Questionable Link?

[Speedwell]

The following link was posted recently by a creationist in this forum. It looks like a government site, but reads like a creationist paper. The subject matter literature is outside my expertise so I don't quite know what to make of it.

Is it legit?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

 

[A_Thinker]

The following link was posted recently by a creationist in this forum. It looks like a government site, but reads like a creationist paper. The subject matter literature is outside my expertise so I don't quite know what to make of it.

Is it legit?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

Well ... it's a .gov site ...

 

[Speedwell]

Well ... it's a .gov site ...

So it is, but it is an "evolution is impossible" paper with footnotes from people like Behe.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The authors are creationists.

 

[tampasteve]

It is a part of the US National Library of Medicine, a governmental agency. However, the site is really a depository and/or archive for journals and articles. From their information: "PMC provides free access to articles from journals that deposit their content in the archive." So it is not necessarily government endorsed material, simply a archive for millions of articles and journals. It is a library, just as a regular public library has religious and other material on hand, it does not mean that any of it is endorsed by the library, even if it is in agreement with whatever the government might officially agree on.

 

[Jimmy D]

The following link was posted recently by a creationist in this forum. It looks like a government site, but reads like a creationist paper. The subject matter literature is outside my expertise so I don't quite know what to make of it.

Is it legit?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

Whilst the author (John Sanford) is the president of a creationist organization...

http://www.logosresearchassociates.org/convictions

He also appears to have published many credible scientific papers.

 

[A_Thinker]

So it is, but it is an "evolution is impossible" paper with footnotes from people like Behe.

Is the government an official sponsor of the theory of evolution ?

 

[Speedwell]

Is the government an official sponsor of the theory of evolution ?

No, but quoting that paper from a government site lends an air of spurious legitimacy to a bogus creationist paper.

 

[SkyWriting]

The following link was posted recently by a creationist in this forum. It looks like a government site, but reads like a creationist paper. The subject matter literature is outside my expertise so I don't quite know what to make of it.

Is it legit?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

There are creationists doing research.
It looks like this research had an agenda, but so does most research.

 

[A_Thinker]

No, but quoting that paper from a government site lends an air of spurious legitimacy to a bogus creationist paper.

I'm sure that there are various opinions on any number of the papers published to this site.

As a prior poster said, ... this site is simply a repository for various scientific papers ...

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sure that there are various opinions on any number of the papers published to this site.

As a prior poster said, ... this site is simply a repository for various scientific papers ...

No doubt. But I am questioning the poster's sincerity in quoting it from that source to give it false legitimacy as a peer-reviewed paper.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The site is government, but that's basically an entry on a library card catalog. The actual paper was published by a non governmental journal. Theor Biol Med Model. Although it alleges to be peer-reviewed, it is a pay-for-play journal. This does not inspire confidence.

"Open access publishing is not without costs. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modellingtherefore levies an article-processing charge of £1370.00/$2145.00/€1745.00 for each article accepted for publication, plus VAT or local taxes where applicable."

 

[AV1611VET]

No doubt. But I am questioning the poster's sincerity in quoting it from that source to give it false legitimacy as a peer-reviewed paper.

Guilt by association?

 

[tas8831]

Wells' dopey paper on centrioles can also be accessed via pubmed - as indicated, the site is just a repository. Also as indicated, it is in a pay-to-play journal, which have notoriously low standards for publication. I'm betting the reviewers were the authors themselves or their pals at the DI. If I remember correctly, one of the reviewers for Wells' centrioles paper was Behe.

 

[tas8831]

The following link was posted recently by a creationist in this forum. It looks like a government site, but reads like a creationist paper. The subject matter literature is outside my expertise so I don't quite know what to make of it.

Is it legit?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

It is standard YEC bafflegab nonsense, all premised on their usual strawman crap about "specific mutations" blah blah blah.

 

[Speedwell]

It is standard YEC bafflegab nonsense, all premised on their usual strawman crap about "specific mutations" blah blah blah.

But it must be true because it's quoted from a .gov site, Right?

 

[tas8831]

But it must be true because it's quoted from a .gov site, Right?

But of course! But that maxim does not hold, oddly, when one cites the thousands of other papers from the 'same site' providing evidence for evolution....

 

[A_Thinker]

But it must be true because it's quoted from a .gov site, Right?

Why would you think that ?

 

[Speedwell]

Why would you think that ?

I don't. The poster wanted us to think that.

 

[AirPo]

Why would you think that ?

If Captain Sarcasm said it, it must be true.