Does the theory of evolution need updating?

The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution by Lee Spetner, Judaica Press, Brooklyn, NY; ISBN 978-1-60763-155-2 ©2014, $17.95, p. 145, plus references and index

By Fred Reiss, Ed.D.

WINCHESTER, California –Showing that common descent, the belief that all of life has a universal ancestor, first proposed by Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis in the mid-eighteenth century and promulgated by Charles Darwin nearly a century later, is not an established theory is the primary purpose of scientist/engineer Lee Spetner’s book The Evolution Revolution. Rejecting common descent is equivalent to rejecting the theory of evolution, also known as Darwinism, since the biological mechanisms proposed by common descent are the same as evolution: random changes in DNA and natural selection.

Spetner wants to replace Darwinism (actually a more modern form of Darwinism called Neo-Darwinian Theory, which is classical Darwinism combined with the modern science of genetics) with another theory, one that he proposed back in 1996, the Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis (NREH). NREH is a theory attempting to explain life’s rapid adaptation, which cannot be explained by Neo-Darwinian Theory, as Neo-Darwinism predicts that evolutionary changes take place over long periods of time.

According to NREH, “Plants and animals appear to have a built-in capability to change in response to an environmental input.” That is, some innate capability activates genetic modifications leading to rapid changes in observable behavior, morphology, activities, performance, and so forth. Most important is that these changes can be inherited. Spetner relies on epigenetics, genetic changes not caused by modifications to the sequencing of DNA, as the mechanism for rapid adaptation.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) proposed that an organism can pass on to its offspring traits that it acquired during its lifetime. By and large Lamarckism became discredited in the face of Darwinism, but epigenetics is reviving Lamarckism as biological studies are showing that there is evidence for an environmentally-dependent epigenetic-control system engendering evolutionary changes and confirming that epigenetic inheritance is possible. All this lends credence to Spetner’s theory.

Spetner’s greatest objection to the suggestion that all life developed from a common ancestor is the Darwinian idea of abiogenesis, the process of life naturally arising from non-living matter. (Think of Miller’s 1953 experiment in which he placed the inorganic materials methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water in the presence of an electric spark, resulting in the formation of amino acid, which is organic.) He argues that there is an extremely low probability of nucleotides spontaneously forming into “information-bearing chains of DNA found in living organisms rather than into chains of nonsense.” It falls on Darwinists, he argues, to show how simple organic cells form and how complexity emerges from the simple primitive cells.

Terrestrial abiogenesis is not the only theory with which creationist must defend against. Another is panspermia theory, which says that organic molecules did not originate on planets such as earth, but on interstellar objects, like comets and meteors, many of which crashed into planets, spawning life. Support is building that this theory is a very real possibility.

An entire chapter is set aside to describe the “false arguments for evolution.” These include the falsity of: (1) the phylogenic tree, the so-called “tree of life,” which pictures common descent in each phylum; (2) transposons, so called “jumping genes,” when used to estimate phylogenity and the veracity of the “tree of  life”; (3) geographical distribution of plants and animals; and (4) fossils.

In particular, Spetner cites Rabbi Israel Lifshitz, a mid-nineteenth century rabbi and author of books on rabbinical astronomy, the eternity of the soul, and the age of the universe by quoting passages from the Talmud and kabbalistic texts suggested by Lifshitz. These quotes purportedly show the bogus interpretation of fossil evidence. I find the use of rabbinic authority misleading. Although it contains snippets of science information scattered throughout, the Talmud is not a science book and the rabbis are not scientists. For example, the rabbis declare their belief in astrology (Sabbath 156a-b) and assert that during the day the sun moves below the sky and at night above the sky, and therefore cannot be seen (Pesachim 94b).

If Spetner is correct and there is no common descent, then how did we get here? Do we have a developmental path independent of other species? Were we formed whole at some point in the past? In The Evolution Revolution, creationism is the proverbial elephant in the room. Spetner not only uses Judaism to attack evolution, which traditionally accepts the Book of Genesis as the word of God, but specifically raises the question of why creation, as described in the Hebrew Bible, must be ruled out as a legitimate explanation.

His assertion that evolution is counterintuitive is perplexing, since systems engineers have long shown that at least some of the outcomes of complex adaptive systems, such as living organisms, are counterintuitive. In addition, complex adaptive systems display emergent properties. Nowhere does he assert that life itself might be an emergent property of the laws of physics and biochemistry, even though circumstantial evidence exists that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, can spontaneously form.

Spetner rejects evolution being the grand scheme that it purports to be, analogous to the overthrow of the geocentric model of the universe (everything revolves around the earth, which lies in the center) by the heliocentric model (everything revolves around the sun, which lies in the center) because unlike the heliocentric model, evolution lacks predictive equations. However, Spetner ignores that more than a century passed between the heliocentric model, proposed by Copernicus in 1543, and the publication of Newton’s Laws of Motion, and it wasn’t until 1838 that Friedrich Bessel measured stellar parallax, actually proving the heliocentric theory.

In The Evolution Revolution, Spetner successfully shows to both scientist and lay reader that Darwinism is not complete. Yet, I feel as though I am witnessing a sleight-of-hand, in that The Evolution Revolution places NREH in opposition to evolution. However, his arguments are not convincing. Neither theory can scientifically explain the origin of life. Neither theory can fully explain the evolution of life. Neither theory has laws and mathematical formulae for making predictions.

It seems that the distinction ought to be between creationism and some form of evolution theory, as both cannot be true. Unfortunately for the creationist, religion has a very, very poor track record against science. For science, knowledge is always tentative and so scientists are willing to revise even their most cherished theories. Not so for the predominant western religions, which have a record of burning dissenters and heretics at the stake, among other types of cruel and unusual punishments. If history is a guide, evolution, common descent, and NREH are likely part of the correct answers to the questions: How did life begin? How does life evolve?

The Evolution Revolution is a thought-provoking book regardless of which side of the argument you fall.

*

Dr. Fred Reiss is a retired public and Hebrew school teacher and administrator. He is the author of The Standard Guide to the Jewish and Civil Calendars;  Ancient Secrets of Creation: Sepher Yetzira, the Book that Started Kabbalah, Revealed; and a fiction book, Reclaiming the Messiah. The author can be reached via fred.reiss@sdjewishworld.com.