuoles. Perhaps it had no nucleolus. Perhaps it had no cytoplasm. Perhaps it was filled with spring water. The simplest living cell is one of the least simple things a person could ever imagine, as Spetner makes abundantly clear; and I am convinced that the most creative human imagination could never have imagined such complexity without first seeing something like it.

This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.

Spetner calls his view the nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis NREH. Now and then, ironic humor pops up, such as one of the options left open to the neo-Darwinians in the face of the evidence for nonrandom variation: There is a mathematical limit to what blind luck can accomplish. Spetner contends that a major weakness with some random-variation evolutionists is that they do not do any calculations to back up their claims.

  GFK 2224 PDF

Spetner gives the example of R. Nor did he cite anyone who did. Although he mentioned the Cairn-Smith theory and the old myth of life originating in some indecipherable primeval soup, Dawkins just assumed that cumulative selection could lead to mAcroevolution. After spending considerable effort to explain random variation, mutation rates, new vs. Spetner is not picking on Dawkins.

He refers to many biologists, particularly evolutionary biologists, in order to explain neo-Darwinian theory and apologetics and to offer his counter-proposal. He describes concrete examples of evolution, though not randomly; he describes the specific biochemical issues involved in mutations and in the examples of evolution he addresses. Of course he cites scientists who have also found NDT to be unconvincing, citing, e. The technical material was simplified to make it more accessible to the general public, though that very process of simplification makes some arguments easy targets for criticism.

The details behind the simplifications are available in the supporting page references, if someone really wants to give the book a fair hearing. A fair criticism must take into account the details from those references, on which Spetner bases some of his reasoning and conclusions.

The publisher is clearly named: Jun 21, LM rated it it was ok. I got this book because R’ Eli Mansour quoted it in a shuir. Since it was essentially a statistics book it was a little tough to get through and not the most fascinating thing in the world, but I liked reading it.

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. Also it touched on the project where they are trying unsuccessfully to recreate the big bang. I learned that bacteria, which obvi I got this book because R’ Eli Mansour quoted it in a shuir.

I learned that bacteria, which obviously reproduces more quickly than anything else, has never mutated in such a way that it became a new type of bacteria. They may evolve to resist spetndr of antibiotics or cause more severe effects, but salmonella is always chsnce.

I also learned more about different methods of dating materials like rock, earth, trees, fossils, etc and how they don’t always match up. So yeah, boring, but informative to me. The author is not dpetner that I know ofhas all spegner of MIT type education xhance really made the evolutionists look like idiots who overlook evidence. They are no longer scientists, absorbing and theorizing based on all information as they are a close minded anti religious party.

Oct 09, Denise rated it it was ok Shelves: Spetner and Behe seem to be common go-to arguments for the anti-evolution crowd. Interestingly, both men accept evolution.

Each has a problem with specific aspects, mutation and complexity respectively. The ‘s is when I became aware of “macro” and “micro” evolution terms sometimes used by those willing to allow for adaptation but not wanting to acknowledge that enough change could lead to divergence.

Divergence can lead to novel forms but is not a requirement for new species -thus spiders lo Spetner and Behe seem to be common chancr arguments for the anti-evolution crowd. Divergence can lead to novel forms but is not a requirement for new species -thus spiders looking like spiders for millions of years and today including around 35, species.

Books by these men either stemmed from or contributed to the misunderstanding. Not By Chance has been fairly well dismantled since publication. I would encourage anyone that reads this book to look at the counter arguments and also pick up s;etner books written by credible biologists. Dec 27, Sylia rated it did not like it.

  A BLIZZARD & THE NIGHT OF FIRSTS PDF

One of the worst books I have ever read on the Evolution vs Creationist debate. He does not have as much of a grasp on scientific theory behind evolution as he would like to imagine, and the “genetic” and “no missing link found” proofs are so unbelievable– as in, I don’t nkt you, buddy.

His tone is condescending.

{{ content.title }}

Just such an unpleasant book. There are WAY better books on the topic! This is a guy who knows what he’s talking about, and One of the worst books I have ever read on the Evolution vs Creationist debate. This is a guy who knows what he’s talking about, and he’s so readable. Jul 24, Kevin Joannou rated it did not like it. It’s not often I start a book and never finish it, but when I do, it’s usually by someone too dishonest to accurately represent Biological Evolution, or ignorant and too lazy to properly learn the science.

Hard to say which one Spetner is. On page 73 he actually claims that “one step of evolution cannot, on average, bring to the genome more than one bit of information. That takes about 5 minutes to look up on Wikipedia for a layman, and this guy is making that sort of mistake despite having a PhD. Hungry for more poor scholarship? Flip to chapter 4 for the whole basis of his critique.

Lee Spetner – Wikipedia

Basically, he thinks evolution is too unlikely because most mutations only make minor changes to survival advantage. Bg tries to make it look like that means that sptener are unlikely to change a spetnerr population. If Spetner had bothered to take an intro population-dynamics course, he might have learned that many mutations are likely to be occurring at any given time, and that the chance of SOME advantageous mutation occurring and spreading is essentially assured.

In fact, the common pattern is for phenotypes reflective of genotype in a population tend to form a bell-curve for a given trait, showing the genetic diversity spread around an optimum. Move the optimum and the bell curve will quickly shift. Evolution has no problem on this front. There are many more examples of pure nonsense, but don’t waste your time looking for them, even for a laugh. This book is a terrible attempt by a physicist to talk about a subject outside his area of expertise, but it is a great example of why one should not try to write books about subjects outside one’s area of expertise.

Jan 22, Lucas rated it really liked it. The author shows in fine fashion that randomness cannot be the progenitor of the wealth of information that has developed in living organisms. I enjoyed this one immensely, and highly recommend it as an antidote to less rigorous treatments of the issue. Nov 19, Yeedle rated it liked it. Made for a very boring read.

I thought that spetner refutes the “fact of evolution”. But he does not, and as I discovered mid-book, he does accept the evolution of species, just not through randomness. Dec 26, Mark rated it liked it.