Tour replies to recent Origin of Life (OOL) 'breakthroughs'

Reply
#2
C C Offline

[...] You think you've been taught things that aren't quite right. This whole thing about molecules in a puddle, or in a pond -- lightning strikes molecules, some of those molecules form into slithering creatures, and they come out of this pond. That's the primordial soup model that's a bunch of nonsense.


Some significant editing of a few billion years -- of life being stuck at a primitive microscopic, unicellular level. Before the Ediacaran Period came along (sans slithering onto or setting roots in land yet). 

So welcome [...] a Christian Ministry here that likes to tackle the big questions of life. Why are we here, does God exist, is the Bible true? And so we enjoy having conversations, having lectures, bringing subject matter experts like Dr James Stewart here. Normally we talk about philosophical historical scientific Arguments for belief in the Christian faith, but that's not one of those talks tonight. Some of y'all might think that this is about creationism, evolution. No, there is not going to be any God talk here tonight. Rather, we are having Dr Tour talk about the state of the research on the origin of life abiogenesis. So if you aren't a Christian, here we welcome you and we always welcome you, to come to any of our weekly meetings...


Still boils down to mainstream science being restricted to methodological naturalism, if not the philosophical version or physicalism that most scientists [putatively] embrace personally or individually. So the only choice they have is an abiogenesis route -- no metaphysical explanations, or intervention from "outside the natural realm" influences allowed. No glitch in the matrix.

Even panspermia [of interstellar range] would simply relocate a natural origin elsewhere in the cosmos, as if there could pretentiously be a luckier place than Earth, early Mars, and this solar system in general as a collective candidate. (Oh, all those exoplanet, total "water worlds" being foamed at the mouth about -- blah, blah.)

But on the other hand, Woke is battering down the door to where the a priori guidelines of science may eventually be thrown out the door as structurally racist, patriarchal, oppressive, capitalist, or just pervasively WEIRD -- Europe's cultural tyranny.

Which is to say, the same scientists who have traditionally and still do fight tooth, nail, and claw to keep Abrahamic religious beliefs out of their domain... Will conflictingly and generously bend over to allow indigenous creationism and other non-Western thought orientations to plow them a new GI tract.

Even the few remaining administrators and researchers that haven't had their brains ideologically colonized by Leftangelicalism, nevertheless don't have a clue how to fight it once one of the pod people points a finger at them and starts hissing "racist, sexist, LGBTQ-phobe, etc". Metaphor-wise, they're promptly seized by the hive-mind sentries and carted off to either rehabilitation camp or turned into career-less vagabonds roaming the streets.

So although Christian missionaries are retrospectively regarded as one of the abusive tools or henchmen that European imperialism used as a vanguard for its exploitations, some offshoot or legacy of that theistic stripe will surely get its turn to include a chapter in the textbooks of tomorrow. Woke's newly torn orifice in the science establishment can't do anything but get larger and more inclusive as the years roll by.
Reply
#3
Kornee Offline
Agree that there is a new institutionalized double standard regarding which religiosities are to be shunned or extolled. Go indigenous! Go! Lot's of feathered headdress and gaudy costumes, dance routines etc. helps there too.
One suspects it's not an 'organic', natural development, but part of a wider scheme. Anyway...

As I have mentioned a number of times before here and over at another forum, Tour is imo an enigmatic figure. Very sharp and no-holds-barred 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', wrt abiogenesis research topic.
But collapses into a denial of evidence state wrt biblical teachings long known to be demonstrably false and self-contradictory in relation to historical, scientific, and moral matters.
Reply
#4
confused2 Offline
Bluster disguised as content. Tour's claim is that God made slithery things and Adam (probably) on the same day. Misguided 'science' can't even make slithery things so what are the chances that they could make Adam? In reality the aim is to make ONE self-replicating molecule - the self-replicating feature takes the yield from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 and so on. They're looking for a molecule they don't know how to make and what its structure would be after they'd made it. The environment of early Earth may offer a few clues. If they haven't made the molecule within (say) 300 million years they might have to consider the possibility that the molecule came from outside Earth which adds a whole heap of starting conditions. One of the laws of chemistry is that reactions proceed at a rate proportional to their probability so for people that don't want to wait 300 million years it is entirely reasonable to buy tons of promising materials and stew them up together in the hope of favouring a reaction without knowing what that reaction is. If 'the molecule' only replicates once every 100 years its going to be very difficult (impossible) to detect.
Reply
#5
Kornee Offline
(Oct 8, 2022 02:24 PM)confused2 Wrote: Bluster disguised as content. Tour's claim is that God made slithery things and Adam (probably) on the same day. Misguided 'science' can't even make slithery things so what are the chances that they could make Adam? In reality the aim is to make ONE self-replicating molecule - the self-replicating feature takes the yield from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 and so on. They're looking for a molecule they don't know  how to make and what its structure would be after they'd made it. The environment of early Earth may offer a few clues. If they haven't made the molecule within (say) 300 million years they might have to consider the possibility that the molecule came from outside Earth which adds a whole heap of starting conditions. One of the laws of chemistry is that reactions proceed at a rate proportional to their probability so for people that don't want to wait 300 million years it is entirely reasonable to buy tons of promising materials and stew them up together in the hope of favouring a reaction without knowing what that reaction is. If 'the molecule' only replicates once every 100 years its going to be very difficult (impossible) to detect.
No Tour doesn't believe God made Adam in a single day. He's not a young Earth Creationist. But his claim 'there is no conflict between science and the bible' is very wrong.
His blind spot is absolute commitment to a faith. Which is also the blind spot of establishment materialist committed OOL 'theology'.

I'm not happy with Tour's tendency towards big-noting himself and recourse to caricaturing as in the 'slithering creature from pond' and such like. It detracts from his otherwise excellent presentations on OOL.
I'm further not happy that Tour failed to acknowledge he got it wrong in claiming outright Farina was wrong in asserting peptide condensation linking does occur in water. Tour admitted that much but obliquely in the #1 post cited vid. He does imo have a vanity issue.

You have otoh completely missed Tour's correct arguments against any realistic possibility of a self-replicating molecule (or even 'gazillions' of them) getting anywhere useful before inevitably degrading in short order.
Folks like you trust naturalistic 'explanations' or more correctly hand-wavy assertions of a materialist committed science, that will shy away from trying to actually explain how the universal or near universal means for creating ATP could have 'evolved' naturally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8m6o0gXDY
Reply
#6
C C Offline
(Oct 8, 2022 02:24 PM)confused2 Wrote: Bluster disguised as content. Tour's claim is that God made slithery things and Adam (probably) on the same day. Misguided 'science' can't even make slithery things so what are the chances that they could make Adam? In reality the aim is to make ONE self-replicating molecule - the self-replicating feature takes the yield from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 and so on. They're looking for a molecule they don't know  how to make and what its structure would be after they'd made it. The environment of early Earth may offer a few clues. If they haven't made the molecule within (say) 300 million years they might have to consider the possibility that the molecule came from outside Earth which adds a whole heap of starting conditions. One of the laws of chemistry is that reactions proceed at a rate proportional to their probability so for people that don't want to wait 300 million years it is entirely reasonable to buy tons of promising materials and stew them up together in the hope of favouring a reaction without knowing what that reaction is. If 'the molecule' only replicates once every 100 years its going to be very difficult (impossible) to detect.

And now the balance: A couple of adversaries or arch enemies going at each other? Some sort of feud in development, anyway...

Below is Professor Dave's two-part response from a year ago, concerning Tour's 14-part series supposedly "attacking" both David Farina and abiogenesis (in reaction to vice-versa). Which James Tour titled: "A Course On Abiogenesis" (Kornee has it or the following in his links in the OP). Here's the first or "0" episode of that series (the other 13 installments can be found in the Video category of Tour's YouTube home or in the links of "Show More"): https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0

Excerpt from the above video (Tour):

"The only statement that I wasn't confused on was when he said James Tour is a respectable chemist. But after that it was all downhill, he [David Farina] just totally trounced me. I'm not here to offer a defense of me, I'm here to offer defense on my thoughts on abiogenesis. There were numerous gross scientific inaccuracies in Dave Farina's claims. [...] I'm thankful to Dave Farina because he is trying to teach the layperson ... so that is a good thing and it's laudable what Dave tries to do..."

Now the intro from the first video below (Farina):

"Hey everyone. So some of you are aware of my recent video debunking James Tour, a chemist who speaks out against research on the origin of life. In that video I dismantle his favorite talking points and provide the ideological context that elucidates his obsession with discrediting an entire field of science he doesn’t understand.

Well he didn’t take kindly to it, so he decided to make a 14-part series about how dumb I am. Not surprisingly, it amounted to nothing more than a long-winded version of precisely the same sermons he’s been delivering for years now. Really just an attempt to save face in front of his congregation who undoubtedly were hounding him for a response.

Apart from the Wikipedia style explanations of freshman year biochemistry, some of it simply repeated what I had already debunked, while the rest was him either misrepresenting what I said, misrepresenting the research he is referencing, or just failing miserably to comprehend it in any meaningful way. Because of this, I now have to demonstrate with far more precision how inept James is in commenting on this field.
"

(Professor Dave) Part 1 of 2: Response to James Tour: 700 Papers and Still Clueless ... https://youtu.be/ghJGnMwRHCs

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ghJGnMwRHCs

- - - - - -

(Professor Dave) Part 2 of 2: Response to James Tour: 700 Papers and Still Clueless ... https://youtu.be/Jf72o6HmVNk

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Jf72o6HmVNk
Reply
#7
confused2 Offline
In the Earth's history there's around 0.5 to 1 billion years to get from a self-replicating molecule to anything with a cell membrane and a sophisticated way of copying itself. How simple things might make more sophisticated things is a separate issue to whether or not a self-replicating molecule can form without divine assistance. Tour doesn't accept evolution as a way complexity might increase so for him abiogenesis is as absurd as suggesting chickens could form naturally in a puddle of water.


Tour Wrote:The information or coding within the DNA (or RNA) that corresponds to the sequence of the nucleic acids is primary to the entire discussion of life.

Tour Wrote:Concerning evolution, some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement in ~2001 along with many other scientists:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

That statement has now received its own common name: A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Let me note several things for the record. The statement was sent to me in an email asking whether I could agree with its content. I confirmed that I agree. I still agree.
More:
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/e...-creation/

I keep an eye on abiogenesis because..
Frank Simmons created a self-replicating molecule.
What did it eat?
Frank Simmons.
Reply
#8
Kornee Offline
In #1 I said there was to be no cherry picking for the reader's convenience. Given the cavalier dismissals, and caricaturing of Tour's claims, I will give just a few such picks:

Between ~ 15:40 and 26:00, Tour exposes the slight of hand used to claim nature-only synthesis of *biologically relevant* glucose ribose, as monomer, let alone the enormously more problematic issue of then correctly hooking together as lengthy polysaccharide chains, when the data demolishes that first step claim.
Between ~ 26:00 and 29:40, Tour explains very simply why the unexpected 'breakthrough' claim of *biologically relevant* polymer RNA nature-only synthesis on volcanic glass substrate is similarly quite misleading.
Some choose to simply dismiss Tour's entirely apt critiques out of hand. Prior commitment to a given worldview. I cannot be bothered wasting more time arguing with such.
Each to their own.

PS: Tour's simultaneous position of biblical fundamentalist faith yet claim that he has to believe that 'one day' OOL will have a perfectly naturalistic explanation, is imo another of his personal inconsistencies.
If the latter were to be found true, it would logically completely undermine any rational basis for his religious convictions. Why that is not screemingly obvious to him is utterly beyond me. Maybe he has a hidden agenda or at least strategy there.
Reply
#9
confused2 Offline
Cleaning Laboratory Glassware

Stirbars, spatulas, funnels, flasks, beakers, and other reusable equipment

    To remove organic residues, rinse glasware briefly with an organic solvent (acetone or ethanol). The used rinse will then be discarded into the organic waste.
    Use warm tap water and a brush with soapy water to scrub the inside of curved glassware. This waste water can go down the sink.
Reply
#10
Kornee Offline
I should have added from 29:40 to around 36:00, where the need for ultra-pure water and peroxide scrubbing of the synthetic 'volcanic glass' was vital.
Even then the resulting polymer RNA strands contained many 2-5 linkages which automatically wrecked any chance of protein coding ability.
Not to mention there was no mechanism for generating *any* non-random information content in the strands obtained.
Biologically useless ab initio. Uphill battle is a huge understatement.

Then there's to be added the matter of natural degradation owing to other chemical species inevitably swirling around, plus action of UV etc.
Faith in some mystical 'infinite creative potential' of Nature is not sensible imo.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research From dinosaur to bird: origin of feathers + Humans descended from 2 ancestral groups C C 0 470 Mar 20, 2025 06:18 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research On the origin of life: How the first cell membranes came to exist C C 0 265 Nov 13, 2024 11:50 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Asteroid pieces (Bennu) brought to Earth may offer clue to life’s origin C C 0 393 Dec 13, 2023 06:41 PM
Last Post: C C
  New models shed light on life’s origin C C 0 324 Feb 13, 2023 07:04 PM
Last Post: C C
  Hours after death, eyes respond to to light + RNA origin of life gets new support C C 0 406 May 12, 2022 03:28 PM
Last Post: C C
  The origin of consciousness + The brain doesn’t think the way you think it does C C 1 440 Aug 24, 2021 06:32 PM
Last Post: Syne
  On the origin of interstellar species: How life could continue to evolve C C 0 466 Aug 16, 2020 11:10 PM
Last Post: C C
  Deciphering dolphin echolocation + The search for the origin of life C C 0 734 Jan 5, 2016 01:44 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)