Darwinism Intelligent Design News Peer review

Entomologist surprised his name is included in a retracted anti-Darwin paper

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Further to “Debate!: Tree of life? Forest of life? What about matchwood? (Splinters? Slivers?):

Recently, there was an uproar around a retracted anti-Darwinist paper. With so many retractions out there, this got by us,

The Journal of Biology and Life Science, published by the Macrothink Institute, has retracted a paper that claimed “fossil does not provides [sic] the convincing and direct evidences for evolution,” for reasons that they left to us to figure out.

It struck us as a bit odd that someone like Charles Michener — an award-winning entomologist who wrote the introduction to a 1993 edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species — would co-author a paper like this, so we asked him what had happened. Turns out it struck him as a bit odd, too. He explained:

The paper was submitted with my name as coauthor, even though I had no knowledge of the paper and had never contributed in any way to its writing or ideas. I was completely surprised to find my name as coauthor of a paper about which I knew nothing. My desire is to remove my name as coauthor of a paper to which I had made no contribution. I also requested that my name not be cited as a contributor within the paper. It is probably editor of the journal who wrote of rejection of the paper, not merely the removal of my name as coauthor.

We’ve contacted author Ahad and the journal for more details, and will update with anything we learn.

Good show, bookmarkable Retraction Watch.

That said, we here are surprised that anyone would wish their name to appear on a pro-Darwinist paper. Today, that’s like having your name appear on a pro-phlogiston paper. The live wires just aren’t doing that any more.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

See also: If peer review is working, why all the retractions?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Entomologist surprised his name is included in a retracted anti-Darwin paper

  1. 1
    Axel says:

    It seems an awful long time since I last read the excited cry going up:

    ‘How about that! Isn’t Evolution wonderful? It never ceases to surprise us. That wasn’t something we had really expected/anticipated/countenanced/allowed for/envisaged, envisioned (see Thesaurus); it came right out of left-field….’

    Howmsomever, I haven’t read an article by Cornelius Hunter lately, even one in which I can only recognise a few Anglo-Saxon joining words. He usually keeps us abreast of the latest causes of wonderment to evolutionists.

  2. 2
    sagebrush gardener says:

    I have been waiting with bated breath for my favorite Darwin catchphrase, sheds new light on evolution, to reappear. It is Darwin-speak for “WTF?!” Sadly, it has not reared its silly head for some time.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Here are a few legitimate papers in peer review (by no means a comprehensive list) that readily admit to the ‘problems’ in the fossil record for Darwinists:

    “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
    (James W. Valentine, “Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).)

    MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion – 2009
    Kevin J Peterson, Michael R Dietrich, Mark A McPeek
    Excerpt: Beginning some 555 million years ago the Earth’s biota changed in profound and fundamental ways, going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time. The abruptness of the transition between the ”Precambrian” and the Cambrian was apparent right at the outset of our science with the publication of Murchison’s The Silurian System, a treatise that paradoxically set forth the research agenda for numerous paleontologists — in addition to serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple — as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt.

    Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ”a major mystery,” a ”challenge.” The Theory of Evolution — exploded again (idofcourse.com).

    Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin’s contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume — if Victorian fashion dictated — that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride.
    http://scholar.google.com/cita.....HHmVD_uO8C

    The Cambrian’s Many Forms
    Excerpt: “It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.””From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,”….(Yet Surprisingly)….”There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.” University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the “surprising and unexplained” loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago.
    http://www.terradaily.com/repo.....s_999.html

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes:
    Excerpt: “As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo’s law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible.”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/91.....l.pdf+html

    Here is a paper, though thoroughly honest to the fossil evidence, Darwinists tried to bury (along with the editor who allowed its heretical publication)

    Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
    By: Stephen C. Meyer – 2004
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

    I’m sure many more papers such as these could be found in the appendix of Darwin’s Doubt.

    But along this line, here are many quotes by leading paleontologists on the ‘problematic’ fossil record:

    leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg/edit

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    A less generous interpretation is that someone is trying to stick a metaphorical shiv into Dr. Charles Michener’s reputation.

    Gosh, what an interesting, Machiavellian method for getting rid of your competition! 😉

    Yikes! Expect a rush of YEC papers co-authored by well-entrenched Darwinist professors who gave poor grades to vengeful but “enterprising” students.

    -Q

  5. 5

    “Expect a rush of YEC papers co-authored by well-entrenched Darwinist professors who gave poor grades to vengeful but ‘enterprising’ students.”

    Funny, Querius! That beats my story about a student who spoofed the email address of the most attractive student in a class I was teaching and sent me a suggestive message purportedly from her.

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    LOL! What these bright, creative, and mischievous students will stoop to!

    When I was a student on a field trip to Death Valley, a friend of mine and I circled ahead of the class and planted two bright yellow plastic daffodils on the top of a hill in the direction the group was moving, and then circled back. Then the two professors got close enough to see them, “Holy cow,” said one of the professors and both of them raced up to the top of the hill with us behind them scarcely able to keep from laughing. “Dr.—-,” we said, “You should know there are no daffodils in Death Valley.”

    Why professors come to hate some students . . . 😉

    -Q

Leave a Reply