Read an amazing book that truly deserves attention and debate. A very interesting shakeup of the foundations of evolution using the facts and figures from Darwin himself. I would love people’s original comments about this book after they have finished reading.
Amazon.com
so is the book in forwarding the idea of ionoclasm as you infer, then i dont see the purpose in purchasing it…we already debate those things daily on these forums.
1 Like
Here is a breakdown of what the book offers. It gives an in-depth take on Darwin, not something merely superficial.
The document “ATHEISM v REAL JUDAISM: The Non-faith Religion – A Judicial Review, Book Three: MUTATION: SCHMUTATION,” authored by David M. Sands MA(Oxon) and first published in 2023, sets out to conduct a judicial review of the evolutionary theory, particularly the concept of mutation (often termed “Schmutation”). The author describes the belief in evolution as a “world faith” that is stunningly nonsensical, obstinate, and based on misinformation, resulting in a narrow, vicious, elitist, and bigoted regime.
The Case Against Beneficial Mutation
The core argument hinges on refuting mutation using non-faith-based evidence, particularly rigorous scientific and mathematical scrutiny. The author posits two “irrefutable facts” that “all scientists agree” upon, arrived at through impartial, judicial logic and reason:
1. Fact One (Lack of Evidence): All scientists agree that there never ever has been found one single beneficial mutation, as defined by evolutionists, in one single gene of any living organism—never mind the billions upon billions required for evolution.
2. Fact Two (Probability): All scientists agree that the Law of Probability rules that mutation is impossible. Mathematically, mutation is completely impossible. The probability of existence resulting from mutation is billions of times less likely than having walked on the moon.
The source insists that this mathematical impossibility, involving linked dependent consecutive events (where trillions of random choices must occur in a specific, beneficial order), shatters the theory. The odds against this occurring are beyond expression, rendering the idea of mutation a “miracle”.
Furthermore, the natural tendency toward disorder (entropy), governed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, destroys the myth of increasing order and functionality through mutation.
The Collapse of Deep Time
The source argues that evolutionists can no longer rely on vague, untold eons (“Deep Time”) to allow for mutations. Secular radiometric dating, while lauded for its accuracy, proves that life has been around for only about 4 billion years, a time frame mathematically insufficient even to begin mutation. Moreover, the idea of a “Cambrian Explosion,” where the greatest surge of mutation occurred within a mere “25 million years,” is described as “suicidal insanity” for Darwinian terms, forcing evolutionists to invent the fantasy of “Rapid Mutation”.
Compounding the problem are findings by leading atheist scientists, such as Sir Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, who conclude that the odds of a universe conducive to life existing are too small to write down (accuracy of one part in 10^{10^{123}}).
The Critique of Charles Darwin
The author harshly scrutinizes Charles Darwin, labeling him the “Deluded Deity”. The focus is placed on Darwin’s later work, The Descent of Man (1870), which he regarded as his final message. This book is branded a “Nazi Tract”:
• Racial Elitism and Eugenics: Darwin predicted that “the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,” expressing hope that the break would intervene between Caucasians (and more civilised states) and “the negro or Australian and the gorilla”. This philosophy promoted “racial elitism”.
• Misogyny: Darwin asserted that the qualities of women “are characteristic of the lower races,” and that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of women”.
• Justification for Morality: Darwin viewed humanitarian aid and sympathy for the helpless not as a moral good in itself, but as an “incidental result of the instinct of sympathy,” necessary only to prevent the “deterioration in the noblest part of our nature” (the continuation of the elite’s superiority).
• Plagiarism: Darwin’s great contribution is dismissed as “open, blatant plagiarism,” borrowing ideas from his grandfather Erasmus, Lamarck, and others.
The book stresses that Darwin’s entire edifice is hidden within the full title of his 1859 work: “On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.
Refutation of Evolutionary “Witnesses”
The text systematically dismantles common examples used to support mutation, claiming that all are better explained by non-Darwinian, common-sense causes, and demonstrate only reversible adaptation within an innate template.
• Finches, Lizards, and Mice: The famed Galápagos finches, Italian wall lizards, and Rock Pocket mice are cited as examples of mere adaptation, where traits already present in the genetic template were exaggerated or suppressed due to environmental selection. The changes were temporary and reverted when conditions changed or interbred with original types.
• Bacteria and Viruses: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not mutation, but the survival of naturally immune strains that then proliferate rapidly in the absence of competition. Experiments proved that resistant colonies existed before exposure to antibiotics. COVID-19 and other viruses, which are non-living organisms, mutate through replication errors, but this does not support beneficial evolutionary mutation in living things.
• Whales: The whale’s alleged evolution from a small land mammal is rejected, especially given the insufficient time frame proved by radiometric dating. The concept of the “migrating blowhole” is contradicted by the anatomy of modern sperm whales, whose blowhole location is entirely unaligned with the skull’s narial aperture, proving the fossil sequence models are based on speculation.
• “Missing Links” (Ardi, Lucy, Ida): Claims about hominid fossils like Lucy and Ardi being missing links are dismissed, noting they are often composite reconstructions based on pulverized fragments. For instance, Ardi’s pelvis, crucial to claims of bipedalism, is highly contested, and she was likely nothing more than a small ground and tree primate. Ida Darwinius, hailed as the “eighth wonder of the world” in 2009, was quickly demoted to a primitive lemur.
Consequences: Amoral Elitism
The author concludes that the evidential failure of mutation leaves atheism without a rational foundation, forcing adherents into a complex, contradictory system of “amoral elitism”. Mutation acts as the central pillar for atheists, providing an answer to the complexity of life, thus replacing the need for a Creator.
This secular world is afflicted by post-Christian expectations, where people demand “happy endings,” altruism, and justice, despite adhering to Darwin’s amoral law of survival of the fittest. This results in a “woolly sense of right and wrong” that is constantly shaped by fashion and acceptability. The ultimate consequence of evolution is the justification of any behavior, provided “we” decide its limits.
This system is contrasted with Real Judaism, which is claimed to be judicially proven beyond any reasonable doubt by non-Jewish evidence (including archaeology, history, and the Law of Probability). Real Judaism provides a morality rooted in the Sinai command, which is immune to human foibles and fashion, requiring “trust” in Divine wisdom rather than relying on transient human emotions or desires for immediate temporal rewards.
That’s easily proven false. Lactase persistence in humans (the mutations that allow us to digest lactose past weening age) is one of the most strongly selected beneficial mutations in the human population today. There are at least 6 different mutations that confer this beneficial phenotype and they follow historic population patterns.
Another example are the mutations responsible for black coloration in rock pocket mice which is extremely beneficial and strongly selected for.
If your reference is claiming there are no known beneficial mutations, then your reference can be thrown in the trash. It takes a level of denial that Flat Earthers would be jealous of.
And yet every human is born with about 70 mutations.
At this point, the rest isn’t even worth reading through. If your reference gets basic facts wrong . . . well.
11 Likes
In that case, the author is woefully ignorant, delusional, or lying, as they are both completely wrong.
Lactose tolerance in a lot of humans is a beneficial mutation. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a beneficial mutation. Hosts of others could be found if I worked in relevant fields more. Those have happened multiple times in populations still alive today.
The probability of mutations occurring is 1–they happen all the time. The probability of a randomly chosen other person having the exact set of mutations that I have relative to my parents is less than 1 in a trillion, but the probability of some set of a bunch of mutations is 1.
That ignores a major factor–how many different options still work? Given that there are probably about as many 28S sequences as eukaryotes, and that that gene not functioning would kill any of them, multiple genetic changes can achieve the same end.
This ignores more major factors, most obviously that neither the biosphere nor any organism is a closed system. Also, given that there was increasing order and functionality in the process of every single human developing, this doesn’t work as an argument against evolution.
Whatever math is being done to get that is completely wrong.
What “fantasy”? It’s observed. Also, it’s not as explosive as a lot of popular sources portray–it’s more like 70million years, and most of the forms appearing are decidedly basal within their phyla.
That’s the entirely separate issue of fine tuning, which is irrelevant to evolution.
Adaptation is a form of evolution.
That’s either just wrong or a lie.
Lucy is not pulverized fragments.
Overall, this is just rehashing some of the same bad anti-evolution arguments as have been rebutted over and over and over again, along with a bunch of nonsensical to obviously wrong claims about probability and mutations. The sole fruit of this work is to completely destroy the credibility of the author.
10 Likes
In an attempt to make this thread somewhat edifying, here’s a good paper on the effect of mutation rates and sexual recombination on adaptation to antibiotics and glycerol in E. coli:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02323-4
The authors track specific mutations that spontaneously appear in the population and confer adaptation to glycerol and antibiotics. They were able to show that both an increased mutation rate and sexual recombination increase the rate of adaptation.
2 Likes
It always amazes me that scientists can compare a simple adjustent in tollerance or colour to the creation of a brand new Limb or organ.
The scope of the changes observed on Galapagos and the scope needed to achieve evolution are so mind boggling apart but appaerently taken for granted as both plausible and achieved.
(But that would be either common sense or incredulity, niether of which have any place in science)
.
Just in passing.
Richard
Which scientists are doing this? References? Quotes?
Which scientists are taking this for granted? References? Quotes?
6 Likes
Reading the summary of this book makes me think we should move it to the humor thread, as it is so laughable.
I do wonder why so many critics get hung up on what Darwin said or thought. He did draw some good conclusions based on observations and the limited science of the era, but indeed was a man on his time and place, and his thoughts while perhaps the first published on the topic, are really not important in evolutionary science today except to historians and makers of strawmen.
12 Likes
Are you serious?
Richard
Your avoidance of the question is quite telling.
4 Likes
I do not answer stupid questions.
If you fail to understand then you need to go back and brush up on basic evolutionary theory. I guess Darwin started it, but if you really think there is a specific sceintist to quote you are off your rocker.
Richard
Again, your inability to answer the question is quite telling. You are misrepresenting what scientists are saying, and when you are asked to back up your accusations you are completely incapable of doing so.
5 Likes
I repeat
And I am not going to continue this ridiculous exchange
Go and bother someone else
Richard
You accuse scientists of saying things they have never said, and when called out on it you are the victim. Got it.
6 Likes
I wonder if this book is AI generated? I hear there is a flood of “self published” rapidly generated AI slop being marketed on Amazon and elsewhere these days.
6 Likes
You are wrong, but I am not even supposed to say that,.
The whole of evolutionary theory comes from Darwin’s observations. He did not witness a bone being created for the first time. Go figure.
If you can’t then you are a fraud.
Richard
Of course scientists can compare a single mutation with developing a new limb. The question is what does the comparison reveal. How similar or different are they?
What is involved in developing limbs from a non-limbed ancestor? For example, from a jawless fish without paired fins to an amphibian. If we compare living lamprey or hagfish to bony fish and to amphibians, we find that, as in all known organisms, the difference traces back to differences in the DNA. The way the DNA works is the same. Animals develop from a fertilized egg following the directions in the DNA. So in principle the difference between them is a whole bunch of mutations. How likely they are is another, and complicated, question.
Comparing both the DNA and the anatomical features, we see a lot of similarities between jawless fish and bony fish or amphibians. They are more similar to each other than any of them are to lancelets and sea squirts. In turn, those show more similarities to the vertebrates than to other invertebrates. Many of the similarities do not have any evident functional connection. For example, animal mitochondria largely all work the same way. As long as the DNA codes for functional products, there’s no need for the similarities to show consistent patterns. But they do match with the similarities seen in other, unrelated features like early developmental patterns.
In the fossil record, we see a gradual progression. The earliest fish have no paired fins. Later, some have a ridge along the side of the body. Then some have simple paired fins. The sarcopterygians develop a stalk to the fins, with bones supporting the stalk. Some develop toes, presumably useful in pushing through underwater obstacles and perhaps scooting across mud. Independent development of limb-like fins is also seen in batfish and in mudskippers.
So it’s not just saying “wolves can be turned into shi tzus, so bacteria can be turned into humans.” It’s a matter of building up data and testing ideas over centuries to see what ideas hold up well and which don’t.
That does not mean that we have every detail correct. Is Tiktaalik a direct ancestor of amphibians? Probably it’s actually a cousin of some sort instead. But it does give a picture of the types of features that were present in some of the fish at that time, which were trending in the direction of amphibians.
Probabilites are problematic. We do not know how many different ways there are to code “make a leg” in DNA, nor how many potential alternatives to DNA for coding might exist. Legs have been useful for most vertebrates and arthropods, but plenty of other things do fine without. Evolution is not somehow trying to make legs. If it happens to make them and they work, then the organisms with them survive.
That doesn’t mean that God didn’t have it all planned out, nor that He didn’t guide each step. But evolution is nothing more than a biological pattern and has no goals of its own.
Common sense is useful, as is incredulity. But neither is infallible, nor are they good as proofs. Is the incredulity based on thorough knowledge, or just on superficial impressions?
7 Likes
Maybe you are not comparing what i am comparing.
That would be stating the obvious.
But is it a small difference or a big one? It is all very well to compare the simlarities but it is not the similarities that make the difference.
“Inventing” a new cell type? How can a singlle deviation invent a new cell type? How can Nature just “invent” anything?
It would seem that science looks at DNA with no real understanding about what it means. How can a change in DNA suddenly invent or even change something? Is this not more crucial than comparisons?
When I talk about “scope” it seems to draw blank faces. As if it is a foreign or unknown principle, yet to me it is the basis of everything.
What is the point in comparing similarities if there is no route from one to the other?
You have one dinosaur with feather, another with a big sturnum, another with honeycomb bones, and so one. How do you merge them? You can only merge any two creatures at any one time and there is no obvious reason ever to cross breed! Creatures breed within their groups.
Evolutionary science is so obsessed with proving heredity that it seems to have ignored the mechanics of getting there.
Humans are 98% the same as Chimps, but that still leaves several hundred or more differences! That is some “jump” or dare I swear “Gap!”
The scope of evolutionary change means how much difference one change makes. “small” is just a little vague!
Going back to the cartigelanous fish:
If there is only one new bone cell that would be considered a cancer, And if that one bone cell grew it would be considered a malignant cancer. But how else could bones have been created?
Perhaps its just as well there were no human vets around at the time!
Do you see where I am coming from and or going with this?
(Or will it be dismissed as ignorant!)
Richard
1 Like