Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Springer journal has published a creationist paper

arroba Email

And Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution Is True, is, needless to say, upset:

Googling the title of the paper below so I could find it on the Internet, I see that at least one evolutionary-biology website has posted about it. I’m not going to read what it said until after I post this, as I don’t want to repeat its ideas. But if you have the stomach, have a look at the paper below, published in Springer’s International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, which I assume is a fairly respectable journal as it’s published by the money-hungry but scientifically credible Springer firm.Jerry Coyne, “Creationist paper gets into a Springer journal” at Why Evolution Is True

Here’s the Abstract:

Abstract: here is a consensus among evolutionists today that man first appeared in Africa approximately four million years ago. Others counter this theory saying, “… when shall we speak of man as man”? The timeline they give is approximately one million years and to fully understand one million years is still a difficult task.

However, another even better way to understand time and man is to study it in terms of generations. So, keeping in mind that primitive people married and had children early, twenty years will make an average generation. According to this there would be 50,000 generations in a million years. Keeping this in mind if we calculate generations we find that 250 generations back take us to the time when written history began. While, another 250 generations back would take us to the time (10,000 years ago), when cultivation began, and man started settled life. Now we are left with 49,500 generations of men, plus a time span of 990,000 years. Keeping these statistics in mind let us ask the question once more, when should we speak of man as man?

Therefore, this paper attempts not only to understand the timeframe “when we can really call Man? – Man” in light of the so-called history of human evolution but also to understand that if the specie roaming the earth for a million years was truly man’s ancestor, as is claimed by Charles Darwin. Then what took man’s ancestor so long to show signs of development that we only witness in the last 12000 years.

Moreover, while keeping man’s progress under consideration of the last 12000 years, it will further shed light on why there are serious reservations about Charles Darwin theory of human evolution. As many scientists, evolutionists, archeologist and different religious scriptures strongly claim that man came to the earth fully developed and did not evolve from a lesser specie. (open access) Umer, S. Int. j. anthropol. ethnol. (2018) 2: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-018-0014-2 More.

The author, Sarah Umer, is Charles Wallace Pakistan Trust Visiting Fellowship at SOAS (recipient: 2016-2017) and her Phd is from Lahore College for Women University, Pakistan, according to the South Asia Institute at the University of London. 

Coyne links to the critique at Filthy Monkey Men and asks others to join him in writing to Springer to complain about “Umer’s misstatments and lies”. We’d recommend finding out a little more first.

It’s a good question, though, if we end universalism in science (and that’s all the rage), why creationism in an anthropology and ethnology journal doesn’t follow. Who is Jerry Coyne to say they can’t do that?

What if they published Native American creationism, as propounded by the late Vine Deloria, Jr.?  People who don’t believe in universalism will need to think of an alternative answer for that. 

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Ending universalism in science: What will it mean? Wait till IPBES hears from the past lives people, demanding respect for their perspective. The term “We were all one-celled creatures once” could take on an entirely new meaning.

Science journal embraces reincarnation research in support of transgender ideology Readers, can you offer “sciencey” suggestions for making reincarnation a part of science? Bring in Darwinism as much as you can; that’s sure to sell it. Just think: Soon, the new “anti-science” will mean not believing in past lives.


The perfect storm: Darwinists meet the progressive “evolution deniers” — and cringe… Double down cringe…

When one looks deeper into the Journal's background and stakeholders, one can make inferences about why Mr. Jerry Coyne is of little to no concern for the Journal: International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology ISSN: 2366-1003 (electronic version) Journal no. 41257 (https://www.springer.com/social+sciences/anthropology+%26+archaeology/journal/41257?detailsPage=editorialBoard) About this journal International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology is an open access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. It considers articles in the fields of Anthropology and Ethnology, concerning theory, policy and practice. It welcomes original research papers, conference summaries, academic interviews, academic debates, research synthesis, fieldwork reports and book reviews. It aims to introduce achievements representing the highest level of anthropological and ethnological studies around the world (not only in China or Asia); promote academic exchanges between western and non-western circles; facilitate dialogues and interactions about the global or regional hot topics; build a platform for communications within the international research communities of anthropology and ethnology. Abstracted/Indexed in Google Scholar, CNKI, DOAJ, EBSCO Discovery Service, EBSCO TOC Premier, OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service, ProQuest-ExLibris Primo, ProQuest-ExLibris Summon Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief Yanzhong Wang, The Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, CASS, China Associate Editors-in-Chief Jun Jing, Tsinghua University Beijing, China Hubin Yin, The Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, CASS, China Jijiao Zhang, The Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, CASS, China Managing Editor Wei Jiang, The Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, CASS, China Editors Zhen Liu, The Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, CASS, China Tong Wang, The Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, CASS, China ------------------------- The article of concern, A brief history of human evolution: challenging Darwin’s claim, does not support American hegemony over science. This is not the first time China has come into conflict with America over scientific matters. "Shì shéi Jerry Coyne?" Nearly three years ago we met this conflict at the doors of another journal: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/07/hand-of-god-scientific-plos-one-anatomy-paper-citing-a-creator-retracted-after-furore Or in 2017, " ... Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”" https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/in-china-we-can-criticize-darwin-continued/ redwave
Know this: Coyne is very quick to delete any comment that is contrary to his world view on the subject of evolution/Intelligent Design or block those like myself that offer contrary evidence. Either he fears some of his followers will defect, or perhaps he is afraid that he himself might develop second thoughts on "Why Evolution is True" I've offered up the series by Dr. Howard Glicksman as compelling evidence of design in the human body, but my comments never make it to the comments section. He would like to see the same treatment continued across the board - not an honest man, more of a professional atheist than any kind of scientist. ayearningforpublius
Time for a good old fashioned witch hunt! Mung
My oh my,,,,
A brief history of human evolution: challenging Darwin’s claim - Oct. 2018 Excerpt from conclusion: “What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilies), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.”(Gould 1976) This claim was also backed by Lord Solly Zuckerman, who studied Australopithecus fossils for fifteen years, finally concluded that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man. He also formed a ‘spectrum of science’, in which sciences ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific were put together. According to him, the most scientific, that is, depending on the concrete data-fields are chemistry and physics. After these are the biological sciences and then the social sciences. The most unscientific sciences which are at the far end of the spectrum include the extra-sensory perception, telepathy, sixth sense and finally human evolution. He explains this formation; “We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man’s fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible – and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.”(Zuckerman 1970a, b) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41257-018-0014-2
Ouch,,, to repeat,,,
"The most unscientific sciences which are at the far end of the spectrum include the extra-sensory perception, telepathy, sixth sense and finally human evolution."
And I really don't know what Coyne is griping about, he himself said pretty much exactly the same thing about the entire theory of evolution in general in 2000,,,
“In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic, April 3, 2000 p.27
Perhaps if she would have quoted Coyne saying that evolution is basically unscientific, he might not have been so upset with her paper? :) Of related interest, if anyone does not trust her analysis, in her paper, of the purported fossil evidence for human evolution, Dr Sanford spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on the purported fossil evidence for human evolution and also found it wanting,,,
Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? - Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils. We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis). We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume. We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,, We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities. https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/ Here is a video playlist by Dr. Paul Giem reviewing John Sanford’s book “Contested Bones” chapter by chapter. “Contested Bones” review by Paul Giem – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm
Of related interest, perhaps Coyne wants to also try to censor this paper that Dr. Sanford had published in Springer. A paper which, (when realistic rates of detrimental mutations were included), falsified "Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase".
The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x
Dang, Coyne having his own mathematics turned against him to falsify his theory.,,, Double OUCH!!! Or perhaps Coyne wants to also try to censor this following paper which appeared in the National Institutes of Health journal:
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
Or perhaps Coyne wants to also dictate to the National Institute of Health who can they allow to speak at their conferences, since Dr. Sanford delivered a devastating lecture against the feasibility of human evolution at one of their recent conferences:
NIH Presentation – Mutation Accumulation: Is it a Serious Health Risk? - Dr John Sanford - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqIjnol9uh8
Thus in conclusion, as far a real science is concerned, (since Darwinists, such a Coyne, refuse to ever accept any valid criticism of their theory, much less outright falsification of their theory, but instead try to intimidate and silence anyone who dares question their theory), then that is yet more proof that, when it comes to Darwinian evolution, we are in fact not dealing with a normal testable science in any sense of the term 'testable science, but are instead dealing with a pseudo-scientific religion that refuses to have its beliefs and faith questioned. Of related note to the 'religion' of Darwinism:
A Darwinian Pilgrimage - Michael Egnor - August 10, 2018 Excerpt: I despise Darwinism. It is, in my view, an utterly worthless scientific concept promulgated by a third-rate barnacle collector and hypochondriac to justify functional, if not explicit, atheism.,,, Darwin’s “theory” is completely worthless to science, a degradation of philosophy, and lethal to culture. The salient influence of Darwinian worship is not on science, but on ethics. With the Origin of Species and Descent of Man, vindication of the strong and eradication of the weak was, for the first time in history, given a scientific imprimatur.,,, The only thing left out of the Darwinian pilgrimage to Oxford is Golgotha. That requires a separate trip to southern Poland (concentration camps), to understand the sacrifice Darwinism demanded, and still demands, of us. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/a-darwinian-pilgrimage/
One final note on just how unscientific Darwin's theory actually is when examined in detail:
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
How about "Post-Diluvial Speciation via Darwinian Evolution". That should tick off the reference to Darwin criteria. aarceng
"Now we are left with 49,500 generations of men, plus a time span of 990,000 years. Keeping these statistics in mind let us ask the question once more, when should we speak of man as man?" Um, if modern humans could interbreed with them and produce viable offspring, they were "man". Culture is ENTIRELY secondary, and isolated cultures NEVER developed or USED bits of technology or culture (such as marriage) in anything approaching the same millennium. Cultures arising in the East Mediterranean had the great advantage of sharing advances with neighbors, but folks in Australia, etc., had NOBODY to share with and consequently developed only those bits of culture and technology absolutely necessary for survival. But they were all still fully human individuals. And again, whenever modern (post 1400 AD) humans encountered "primitive" humans in the midst of the oceans and at the ends of the Earth, those humans already believed in God, immortal souls, and an afterlife for our souls. They just hadn't documented any deep philosophical explanations like those of Aristotle, etc. Belief in God is the oldest piece of human culture. vmahuna
I haven't read it yet so I won't comment on the veracity of the paper but you can bet that critics will harp on the fact that she works in the Department of Visual Arts & Graphic Design, Institute of Visual Arts & Design, and not in a biology department. I look forward to reading the reviews and comments on this paper by biologists and paleontologists. It is nice to see ID getting published in peer-reviewed journals. Ed George

Leave a Reply