Valentine Pontifex

I have just discovered that Answers in Genesis has deleted without comment all references to the infamous lysozyme claims.

True.Origins still has it as well as some Hovind-esque creationist sites.

It only took thirty years for us to win that one. :banghead:

Jayjay

Does anyone have a copy of the AiG article, or can it be obtained from Wayback Machine or something? It would be nice to have evidence showing that they did make such claims, knowing that the weaseling creationists would otherwise pretend they never said anything of the like... heck, if we pressure them enough, we might get them to add chicken lyzosome in their "arguments that creationists should not use" list by the year 2030 or so.

Anyway, a small victory is still a victory.

Valentine Pontifex

Shove this article into the Way Back Machine and you will find two previous versions of the claim. Originally Sarfati claimed that "Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal." Latter the article said that that statement was in error and that was true of the proteins originally tested by Dickerson. That of course was also completely false. (Yes I had examined the cited source.) Now all reference to lysozyme has been deleted from the article. Sarfati also used to make the revised claim in his attack on last summer's Scientific American article.

Spaz

that's pretty sad, wouldn't be so sad if they didn't push what they say so much:banghead:

RufusAtticus

This needs to be a T.O. faq or an update to one.

Valentine Pontifex

The lysozyme issue has been brought in the Archive. The late Robert Schadewald's Scientific Creationism and Error deals with Gish and Lysozyme.

Of course the best article on this affair on the web is The Bullfrog Affair.

I would be careful about chiding Sarfati too much on the deletion. While he is clearly trying to avoid embarrasment for AiG by not announcing the error --an error which was utterly inexcusable to make --, he has now removed the error which is what we want him to do. It would seem petty if the Archive put up a page just to say "See Sarfati has deleted his claim. " What is more important for the Archive to document where Sarfati has NOT deleted a false claim.