A Springer journal has published a creationist paper

7 Replies to “A Springer journal has published a creationist paper”

1. 1
   Ed George says:

   December 18, 2018 at 1:58 pm

   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.
2. 2
   vmahuna says:

   December 18, 2018 at 2:54 pm

   “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.
3. 3
   aarceng says:

   December 18, 2018 at 4:14 pm

   How about “Post-Diluvial Speciation via Darwinian Evolution”.

   That should tick off the reference to Darwin criteria.
4. 4
   bornagain77 says:

   December 18, 2018 at 5:57 pm

   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/pm.....MC4573302/

   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

   Verse:

   1 Thessalonians 5:21
   Test all things; hold fast what is good.
5. 5
   Mung says:

   December 19, 2018 at 8:53 am

   Time for a good old fashioned witch hunt!
6. 6
   ayearningforpublius says:

   December 19, 2018 at 11:24 am

   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.
7. 7
   redwave says:

   December 21, 2018 at 8:07 am

   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/