The authors are Olen Brown, an Emeritus Professor of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Missouri and David Hullender, a Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington. These are the same two authors who published two ridiculous papers in the same journal in 2022 and 2023. Up until last December (2023), Denis Noble was one of the editors of the journal [Editorial Board] but he is not longer listed on the journal's website. We can assume that Noble is responsible, in part, for allowing these papers to be published since he has defended the publication of creationist papers in the past. [How the Krebs cycle disproves Darwinism (not!)]
Brown, O.R. and Hullender, D.A. (2024) Biological evolution is dead in the water of Darwin’s warm little pond. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. 193: 1-6. [doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2024.08.003]
Abstract
The origin of life and its evolution are generally taught as occurring by abiogenesis and gene-centric neo-Darwinism. Significant biological evolutionary changes are preserved and given direction (descent with modification) by Darwin's (Spencer's) natural selection by survival of the fittest. Only survival of the fittest (adapted/broadened) is available to provide a ‘naturalistic’ direction to prefer one outcome/reaction over another for abiogenesis. Thus, assembly of first life must reach some threshold (the first minimal cell) before ‘survival of the fittest’ (the only naturalistic explanation available) can function as Darwin proposed for biological change. We propose the novel concept that the requirement for co-origination of vitamins with enzymes is a fundamental, but overlooked, problem that survival of the fittest (even broadly redefined beyond Darwin) cannot reasonably overcome. We support this conclusion with probability calculations. We focus on the stage of evolution involving the transition from non-life to the first, minimal living cell. We show that co-origination of required biochemical processes makes the origin of life probabilistically absurdly improbable even when all assumptions are chosen to unreasonably favor evolutionary theories.
There's something seriously wrong with peer review if a paper like this can be published in a (formerly) reputable journal.
For more information, watch this video of Brown and Hullender explaining their views. The video is sponsored by "Video Lessons to Raise Up Confident Christians."
5 comments :
It's pretty clear that creationists are good at finding weak spots in j ournals peer review processes. I think they have sympathetic reviewers in some of them, as in actual creationists among the reviewers (and Denis Noble might very well be one himself), and in other cases just exploit the fact that no reviewing is taking place.
Of *course* one of them is an engineer....
@Steve Watson Even worse - it's an engineer dabbling in philosophy!!!
I have read or skimed through hundreds or thousands of papers on geomorphology, biology, etc. this paper I insist is aas good as the average, probably better being innovative, and hordes pf papers are made or perr reviewed which are below average.Its not important to have peer reviewed papers. the reveiw should be by intelligent pewopole weighing the evidence.Saying NOT WORTHY FOR PRIME TIME PERR REVIEW is saying this process trumpts the scientifi methodology on evidence. Its a accomplished perr rebeiwed paper and fair enough even if wrong which its not.
Larry, you seem to have a severe Byers infestation.
Post a Comment