- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Most Helpful Favorable Review
11 out of 12 people found this review helpful.
The most compelling, well-written, interesting book I've read in a long time!
posted by geo_grad_student on March 12, 2009Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Most Helpful Critical Review
8 out of 32 people found this review helpful.
Misrepresenting contradicting facts as supporting evidence.
The modern evolution theory consists of two opposite sub-theories, NeoDarwinism/natural selection an...
The modern evolution theory consists of two opposite sub-theories, NeoDarwinism/natural selection and the neutral theory. NeoDarwinism or natural selection is largely irrelevant to molecular evolution, or, more precisely, contradicted by molecular data. As a result, a theory based on the negation of NeoDarwinism or natural selection, the neutral theory, is used to explain molecular evolution, in particular the molecular clock. And the neutral theory is however widely acknowledged to be an incomplete explanation and has countless contradictions of its own.
But the only theory Coyne ever talks about in his book is NeoDarwinism or natural selection. There are very few sentences that mention molecular evolution. And these in fact mislead the readers into believing that NeoDarwinism is supported rather than contradicted by facts of molecular evolution. Here is what Coyne wrote: "Evolution theory predicts, and data support, the notion that as species diverge from their common ancestors, their DNA sequence change in roughly a straight-line fashion with time."
Does Coyne really expect the lay readers to know that the 'evolution theory' here means the neutral theory, when the neutral theory is never mentioned in the book and must negate the key idea of Darwin? If the lay readers, after reading this, then believe incorrectly that NeoDarwinism predicts the major facts of molecular evolution, is it the readers' fault or the author's?
Coyne had openly said: "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics." But there can be no justification in any kind of science to misrepresent contradicting facts as supporting evidence.
It is clear that NeoDarwinism is true for some aspects of microevolution. It is equally clear to anyone familiar with the primary literature that it cannot explain all the relevant facts or is contradicted by numerous facts including both fossils and DNA data. A complete theory of evolution must include and grant the proven virtues of NeoDarwinism and must explain all relevant facts including those that contradict NeoDarwinism. By not informing readers of the incomplete nature of the existing theories, the author is actively reducing the population of thinkers who may participate in the search for the complete truth.
Thanks to his effort and others like him among Darwin followers, that population has become extremely small especially among professional biologists but fortunately not yet extinct. For a strong candidate to the complete truth, read about the maximum genetic diversity (MGD) hypothesis. http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1751/version/2
A true theory loves all facts and is contradicted by none. And such a theory is not impossible in the field of evolution.
posted by Gnomon on April 1, 2009Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 4, 2009
The Muddling of Darwinian Evolutions
Coyne, like many other scientists, teachers and the general public, incorrectly treats Evolution as a single absolutely true "theory" or "law" encompassing both Darwin's truly scientific theory of natural selection or adaptation of species and his subsequent speculative or philosophical rumination culminating in his "philogenetic tree". Darwin's latter speculation lacks verifiable experimental suppport that is obviously difficult to acquire or confirm for a random statistical upward "evolution" occurring over a mega millennial time frame. Hence, any "evolution" of species from primordial mud to living species of increasing complexity, while superficially and intuitively obvious, lacks scientific proof demanded of a theory or even an hypothesis. Furthermore, "irreducible complexity", often requiring concurrent events in creation of complex organs occurring at infinitesimally low compound probabilities, also bars upward evolution even among living species. Even Darwin publicly acknowledged that a complex organ like the human eye could not possibly have evolved by his theory. One must conclude that vertical evolution of species, like Creationism and Intelligent Design, thus is a faith-based construct without scientific merit. Lacking the current knowledge of molecular biology and the unfathomable complexity of the genetic code, Darwin's flawed beliefs are excusable. But current scientists, like Professor Coyne, must be faulted for blindly embracing the "non-theory" of mud to man evolution and in indiscriminately muddling the two "evolutionary" theories, one true and the other fatally flawed. As a chemist, I second the opinion of the late Professor Leslie Orgel, a molecular evolutionist, who bluntly stated that any proposed evolutionary theories cannot be based on "if pigs could fly chemistries".
Herman Rutner, M.S. chemistry, retired industrial R&D scientist
5 out of 42 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 18, 2009
Misguided beliefs about Creation have led him to accept Evolution as 'fact'
With their beliefs about Darwinian Evolution as hard scientific fact firmly in tow, most scientists now degrade Creation and show in their defense that they don't even understand it in the first place. Species, weather, climate, motions of planets and galaxies change: that is true. But that does not rule out a Creator. There is so much complexity in the infinite diversity of Life that there is no sound basis for saying that 'blind chance' and random mutations have worked together with 'natural selection' to guide the evolutionary history of life on this planet and all things associated with it. Mr. Coyne has taken his own personal beliefs (or spiritual disbeliefs) and supported them with his academic credentials and scientific jargon to try to force us into believing that Evolution is true and grounded in hard scientific investigation and calculations that have been proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to be true. After reading his book, I am even more convinced in the absurdity of Evolution as I continue to seek the most consistent doctrine to desribe the origin and propogation of species and all Life on this planet and beyond.
0 out of 22 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 3, 2009
If Evolution were true, it would be apparent.
Reading this book is a reminder of the far stretch of the human mind to rationalize desired belief.
0 out of 42 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 1, 2009
No text was provided for this review.