Yes, it surely does. It reeks.
I completely missed this article — no surprise, it seems everyone did — titled “Fossils Evidences (Paleontology) Opposite to Darwin’s Theory,” by Md. Abdul Ahad and Charles D. Michener, in the Journal of Biology and Life Science, and now you can’t read it because the journal retracted it and deleted it.
The first sign that something might be off in this paper is the title. “Fossils Evidences (Paleontology) Opposite to Darwin’s Theory”? Seriously? No one even stopped to notice how ungrammatical it was?
And then there’s the abstract.
Darwin‟s Theory is a central theme of biology and all theories of evolution. Paleontology, the study of fossils provide convincing and the direct evidences for evolution. Save for, if the organisms of same class arise from the same ancestor as Darwin opine; fossil record should provides a series of fossil from the progressive to older deposits, that show stage of intermediate between specialized modern (existing) living organism, but no so found at all. Nevertheless, silicafied wood is a familiar example of plant fossils. Invertebrates have no hard parts, so, they are rarely form fossils but few insects found in amber as fossils. The entire vertebrate fossils are fragmentary bones. For example fossil of dinosaurs are thigh bone, arm bone, teeth, footprints, track, bite etc., and fossils of ancestors of human are skull fragments, teeth, jaws etc. Even these fossils are negligible amount and are not found in the original form but are moulds, casts, compression, impression, etc. The only unchanged fossil is the Woolly mammoth. Furthermore, transitional fossil is absent; claimed transitional fossils of Archaeopteryx and Seymouria are not transitional, they are true bird and true reptile, respectively. Obtain fossil are of fossil of present day organisms or are fossil of extinct organisms, which may form during a universal flood. Fossil evidences prove that humans have not evolve/descent from monkey lower animal. Even Darwin himself agreed in the “Descent of man‟ that origin of human cannot explain by science. Co-discoverer of natural selection Alfred Russel Wallace never believes that human is evolved from lower animal. Moreover, estimation of age of fossil, age of earth by radiometric method and preparation of geological time table (scale) is imaginary as it overlooks 3.5 billion year. Extinction of living organism never produce any new species, if produce, no need of biodiversity conservation convention to prevent extinction. Living fossils prove that there is no evolutionary relationship between fossils and existing organisms. The fathers of modern paleontology and geology opposed evolution. Consequently, paleontology does not provide convincing, strongest, verified, and direct evidences for evolution as well as fossils evidences are opposite to Darwin‟s Theory. Moreover, the scientists of the most countries except a few have no facility to work with fossils; due to lack of technologies even they have no chance to see the fossils too. That is why the evolutionists as well as paleontologists cunningly have shown the fossils as the direct evidences of organic evolution. Darwin stated that if the geological record be perfect then the main objection of his theory natural selection will be greatly dismissed or disappears and he, who rejects these views on the nature of geological record, would rightly reject his whole theory.
Why, that’s nothing but stock creationist assertions, all presented in fractured English in a hodge-podge fashion. It makes absolutely no sense…but it got published.
I kind of suspect that the Journal of Biology and Life Science has an amazingly slackworthy process of review in place. In fact, I dare say the review process probably involves paying the $100 submission fee, and nothing more.
But wait! There’s more! The authors on that paper are Ahad and Michener. Michener is actually a respected entomologist at the University of Kansas — and he was totally surprised to learn that his name was on a retracted paper, since he’d never seen it, contributed nothing to it, and didn’t even know it existed.
So that’s how you publish a creationist paper: find a journal that will take your money and not even bother to proofread, and then just to add that extra veneer of contemptible dishonesty, use a real scientists name as a co-author.
Me not know Bizarro write technical paper, me so sad I can laugh.
There are secular arguments for taking the process of peer review and giving it a big ol’ noogie. Why are you so opposed to gaining allies that you’ll harsh on creationists just because they don’t toe the evolutionist line?
Sorry, hit submit too soon. Feel free to shoehorn ‘political correctness’ anywhere you like in the above comment.
Holy crap!
Charles D. Michener is 95 and STILL publishing.
That’s quite astounding.
As a bee specialist myself, I am appalled that the great and massively respected Charles Michener’s name has been hijacked by a dishonest knownothing. I am only too familiar with the tactic of using respectable scientists as cover for dishonesty, either by acknowledging their (non-existent) help, or by bunging them on the list of co-authors without their knowledge. The effort required to get a retraction is mind-boggling tedious
Anthony K: if you are thinking about the Sokal hoax, I agree, that was a splendid effort. But it didn’t involve lying about the authorship of a paper. That strikes me as a step too far.
No, I wasn’t necessarily. Unlike others here, I haven’t drunk the “STEM fields are the only real sciences, woo-hoo!” Kool-Aid.
But as skeptics, nothing should be beyond endless, fruitless discussion. Let’s take up this whole thread to talk about the pros and cons of simply adding whoever the fuck you want to scientific papers.
Huh? You think I have that attitude?
I thought that perhaps someone hit “SEND” a week too soon on an April Fool’s joke….
No, but some here definitely do, and it’s by no means rare in the skepticoatheosphere. I just meant to head that off.
PZ:
I believe that was directed at a regular member of the commentariat, noted for crankiness, contrariness, and Vulcanness. Could be wrong, of course.
You think I’d stoop to that? Especially in the first few comments of a thread? Perish the thought.
(Besides, there’s a certain subfield of psychology, not a STEM field, that a regular member of the commentariat, noted for crankiness, contrariness, and Vulcanness, loves very much, like a Jack Russell terrier does a shin.)
Wrong. Invertebrates leave casts all the time. And a lot of them have “hard parts”.
“Vertebrate fossils are often composed of the collective components of said vertebrate organism’s skeleton”. Why does the author appear to find this confusing?
I can’t be bothered to wade through the rest of that broken English. It’s entirely possible that English isn’t the author’s first language (likely, given the extent to which their English is broken), but why on earth did they not acknowledge their lack of linguistic skill and publish in their first language?
Charles Michner also had a foray into Lepidopterology with his “The Saturniidae of the western hemisphere.” Now, 64 years later, this is still a work to be consulted. Sad to see a great name sullied. Pleased that the Journal of Biology- which perhaps needs to cease publication, at least retracted and deleated the aspurious article
A few paragraphs in that quoted wall of text would’ve been nice though.
“The only unchanged fossil is the Woolly mammoth. ”
What does that mean? If you’re going to base your argument on falsehoods, at least piece them together into a coherent argument.
How do you know Michener didn’t contribute to the paper? Were you there?
Crap. I usually read Pharyngula while taking a break from work. Appropriate break time snacks are part of the ritual. My snack time is ruined by this crap.
It’s a universal effing flood of grammatical, factual, and logic errors.
Maybe some of the Commentariat already mentioned this. “Evidences” used to be a perfectly valid plural, certainly in the 19th century, and still in creationist (erhm) literature. Ham’s holy books must be full of ‘evidences’, as a plural, that is.
I even found a Google graphic of the gradual decline of ‘evidences’ against singulare tantum ‘evidence’ over rhe last two centuries. I can’t seem to find it again, but I’m quite sure some smart ass here will be able two.
So hold your horses, PZ.
Aargh, TO, dammit.
Even accepting evidences as a plural noun, what does the title mean?
“Fossils Evidences (Paleontology) Opposite to Darwin’s Theory”
I assumed evidences was supposed to be a verb. Fixing the noun-verb agreement, dropping the parenthetical word and adding an article, it almost makes sense.
Fossils Evidence an Opposite to Darwin’s Theory.
There really should be criminal charges over this. At the very least Michener has a great case against the piece of untreated effluent who fraudulently used his name and sullied his reputation.
… the Journal of Biology and Life Science…
Is that a blatant redundancy, or have I missed a Subtle Nuance™?
Grrrr…. for many many days I will be unable to eat chocolate ice-cream.
Actually, at this point, the name “Darwin’ itself should be a red flag. He hasn’t been the
“president’ of biology for, like, ever…..
On a serious note, the journal must publish a note indicating that Dr. Michener was not aware of the publication. Plus all journals, when receiving a manuscript, must get at least an email from individual authors to indicate awareness of the study and manuscript.
@anuran – Absolutely true. This should be considered a criminal act.
I stopped somewhere after the wooly mamonth.
I think that sentence should mean that the mamoth is the only fossil they accept because it’s not actually fossilized but frozen.
And Euskera is the only romance language I like.
The paper is still available (in HTML form, not the original PDF) in Generalissimo Google™’s cache.
The abstract reads like it’s been force-fed into Google Translate and turned into a semblance of English from — at a guess — Utter Twattish.
PZ might want to take a second look at the title of this article!
I totally agree the extract provided sounds just like machine translation the syntax is so twisted with odd plurals and senses besides being BS start to finish if I had not heard any of that before I would have no idea what Abdul Ahad was trying to say
which majority Islamic state he is from I could not say only he is spouting the same creationist line.
I would also bet that the submission process at that journal is also highly automated.
no humans are involved.
uncle frogy
unclefrogy@31, the Generalissimo Google™ cached copy lists the authors as:
Plus the
fakefraudulent authorship:LOL.
Hasn’t this guy ever seen a clam or oyster? Corals? Crinoids? Invertebratre fossils are everywhere including a few on my deck.
And I just saw an invertebrate with hard parts this morning. A rather large snail was crawling across my front step and I stepped over it.
The paper is hilarious (albeit difficult, due to the fractured “English”) read. I really liked this bit:
About the only thing missing is Worlds in Collision (Velikovsky, 1950).
You know, there are secular arguments for adding people’s names to author lists without them knowing. They’re out there.
The journal appears to have some interesting standards for publication. I suspect they do not understand what the term “peer review” means. Here’s another abstract from the journal…
Now, let’s fingerprint everyone and arrest those with the wrong type of whorls.
More hilarity from the paper:
(B.t.w., can someone remind me how to do “gumby” quotes?)
blf
<blockquote class=”creationist”>Kroos Control says something stupid</blockquote>
make sure you change the curly quote marks to straight ones
chigau@38,
What is the “science journal” referred to in the title?
The creationist took a dump in an uncovered sciency latrine, but nobody looked. How was its disappearance even noticed?
Oh Good Grief! It actually uses Ye Pfffft! of All Knowledge as a reference:
Whilst presumably just a typo, I like that the same URL is given with two different spellings. (Albeit in fairness, both URLs work and go to the same page.)
The excluded bit (the “…” in the above quote) is rather humorous as well:
It blathers on for awhile, and then that section concludes with What is meant by figures seems to be illustrations and, perhaps, casts / reconstructions.
Evolution without Lamarck’s Theory and its Use in the Darwinian Theories of Evolution.
Authors:
Ahad, Md. Abdul1 aahad_[email protected]
Source:
International Journal of Bio-Resource & Stress Management. Sep2011, Vol. 2 Issue 3, p363-368. 6p.
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*EVOLUTION (Biology)
*MOLECULAR genetics
*BIOLOGISTS
*SEXUAL selection in animals
*NATURAL selection
Author-Supplied Keywords:
Anti-evolution
application
first modern theory
wrong theory
People:
LAMARCK, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet de, 1744-1829
DARWIN, Charles, 1809-1882
Abstract:
The first modern theory of evolution was put forward by Jean Baptist de Lamarck the inheritance of acquired structures/characters that transmits to the offspring. It has been recognized that the inheritance of acquired characters is not transmitted to the offspring. Hence Lamarck’s theory can hardly be accepted in the light of modern molecular genetics that available in the present century. Darwin directly accepted the Lamarck’s theory in ‘the Origin of Species’ (natural selection) under the heading ‘the effect of use and disuse’. He also uses Lamarck’s theory in ‘the Descent of Man in Relation to Sex ‘(sexual selection theory). Consequently, Darwin’s theory is less accepted by the most biologists. As a result they synthesize the modern synthetic theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism) as an alternate theory of natural selection and sexual selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of Bio-Resource & Stress Management is the property of Puspa Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Author Affiliations:
1Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur (5200), Bangladesh
ISSN:
0976-3988
Accession Number:
66463954
Database:
Academic Search Complete
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=22708c92-93dd-4de9-b0db-f7a5b903eaa4%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=66463954
It’s actually quite enjoyable to read this abstract in the voice of Yakov Smirnoff.
Enjoyable…not understandable.
WTF???
I blame Goigle Translate.
This article made perfect sense in its original Fuckwit.
Funny. They can’t even spellcheck their own submission policy. It’s a $100 fee no… it’s…
From: http://www.asciencejournal.net/asj/index.php/BIO/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions
So, apparently we can have paywalls protecting publicly funded research or we can have this. Obviously, the free online opportunities provided here are a benefit to the moral education of the income impaired. Ted Cruz 20somethingorother!!!
An abstract with >2400 characters !?!
Seriously?
Is this a publication mill? I always wondered if there was a niche for a magazine that would print anything, for a price. Send us your resume stuffers! We’ll guarantee to press one copy and store it in a real library in case someone needs to look it up. Heck, if you pay us an extra $500 we’ll put you on the other side of the paywall so nobody can tell how bad your stuff is, unless they are willing to pay to see.
This is so over-the-top I’m wondering if it’s not a hoax. If you wanted to make a journal look stupid, this is how you’d do it.
Invertebrates don’t have hard parts? All vertebrate fossils are fragmentary? People in other countries can’t study fossils? Just imagine how many more howlers we’d have if the damn thing were readable.
I had never heard of the Macrothink Institute, and the name itself is dodgy.
Whoever runs it is clearly not a native English speaker and can’t find a competent writer to help him out. This press release they put out at least lacks glaring spelling and grammatical errors, but it’s written in the style of Dick and Jane.
It looks like they’re a vanity publishing scam.
I am not a palaeontologist, but aren’t ammonites and trilobites among the most common fossils in the geological record? And aren’t they invertebrates? And aren’t the fossilised remains from their exoskeletons, i.e. the hard parts?
*looks at trilobite fossils from a field trip on a geology course to a limestone quarry*
Actually, I would expect any marine invertebrate who calcifies their exoskeleton, to be predominant in the shale/limestone layers.
Never mind the fossil record. Anyone who’s been to a seafood restaurant knows that invertebrates have hard parts.
Fixed that for you. Think lobster crab versus calamari….
I think I saw that one on the Syfy channel.
They can even be right twice a day…..
@Kevin Kehres #36:
No, no, no! Not until after we’ve arrested everyone with the wrong type of forehead.
Oh, my giddy aunt! There’s some dodgy taxonomy too. I might have missed them, but there don’t seem to be any details about the holotype. You know, reg. no., institute, etc.
I’m not pretending to have any sort of knowledge as to how scientific publications vet submissions but surely the first thing one would do is read them?
How could they overlook that this reads like a Nigerian scam email?
Apparently not. I’m thinking of submitting my short story about a young girl on a California ranch and the ghost of a Russian cabin boy and seven cats that live in a barn. I’d like to be published and this might be my only chance.
I looked at their magazine and for the most part other the titles looked like normal titles. They could all be quackfeckery for all I can tell but the titles seem to sound like normal titles except, of course, for this one… and the tapeworm one….
LATSOT MAD.
I’ve peer reviewed dozens of papers and – fuck it – I take it very seriously indeed. There have been papers with almost impenetrable English, papers that were clearly not suited to the conference or journal and plenty of papers that I didn’t understand very well. In all those cases, I did what is the bare minimum for reviewing papers: I wrote a summary of what I thought the paper’s results were, about whether the evidence it presented supported those results and I looked at at least some of the references to make sure they said what the paper said they said. If I didn’t understand something, I said I didn’t understand it. If my confidence in my ability to review the paper was low, I said I probably didn’t know what I was talking about. If I *really* didn’t understand a paper, I’d ask someone else to help me review it, by which I mean do if for me. Someone who did understand it and was therefore better qualified than me.
What I didn’t do was think “fuck it, it’s the right length and has some words in it” and recommend it for publication.
And in pretty much every case I was one of three to five reviewers.
I’ve had papers and grant applications rejected because of one slightly unfavourable review. Sometimes, the poor review has been unfair because it was clear that the reviewer hadn’t properly read or understood the paper.
So how the FUCK does this shit get through review?
Some journals review by rubber stamp. Some reviewers just look at the authors, and if it’s someone they know, they skim the abstract and give it the seal of approval. Some extremely marginal journals (like this one, apparently) are there to collect money so they can dump something on the web…
…hmm, wait a moment. Who would pay me $100 to have their science article published on the prestigious science journal, Pharyngula? The title even sounds sciencey. I may be missing out on a significant revenue stream here.
@56:
Even they can be right twice a day……..
scans better?
I do love this from their “Submission Preparation Checklist”:
7. Spell and grammar checks have been performed.
Being the curious type I checked their website and the address of this macrothink institute is in Las Vegas (5348 Vegas Dr.#825 Las Vegas, Nevada 89108) Google street view shows a small apartment building, the voice message when you call their office is a computer generated text-to-speech female voice. This is definitely a home-based business. WHOIS reports that this domain name is registered to Bestframe Group, Inc.
‘Nuff I already spent too much time on this
The Macrothink Institute makes the list of predatory, fake, bogus, etc. list of ‘academic’ publishers: http://allfakejournals.blogspot.com/ . PZ is undoubtedly right that the submitters of this piece of trash paid their fee and the article was published without review. So, these guys took a dump in a latrine. Almost appropriate.