talkorigins reliability?

[evirus]

some creationist on youtube was talking some junk about talkorigins not being reliable and furthermore that several atheists agree with the statement, any truth to that?

[RichardPrins]

Rubbish, but as anything it's in flux and updated.

[Dutch_labrat]

Talk.origins has a pretty good reputation when it comes to self-correcting.

Itis all solid fact based science. Do not belief anybody on this, not even little me, but check for yourself.

[Kevin Ronayne]

some creationist on youtube was talking some junk about talkorigins not being reliable ...

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

A creationist that didn't try to ignore or diss talkorigins would be worse than stupid, since the site is a powerful antidote to all sorts of creationist claims.

[Darth Robo]

Put the creo guy on the spot and ask him (her?) where exactly talk-origins goes wrong. And then just watch him make an idiot of himself.

[afdave1]

I have found much erroneous information at Talk Origins and I have been examining those articles in detail for about a year now.

One of the most subtle is Edward Max's comparison of the GULO gene in humans and apes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

He notes the fact that apes and humans cannot produce Vitamin C, and assumes that this is because of a "broken" GULO gene. This may be true ... no one really knows if the gene once functioned, then mutated to disfunctionality, or if it simply has a different, but as yet unknown function. He compares this situation to a plagiarism case in the 1940's, and leads readers to believe that this is strong evidence of common descent.

But this is misleading.

Yes, it is true that duplicated errors in a book would make a very strong case for plagiarism, but this is because the errors are identical.

In the case of the ape and human GULO genes, they are not identical. Close, but not identical.

But being close really doesn't tell us anything we did not already know. We already knew that ape and human genes are close, but as I have repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere ...

Close similarity is not diagnostic of Common Descent or Common Design. It would be expected within either theory.

****************************************

I have found that Talk Origins is basically an Evolution Apologetics site, similar to http://www.answersingenesis.org , but taking the Evolution side. And of course, there is nothing wrong with an apologetics site seeking to promote a particular view. There are many good scientists who write there, just as there are at Answers in Genesis. The problem is their assumptions, which, among other things, include that an Intelligent Designer as a causal agent is typically excluded a priori from their thinking. This to me is naive and leads to many logical errors of which the Max article is but one.

[VoxRat]

I have found much erroneous information at Talk Origins and I have been examining those articles in detail for about a year now.

geez, it's hard to keep up with all your BS, Dave.

First of all, the length of time you've been sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring contrary evidence is completely immaterial. You can't point to a single thing TalkOrigins gets wrong. This GULO thing is no exception. Your GULO argument was thoroughly destroyed over at AtBC. Your basic problem, once again, is failing to grasp the whole nested hierarchy of sequence similarity concept. No. The sequences - or defects in the sequence, as the case may be -don't have to be identical to show a family relationship. They need to show a nested hierarchy. That concept from Theobald's essay that you never got around to discussing. (Or reading?).

I have found that Talk Origins is basically an Evolution Apologetics site

And yet, you give no reason for concluding this. How... typical. It's the standard "evolution is just as much religion as creationism is" trope.

Here's the difference.

At talkorigins, you can look up their references, and you'll find actual research, and science that coheres with the science you read in all the "standard" places - professional journals, textbooks, research laboratories... that kind of thing.

At talkorigins, when there's a mistake, someone catches it, and it gets updated.

At AiG, you get... baboon dogs

[RichardPrins]

I have found much erroneous information at Talk Origins and I have been examining those articles in detail for about a year now.

One more creationist chiming in, which the obvious apologetics and linking to a religious propaganda site. Your last paragraph induced some chuckles. You obviously see nothing wrong with including a hypothetical entity based on religious scripture into the theories a priori. We also know about the 'huge amount' of peer-reviewed papers a place like AiG, and those associated with it, produce. At best, AiG simply tries desperately to justify a holy book, and to be an ankle biter of real scientists for fear of corrupting religious morality. It's not science, it's religion.

[afdave1]

Your GULO argument was thoroughly destroyed over at AtBC.

No it was not. No one ever refuted my basic argument posted above. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[RichardPrins]

Your GULO argument was thoroughly destroyed over at AtBC.

No it was not. No one ever refuted my basic argument posted above. Feel free to prove me wrong.

If someone is going to reply to this, simply provide a link or take it elsewhere. This thread is not about afdave1 or creationist pseudoscience. Please keep it on topic where possible.

[VoxRat]

No it was not. No one ever refuted what I posted above. Feel free to prove me wrong

All one has to do to prove you wrong is to read Max.

But yes, it was thoroughly refuted over at AtBC. When I have a moment, I'll post the links. I'm not going to go through the whole exercise all over again. You didn't get it then, you won't get it now. You never will. But that doesn't make it wrong. Or "apologetics".

[afdave1]

I have found much erroneous information at Talk Origins and I have been examining those articles in detail for about a year now.

One more creationist chiming in, which the obvious apologetics and linking to a religious propaganda site. Your last paragraph induced some chuckles. You obviously see nothing wrong with including a hypothetical entity based on religious scripture into the theories a priori. We also know about the 'huge amount' of peer-reviewed papers a place like AiG, and those associated with it, produce. At best, AiG simply tries desperately to justify a holy book, and to be an ankle biter of real scientists for fear of corrupting religious morality. It's not science, it's religion.

It is true that I see nothing wrong with inferring a hypothetical intelligent entity--God--from the available evidence. And T.O. authors seem to see no problem with inferring many hypothetical, non-intelligent causal mechanisms in spite of the evidence to the contrary. AiG authors have peer review. Other degree-heavy creationists review their work often, and many times non-creationists also do. As for ankle-biters, I see places like NCSE and Talk Origins as "ankle-biters" of the rapidly growing worldwide creationist movement. Yes, I have a different perspective.

[VoxRat]

AiG authors have peer review. Other degree-heavy creationists review their work often, and many times non-creationists also do.

two words...

baboon dogs

[afdave1]

Old article. Old, old article. Probably missed peer review, or at least that item was missed. Are you telling me this never happens with other pubs?

[VoxRat]

Old article. Old, old article. Probably missed peer review, or at least that item was missed.

Yeah. Right. Their "peer-review" system has since been totally revamped! (Got any evidence for that?)

Tell you what. You find us a current AiG article that claims mainstream science is wrong, in any specific way. We'll evaluate that.

Are you telling me this never happens with other pubs?

In "other pubs" (if, by that, you mean actual scientific journals) there is an ongoing dialog. Mistakes are pointed out, followed up, corrected, retracted if need be. These are the things that never happen at AiG.

[afdave1]

Oh yes they do. They retracted some information about chimp chromosomes that I pointed out. And I'm sure they will about these "baboon dogs." CMI, the source of the info already did. Patience, Voxrat. You seem to have a short fuse.

[VoxRat]

They retracted some information about chimp chromosomes that I pointed out.

I should point out to those not familiar with the story, that Dave didn't incisively recognize the flaw in their completely indefensible argument. He defended it to the death against a lot of more knowledgeable people at AtBC. He finally had to admit it was indefensible. He contacted AiG, months after admitting defeat, when those knowledgeable people kept asking him why he didn't. So much for the system working.

Now, Dave. Can you link to where this item was "retracted"? I.e. they explained and corrected their error? Or did the article just mysteriously disappear, Orwell style, in the dark of night?

[RichardPrins]

It is true that I see nothing wrong with inferring a hypothetical intelligent entity--God--from the available evidence. And T.O. authors seem to see no problem with inferring many hypothetical, non-intelligent causal mechanisms in spite of the evidence to the contrary. AiG authors have peer review. Other degree-heavy creationists review their work often, and many times non-creationists also do. As for ankle-biters, I see places like NCSE and Talk Origins as "ankle-biters" of the rapidly growing worldwide creationist movement. Yes, I have a different perspective.

I'd say it's stronger than that, since without evidence, and with putting the deity in there a priori, like your side does, it's not science, Dave, regardless of growth, scope and popular beliefs. We can all make up theories that contain omnipotent tiny purple fairies and set out to prove just that. And conclude it's all done by these little purple fellows if we haven't quite figured it out!

So in that sense AiG and NCSE/Talk Origins are not even on the same playing field. It remains peddling religion, and it belongs in churches. Having fundies review each others work doesn't amount to scientific peer review in my book. Yes, your perspective is known and here, as well as in the scientific community, it remains a fringe perspective, not worthy to be considered of having any merit.

The times where religionists got to decide how science works is in the past, Dave.

[ericmurphy]

I have found much erroneous information at Talk Origins and I have been examining those articles in detail for about a year now.

Nope. Not yet, you haven't. Not a single instance of your supposed "inaccuracies" on the talkorigins site has withstood scrutiny.

One of the most subtle is Edward Max's comparison of the GULO gene in humans and apes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

He notes the fact that apes and humans cannot produce Vitamin C, and assumes that this is because of a "broken" GULO gene.

It's not an assumption. Humans and chimps cannot synthesize Vitamin C. This is not an assumption; it's an observed fact. The reason they cannot synthesize Vitamin C is because the gene involved in synthesis is non-functional. This is not an assumption; it's an observed fact.

This may be true ... no one really knows if the gene once functioned, then mutated to disfunctionality, or if it simply has a different, but as yet unknown function.

It doesn't matter. One way or another, neither humans nor chimps (nor any other primate, or any other organism with a dysfunctional GULO gene) have a functional gene that can synthesize Vitamin C. The GULO gene, when functional can synthesize Vitamin C, and in humans and other primates, the gene is dysfunctional.

Can it be "proven" that a broken GULO gene prevents Vitamin C synthesis? Of course not. If you want proof, stick to logic or mathematics, not science.

He compares this situation to a plagiarism case in the 1940's, and leads readers to believe that this is strong evidence of common descent.

But this is misleading.

Yes, it is true that duplicated errors in a book would make a very strong case for plagiarism, but this is because the errors are identical.

In the case of the ape and human GULO genes, they are not identical. Close, but not identical.

But we find exactly what we expect to find, Dave. The more closely related an organism is to humans, the more closely related the broken GULO gene is. The chimp pseudogene is closer to the human gene than the orangutan gene is, and the orangutan gene is more closely related than the macaque gene. This prediction flows naturally from common descent; it does not flow at all from special creation. In fact, special creation would predict that the human GULO gene is the most different from other primate genes, since according to special creation humans are unrelated to other primates.

But being close really doesn't tell us anything we did not already know. We already knew that ape and human genes are close, but as I have repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere ...

Close similarity is not diagnostic of Common Descent or Common Design. It would be expected within either theory.

And, as been pointed out to you to the point of nausea, lack of similarity would falisfy common descent. It would not falsify common design. No conceivable observation could possibly falsify common design, as has also been pointed out to you to the point of nausea.

I have found that Talk Origins is basically an Evolution Apologetics site, similar to http://www.answersingenesis.org , but taking the Evolution side.

No. The difference is that talkorigins is real science, which makes real predictions, which predictions can be falsified. Answersingenesis does not propound real science, and to the extent it makes falsifiable predictions (e.g., a hundredfold increase in C14 levels post-flood), those predictions have been falsified.

And of course, there is nothing wrong with an apologetics site seeking to promote a particular view.

There is nothing "apologetic" about talkorigins. The science on the talkorigins site is amenable to falsification, as all science is. You have been unable to falsify anything there. The material on the answersingenesis site is either unfalsifiable, or has been falsified.

There are many good scientists who write there, just as there are at Answers in Genesis.

There are no good scientists on answersingenesis. It is impossible to be a believer in the genesis account and still be a "good scientist."

The problem is their assumptions, which, among other things, include that an Intelligent Designer as a causal agent is typically excluded a priori from their thinking. This to me is naive and leads to many logical errors of which the Max article is but one.

You've never been able to find one, and you certainly haven't found one in the Max article. An "intelligent designer" is not "excluded" from consideration, Dave. If you can find evidence to implicate such a designer in the natural world, that evidence will be duly considered. So far, you, and the rest of the ID/creationist community, have been unable to present any such evidence. That's the problem. Not any "assumptions" on the part of the real scientific community.

[ericmurphy]

Your GULO argument was thoroughly destroyed over at AtBC.

No it was not. No one ever refuted my basic argument posted above. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Dave, you still don't get it. The mutations that have disrupted the function of the GULO gene trace out exactly the same nested hierarchies that other genes, and morphological features, trace out. This is exactly what is expected under an inference of common descent, and the opposite of what would be expected under special creation. According to special creation, humans are unrelated to other primates. Therefore, humans should be an outgroup of all other primates in the GULO phylogeny, as well as other phylogenies. This is not the case.

Does this falsify special creation? Of course not. Why not? Because God could have done it any way He wanted to. Hence, special creation is unfalsifiable, and therefore, not science.

[ericmurphy]

Your GULO argument was thoroughly destroyed over at AtBC.

No it was not. No one ever refuted my basic argument posted above. Feel free to prove me wrong.

If someone is going to reply to this, simply provide a link or take it elsewhere. This thread is not about afdave1 or creationist pseudoscience. Please keep it on topic where possible.

How is this not on-topic? The topic is whether talkorigins is accurate and reliable. Dave's GULO discussion at AtBC was specifically about an article on talkorigins which he claimed was inaccurate. Dave's argument was obliterated. Dave claims it was not, i.e., that the talkorigins article was inaccurate.

It strikes me that it would be difficult to be more on-topic.

[RichardPrins]

I was suggesting not to get dragged into one specific case where someone claims it is not reliable, as could have been expected. Yes, that is on-topic, however when it becomes a (rehashed) discussion only about the specifics of that article it is no longer about the general reliability of that site as asked about in the OP.

That's why I asked for links to where this was discussed previously and then to move on...

[VoxRat]

Here's the chromosome fusion story - at least most of it - at AtBC.

[Darth Robo]

"AiG authors have peer review"

[Ved]

Now, Dave. Can you link to where this [chimp chromosomes] item was "retracted"? I.e. they explained and corrected their error? Or did the article just mysteriously disappear, Orwell style, in the dark of night?

I think the "baboon dog" article just got "peer reviewed." I can't seem to bring up that page on AIG anymore.