I'm glad God gave me a desire to know the truth, although I must admit to having had significant difficulty in my short life of 89 years, to be truthful myself. Thank both of you, Dr. Tour and Dr. Stadler for providing this presentation. May our Lord continue to guide your path with wisdom and His anointing.
This isn’t a debate at Harvard, it was a lecture. You are telling them the truth in the language of science, their supposed language, but they are dull of hearing because it doesn’t fit their paradigm or naturalist agenda. Great job!
Just so you know, Dr. Tour is a stand up, man of his words. One late night when feeling especially lost, I emailed him as he offers at 33:20 in this video. Now my problems was not as a nonbeliever but more of the need for Jesus, to forgive our sins. He responded early the next morning with words of encouragement and much information that it took months to review and mull. I was actually surprised that he bothered to help me with my faith. What a truly special person.
Why did you not contact Jesus Christ directly to discuss this matter? It is your relationship with this spiritual being that will decide your fate and "he" is a lawful teacher for you.
@@JessicaSunlight because Jesus commanded His people to encourage one another. He wants His people to participate in this mutual building up of one another. Of course, He speaks through His people, through His providential ordering of all things, and even in Scripture, there are specific times that God makes His people go through valleys of weakness and doubt to humble them. Interfering with that process constantly will restrict growth, which, it appears, you need a lot of.
@@DinorwicSongwriter yeah, he's got all the cool sh*t, like truth and actual science, unlike the pseudoscientists you worship so you can escape from the God you know exists. Lol.
Tour should have Dr Rob Stadler on as a guest speaker again, but this time let Rob present his main critique of abiogenesis research, or why he believes we may be approaching a threshold in our understanding of biological systems and reaction chemistry to be able to dismiss a naturalistic explanation. I'd like to see Rob Stadler Part 2, where Rob does all the talking, please.
As a professional PhD biochemist, I'm completely on board with Dr. Tour's program questioning the naturalistic story of the origin of life. Keep up the great work!
I'm a published biochemist, and I think Tour is an absolute nutter who hasn't a clue. Where did you get your degree that you can spout such idiocies? What's your evidence for a magical sky-daddy doing magic? I want to see some science supporting your godddidit claims.
@annieoaktree6774 since you brought up the supernatural. I'll bite. It is precisely because of a law giver that we can can do science. It is precisely because the laws of nature were set in motion to be consistent that we can do science.
@@mattprater8828 Well, perhaps you should have majored in biochemistry instead. Then you'd realise chemical evolution is perfectly natural. Tour used to be an organic chemist when he was still a scientist before becoming a preacherman. He was taught to think chemistry only ever happens in test-tubes at the behest of chemists. We biochemists know better.
@@mattprater8828 *_It is precisely because of a law giver that we can can do science._* Let me ask you a question no religious believer has ever been able to answer: where is this god of yours? What evidence do you have for it? What's it made of? What shape and size is it? Oh, we just have to have your faith? Well, that's not a very scientific answer. When you can provide evidence for your law-giver giving us laws, I'll take your daffy religion seriously.
The fact that Dr. Tour predicted out loud that Lee Cronin will not even talk about chemistry - the very science that was at the core of the subject - and that even with this prediction, Lee Cronin still didn't even adapt to change his talk to combat the prediction, is... jaw-dropping!
Lee Cronon talked about chemistry all the time. He just would not talk about the chemist Dr Tour talks about because there is no evidence for it. Chemist keep saying to Dr Tour show me the evidence and we can talk about it. Dr Tour star mans position which others do not hold and then tells them to show the evidence. No chemist claims they understand the origin of life, Dr Tour Claims others do that is the very definition of staw man. Dr Tour also claims he knows about the organ of live but has never produced any evidence for it. Not saying he is wrong but just that he has never demonstrated it, despite asking other to when they openly say we do not know. Unless and until Dr Tour provided the evidence for which he claims it is by definition a god of the gaps - because the gap exists..
Anytime a debate opponent says youre mean, rude or refer to feelings, thats not an argument. I frequently watch debates where men of "science" refer to feelings and intuition, without being aware of it.
The best one is when they say something about the "design" of something or other. "Nope, that's not your word to use. You chose to follow evolution, now see your own brain tell you you're wrong."
@@mg-ew2xfwhat and when has hes lied? If you bothered to read and listen and research you would understand his explanations are truthful and he has humility and admits he doesn’t have all the answers.
I, as merely one of the afformentioned "masses" Dr. Tour says he's putting these videos out for, GREATLY appreciate his efforts! I don't like being lied to (who does) but I am very frustrated by these old, worn out lies that the scientific community will not come clean on. I love science. My dad was a science teacher, and he really was blessed with a lot of raw talent in teaching. I could ask him, when I was little "Daddy, why does the sun shine?" and he would actually explain to me the make up of the sun and the explosions taking place on it! I loved that. Of course, I'm in my 60's now, so I can understand far more. Science has so much more to brag about if they only told the truth! Just hearing of science's discoveries as to the tiny million part cell (essentially, not necessarily literally) is astounding! I wish science folks understood that even a mensa would love to know these things, rather than keep reading about the old tired and proven-false narratives in every article that COULD have been fascinating. As soon as I read that, it's like a big blank with "fill in as you please" under it. It's boring. I want to know the REAL things that have been discovered. Good grief! The world would forget Darwin's Disaster in about 3 minutes if they knew what science actually KNOWS now!
@tonymaurice4157 Did Tour speak the truth when he said that overhyped pencil lead could filter CO2 from methane processing? Abiogenesis, unlike Tour's research, has actual industrial applications. We just recently found out magnetized minerals can filter organic molecules by chirality. That itself could literally save lives. Tour's presentation of abiogenesis as the field stands is entirely incomplete. He won't talk about PNAs, he won't talk about Martin Hanczyc's experiments, about life as a stress relief pathway or Shannon Information Theory, he won't tell the truth about what wrong chirality nucleotides actually do to polymer, or about proton transport in hydrothermal vents and the resulting acid-base organic reactions....
Dr. Tour, I have watched the talk with Lee Cronin several times over. I have studied not only what he said specifically but also implicitly. His arguments stated that since we "know" simplicity always evolves into complexity. Therefore we know that life aka complexity, came from these basic simple molecules aka simplicity. He gave examples of different man made objects like tools, and how they started out very simple and eventually evolved into increasingly more complex objects. The entire premise of his "new" theory was that we can use identification of complexity to identify life. But this is a falacious argument prima facie. We don't know that simplicity always evolves into complexity. In fact, he stated plainly, that we know evolution from non-living organic prebiotic molecules into living biological material happened because we are here living right now. He even stated that he isn't interested in the exact "how" aka the necessary chemistry. The fact, we are here and alive is the evidence it happened. His new theory isn't a tool to discover how origin of life happened, it uses the assumption he knows how it happened, (even if not exactly or in a testable way) and with that assumption uses his "theory" to try and identify life, aka complexity. His arguments are circular and falacious and his new theory is unfalsifiable in the since of OOL. It seems as though his new theory is a deflection from the fact, he knows he can't create life in the lab with prebiotic chemistry and the whole OOL group isn't even close. So instead of confronting the absurd claims he has made in the past and the real issues in OOL research. He is giving up and deflecting into this "new" theory to keep the research funding flowing in. It is really hard to keep money flowing into research that isn't making any progress. You can only build up and sell so many "major" breakthroughs (that arent actual breakthroughs) and so many bold predictions about life in the lab in 5 years. Before those funding the research realize its not true and move on to funding someone/something else.
@@showmeanedge Absolutely, that is my point more simply put. It's untestable and unfalsifiable, "complexity exists, complexity only comes through evolution of simplicity." Ie Sience of the Gaps. The entire argument is circular and fallacious and his "New" theory is an obfuscation from the reality of the science of OOL.
@@dustinfrey3067 his new "theory" is the epitome of snake oil nonsense. One thing I've noticed is that so many scientists have absolutely no grounding in philosophy or logic. In fact may of them deride it while falling into very simple errors. Whenever somebody tries to point out that their hypotheses are predicated on logical impossibilities they act scandalized.
@showmeanedge the irony is that Lee Cronin literally said that he used oil as a way to produce results for how we can make membranes for cells while admitting later that these are only produced by life and that it was well known that oil is not prebiotically relevant but he needed the funds to build a robot for his new "theory" to be tested. He is selling faux science and even making drugs admittedly in order to get funding that he knows he would never get otherwise. It's fraud all the way.
It's interesting that when he says a tool initiate in a SIMPLE object then by INTELIGENT PROCESS It became COMPLEX, It's the argument from theleology, didn't?
"...nobody, the entire evening asked me a single question..." Why? Because the truth isnt useful. Proverbs 23:9 would guide me in that situation which honestly was curious to watch. Thanks Dr Tour for all you great work and Abiogenesis series. GBY
Very interesting! What Dr Tour and Dr Stadler agreed on at 25:55 min in this video, makes it a "game changer" for me, personally: Some day we might conclude that natural processes can never create life all by themselves. I believe personally we should already be able to make that conclusion!
Same here. And not just that but that the evolution of the species, is impossible. Mutation changes the DNA code, it does not add code. So how do you go from a single cell, to a multi cell organism. Much less a human being.
The reason that the "scientists" refuse to say anything, is that they don't want to admit that their god (science) is not omnipotent and omniscient. Only the One True God is, and that fact hurts them. The reality is, even with infinite time, how would evolution even work? Let's ignore the chemistry and everything else in the natural world that shows that anything that is not working toward growing, is dying (rocks wear away, animals get old or are killed, plants do the same.) Nothing we have ever observed just randomly appears out of nothing, and it wears out or dies unless it or circumstances around it are actually adding to it and sustaining it. Let's skip the small stuff, let's start off with infinite, unrotting food, infinite water, and a perfect goldilocks planet. *POP* Oh, there's a deer, just evolved from an eggplant. He's healthy, has everything he needs to survive and thrive. How long does he live? 10, 20 years (remember all perfect nutrition, and no predators) what are the odds another deer is going to pop out of another eggplant and even be in the same area? The likelihood is they'll never meet, and if they do, there's a 50/50 chance it's another buck. But let's say it's a doe, and they DO meet. Now what? I guess mother nature forgot to add that replicate feature. They're super early deer. Maybe they hate the sight of another deer. Maybe they're afraid of each other. Now, that's a bad example, cause it's not the likely first animal that would have experienced this. However, SOMETHING must have experienced that if evolution is true. Think of the probably of a protein folding, then think of HOW MANY of those a deer (or small fish) would take to evolve. Now what happens of it got one thing wrong, and the poor critter can't reproduce during the one chance it has in its life (cause the probability is that one won't appear again for many lifetimes after he does). I have no such scholastic issues as Tour, so I can confidently say that they won't find how life appears on its own. They may possibly see it evolve, but absolutely NOT without outside help from God.
@@lostat400 Mutations add information, anyone with any training in information theory knows that. Gene duplication adds code, information content is directly related to number of tokens and each nucleotide is a token. Most people confound the technical use of the word information with the colloquial phrase which has the implied adjective of "useful". That confounding leads to false statements such as you make here. An analogy for you: people who have their larynx removed are given a white noise generator to hold to their throat so that they can still make audible speech.The white noise of the generator gets filtered by the shape of the oral cavity to produce sounds that are not at all white noise. Imperfect replication of DNA strands is comparable to that white noise generator, reproducing more (or less) than others as a consequence of that change-due-to-noise is comparable to species. The environment is what determines which genetic patterns get reproduce more than others, and unless you think the environment is sentient then no sentience is needed to produce the variety of life we observe from even a single living cell, given enough generations and resources and genetic noise and environmental change. -- We have in a lab put a single celled organism under predation pressure and it became multicellular. We have direct confirmation that this thing you say is impossible occurs. It is impossible to know that there is nothing that you do not know. It is impossible to prove that natural processes can never create life all by themselves as we can never know that we know all possible natural processes.
@@lostat400 "Mutation changes the DNA code, it does not add code." Due to mistakes in copying, it can both add DNA and delete it. Btw, can you answer this question? Imagine that we both have a block of a million zeros, and each of us replaces 205, randomly, with numbers and letters (see below for an example), what are the chances that both our blocks match? 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000C00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000050000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000g000000000000000000000000t00000000000w0000000a0000000000000000t0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000w0000000000000000000A000000000000000000000000000R0000000000D00000000000000L000000y000000L000I000000A0007000R0000000000g000000000000002000000000000000
It is so preposterous and outrageous that the only way that Lee Cronin would agree to come is if James couldn’t talk. This is how fragile he is. He can’t have James expose him or else he won’t come. Sheer insanity.
The ironic thing is, Cronin didn't even address the topic anyway. Also, the guy in this interview pointed out something that I noticed as well. Tour went first, and made predictions, then Cronin came up and did exactly what Tour had just previously predicted. That right there is science. Examine the data, make a prediction based upon the data, and then see if the predicted outcome arises. And it DID.
@@codonmatrix4510 all Cronin did was spout off these platitudes about “science”. He sounded like bill nye the science guy or Neil de grasse Tyson advertising STEM to high school students. “Science is so important and in science we fail and I like failing and I am excited to wake up in the morning and fail because failing teaches us things. Science is very cool and in science we learn” Uhhh.. okay then 😒
I'm going through Dr Rob Stadler and Change Laura Tan's book right now; "The stairway to life" and they are refreshingly direct and concise about the challenges of abiogenesis. An easy, compact read, I recommend it for anyone.
The problem with God-in-the-gaps is not really the appeal to God, but rather as we learn more and more about the cell, we find that the gaps keep growing larger and larger. So, it's more like an evolution-in-the-gaps problem. BTW, a scientist CAN say that life cannot form spontaneously in the pre-biotical world. It's called the SECOND law of thermodynamics. Going to the moon is only a physical difficulty. The spontaneous formation of the lunar module, however, is not just a physical difficulty. It's a thermodynamic impossibility. And life is more complex than a lunar module. Dr. Stadler is right and he didn't actually NEED to qualify his sentences.
You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which I can tell as you are applying it to a system that does not meet its preconditions for validity. There is nothing about the formation of new species that is any way precluded by the 2nd law. Creationist attempts to describe genetics in a way to make it susceptible to the 2nd law are grossly erroneous. They leave out the quantity of organisms when doing the calculations that you seem to be referring to, while that quantity is essential to the computations. Life is not precisely defined, like species, what is or is not alive is a matter of opinion. There are many common criteria for determining something is alive, but like taxonomy they are a matter of convenience in describing clusters of similar things. If you think otherwise then you must know of some "life meter" which can be used to give a clear yes/no result for any thing presented to it. The complexity of life is not an argument for design, or even for low probability of formation. If every part of that complexity is necessary for the organism to reproduce you might seem to have an argument, but it would not be a sound argument because a reduction from a system with some non-essential complexity to one where it is all necessary might be evolutionarily advantageous. If many parts of that complexity can be left out and the organism still reproduce, albeit not nearly as frequently as with the extra mess, then mindless evolution is a reasonable hypothesis- that is the expected result of trial and error rather than informed design. -- And in the end, nothing about life being the result of a sentient being tells you anything at all about that being other than it had the ability to create life and it exercised that ability. You can't even know if the creation of life was intentional, we could be a side effect of designing a system for making pretty galaxies. You can't even determine that there was an intent at all behind the actions, the creator might not be any more sentient than a snail, eating its way through the metaverse pooping out universes such as ours. The connection of "the universe was created" to any particular God is without validity.
@@histreeonics7770 No amount of "gradual" build up to complexity can happen as long as the 2nd law is operative. That's why a lunar module cannot be gradually built up from less complex parts by the action of wind and rain.
@@VernCrisler You do not understand the 2nd law at all if you think it has any relevance to the operating of genetics other than it being one of the reasons for random mutations. There are very few similarities between the operation of biological organisms and lunar modules. Analogies such as you are trying to make between the two are firstly never a valid logical argument as similarity is not equality, but also must be based on far more similarity to be pedagogically valuable. The most glaring difference is that biological systems reproduce with variation while lunar modules do not reproduce ever. When you pay proper attention to the number of instances of each class of organism you will see that there are very few "highly complex" organisms compared to the simple ones, count the number of bacteria and compare that to the number of vertebrates. The 2nd law is statistical, and even if it were applicable to genetic variation (it is not) that would not preclude a few organisms being far more complex than most. The 2nd law started as an empirical observation applicable to heat engines. Genetic systems are not heat engines. Eventually it was understood that the heat engine was a special case and the law could be expressed differently and applied to any system with internal states that follow some very common rules. All it takes for the variety of life to increase is for energy to be dissipated during the process of that creation. One of the criteria for guessing that something is alive is that the increase in entropy of its surroundings is faster than expected from just the atoms present in the thing. Recent work that is beyond my decrepit math skills to confirm is that when a system is not at equilibrium (one of those preconditions for the 2nd law to fully apply and which is not attained anywhere on Earth) that complexity is likely to be maintained once created as it expedites the increase in entropy. IE now that we are understanding how to extend the principles behind the 2nd law to systems it formerly did not cover, they show that life and its evolution are supported by the 2nd law rather than prevented by it. -- If you reply with what you think the 2nd law is and how it applies to evolution I'll point out the places where you have gone wrong. Don't feel bad if I do, during my career as an electronics engineer designing scientific measurement equipment I often corrected PhD's in chemistry on such issues. I had to get stuff like this correct for my machines to work and customers to want to buy them.
@@VernCrisler I did not copy and paste a single word. Keeping it short, how do you think that the 2nd law precludes increase in biological complexity over generations?
This should be a slam dunk for scientists so confident in their assertions, but they mostly run for the hills or dissemble badly. Very telling, in fact the most telling factor in this debate. You have given me masive doubts in my previous assumptions that OOL science was basically on the right track and even healthy, so thank you Dr. Tour. A good heuristic in any issue you are having a problem deciding what to believe: "I will see what I think after the best experts on either side have had a debate". of course, persistent non-shows tell their own story.
So Vernon, can you explain to us mere peons with a science education, what argument specifically convinced you that Tour is right, and that the origin of life requires a miracle by his god?
"...But it's remarkable that he [Ventner] could not make a cell from scratch. And even now today [Mar. 15, 2022], synthetic biologists cannot make a cell from scratch, because there's some contingent information embodied outside the genome, in the cell. And that is just incredible." -Lee Cronin
@@Fistbeardthepirate Sweetums, what's incredible is your stupid believe in magic and fairy wizards popping universes into existence. Evolution is just hard to understand in detail, which is why you will never get it. Away and thump some bibles, they probably need a dusting anyway.
@@attila.the.honest So tell us with your "science" background, where Cronin was able to describe-scientifically-how life developed? The problem with most scientists is that they aren't interested in the science, they are interested in keeping their funding and status in the scientific community. The science has always been there, its how scientists interpret or misinterpret the data.
@beanbean3535 Yes, I watched the whole video, including the original Harvard debate. Which part specifically do you believe was attempting to present lies?
@@sanjinloncaric1798 if you watched the Harvard video then you had to have seen the scientists constantly calling out tour. Maybe you should rewatch it and actually pay attention because it’s really showing how he responds to questions. Tour doesn’t actually believe anything he’s saying. He’s just trying to trick gullible people into buying it.
There was a lot of rhetorical sleight of hand on the part of Cronin (and the others at the table); as if being argumentative, or even aggressive, has anything to do with the validity of the claims. This is all rhetorical nonsense, and Lee and others made the genetic fallacy too many times to count.
This should be called the "chemical coup" to hypotheses of evolution from prebiotic matter. These are very strong arguments. Thank you, Dr. Tour, for your work in favor of the truth regarding the possible origin of living beings from prebiotic matter.
This is quality content. Cronin and his acolytes should be ashamed for what they are doing, and projecting into an otherwise noble science. God bless you Dr. Tour.
The ONLY reason the trolls come here, is because they themselves recognize the gaping hole that Tour has torn in their favorite fairy tale. So they constantly come here to try and put a patch over that huge hole and emit a constant barrage of personal attacks on the man instead of ever addressing the actual FACTS. They KNOW the facts are against them, it's why they squeal so much instead of providing any actual proof of their hypothesis. They claim it's too complicated to understand yet. Think about that. They want you to believe that life arising totally unguided by itself, is so simple that brainless molecules can do it, while at the same time, claiming it's too difficult to currently duplicate. Which is it? Simple or hard?
A question that should be posed to "origin of life" researchers is this: So far no mechanism has been discovered to show how abiogenesis could occur during the Earth's existence. If in future a new mechanism is discovered that would allow abiogenesis to proceed, then why do we only see one version of DNA? If there is some easier and quicker way for simple amino acids to combine, then why don't we see a myriad of base components and not just the four we currently see: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine?
The problem with biochemistry as a tool is the 'nearness' hurdle, bringing the desired atoms near enough to bond spontaneously. We have very much difficulty in creating molecular structures because we have few direct manipulation techniques. We rely on natural mixing, bringing atoms to such close proximity, that they will bond. Apart from atomic sputtering (producing vapors from a hot filament in a vacuum), we cannot hold a molecule in a fixture, and add another atom to it. Because we are such large macroscopic creatures ourselves, we can't work at that scale. But that's what you need to do to build molecules. Atomic forceps, atomic vises, working at near absolute zero, that's what is needed. Working with solutions is a dead end for answering the OOL question.
God Bless you for speaking the truth when it’s easier to please the crowd. May God clean the sciences of the insincere and deliver us from the harm they cause.
One thing that wasn’t directly addressed: Evolutionary minded people assume that the moment ANY self-replicating cycle is formed, then complexity will automatically increase and evolution by selection will kick in. But that is not only an unproven assumption, what we actually see is the opposite: selection actually favors shorter, less resource demanding, and faster cycles. Not more complex, more resource demanding, and longer cycles, which is the direction that is required to eventually produce life.
@@rbzuuka7948 //Wrong// Wow, such a pithy and insightful response. I don’t even know where to start! Seriously, simply declaring someone’s statement wrong is not an argument, doesn’t prove them wrong, and enlightens literally no one. What, exactly is wrong with what I said, why is it wrong, and based on what sources? Otherwise, I stand by my statement as you have provided us with no reasons to think differently.
@@rbzuuka7948 you're really not thinking right. Everyone knows that changes happen but you really gotta know the limitations, one celled organism becoming multicellular doesn't proof a thing (if that was truly the case), the limits of what we know can't happen by chance still stands, they're things you really need to consider like what new proteins was formed, what new enzyme was formed, what new molecular machine was created, etc. You really have to understand that Cells are so well designed that they can change and adapt, without losing functionality and allot of times these changes are preprogrammed. it doesn't mean that a cell can become anything. And the 35 year old e coli bacteria ( if I remember correctly) is not a very thoughtful example of evolution, it's really a degrade.
@@rbzuuka7948 Damn! You really are still in the dark, sorry. If you haven't heard of adaptations of organisms that are preprogrammed then I pity you. What do you mean by prebioticaly produced protein? If you think that they are truly prebiotic (hands off) then I'm even more sorry, you need to be thrown into the light of true science. And I wonder if you're deaf to what this very video properly explained; that there's a limit to what we can call life, there's a required amount of complexity to maintain the simplest form of life. And how do you still have the boldness to talk about RNA as the route to making cells man, I don't have the time to even talk about that, it's been well done with!
@@rbzuuka7948 Lenski experiment in E. Coli "evolving" to metabolize citrate is not very exciting regarding evolution. It's so minimally interesting that I'm shocked that it is used as an argument for macro evolution. Where has a single-celled organism visibly evolved in an experiment or in nature to become multicellular?
To all who questioned my assertion that undirected chemical processes tend to favor shorter, less complex cycles, consider this quote from a recent Nature article on RNA world theory problems, by Nick Lane and Joana Xavier: “The problems are that there is little evidence that RNA can catalyse many of the reactions attributed to it (such as those required for metabolism); and copying ‘naked’ RNA (that is not enclosed in compartments such as cells) favours the RNA strands that replicate the fastest. *Far from building complexity, these tend to get smaller and simpler over time.* Worse, by regularly drying everything out, wet-dry cycles keep forming random groupings of RNA (in effect, randomized genomes). The best combinations, which happen to encode multiple useful catalysts, are immediately lost again by re-randomization in the next generation, precluding the ‘vertical inheritance’ that is needed for evolution to build novelty.”
Protien folding problem! "The problem is that this is extremely computationally intensive. A typical protein has hundreds of amino acids, which means thousands of atoms. But the environment also matters: the protein interacts with surrounding water when folding. So you have more like 30k atoms to simulate...... What is the “protein folding problem”? A brief explanation by Jason Crawford · November 30, 2020 · 5 min read
@@oceanfrogfrazer473 Oh yeah, he'd never bear false witness, by, say, misrepresenting how pure the graphene in his experiments actually is, or claiming that this graphene could help cure cancer or trap CO2 from methane.... he'd never bear false witnesss by forcing his colleagues to sign his name on papers he had little to no input in. He'd never fail to pay his graduate students for papers they made all by themselves that he put his name on that he said he'd pay them for working on.
I wanted to thank Dr. Tour he is absolutely great at this but he is so smart and knowledgeable he needs a normal person to ask him questions and explain things where most everyone can grasp what Dr. Tour is saying. Thanks again
I agree with you. Science books in schools need to be updated. Young people should not only be taught the materialistic atheist worldview. They need hope and answers to their questions. Thank you for your work. God bless you!
Sweetie, I don't know which god-awful US state you live in, but no science books "teach atheism." You lot ban science books in any case, so why should you be worried about them? You've already destroyed science education across much of the US, so it will turn into a wasteland. And stop using the products of science, you know, like computers. It's all the work of the devil.
Hope is not relevant to providing legitimate answers to questions. Hope that is based on lies is diminishing the role of reason in public discourse, and the alternative is authoritarianism. Authoritarianism always has segued into despotism.
Just bear in mind, folks, Tour hasn't provided any argument that proves abiogenesis is chemically impossible. Sure, it's possible to criticise individual research approaches, but you have to point out why, not simply whine that the whole idea is impossible. The real question is in figuring out what the first replicating polymers were - assuming a definition of proto-life as replicating biochemistry - and the simplest chemistry and environmental conditions needed to support them and allow them to evolve. Clearly, any honest scientist - Tour isn't one, he's prejudiced against it - will point out we're not sure where to look. That's why a lot of different ideas need to be explored to have any hope of answering the question. And sure, you can argue there are more important research areas biologically. But this kind of research is mostly funded privately by folk interested in the answer. To understand why Tour gets bent out of shape about it, you have to realise that religion is far more important to Tour than science. He feels personally threatened by particular research avenues, because he fears what they'll discover, and force him to re-evaluate his religious beliefs.
@@georgbenad4436 Citation needed. So far as I've read, and I've read Dawkins extensively, he's never claimed life could only have originated extra-terrestrially. It would be foolish to claim that, and even given my reservations about Dawkins, he's not that gaga yet.
I have worked for passionate employers where I had to actually listen, it was surprising to find out their words contained logic and reason. It also was uncomfortable and it's never easy to man up and get over your self *interest*.
Lee Cronin is a classic gamma, who thinks he's the greatest. The reality is he's mediocre. He's smart, but not genius. Tour is a level of IQ higher and that bothers Cronin. I like to meet high IQ people, especially when they teach me new stuff. Yup it can be a humbling experience too.
No. One memorable event happened when five minutes later he wrapped his arm around my shoulder and told me he thought I was a good person. Generally most guys recognize when their boss is mean but fair. Like what else do you expect when you botch up and cost him thousands of dollars. A smile and a handshake?@@FindTheTRUTH337
Great Podcast and guest. Keep up the good work with the podcast and information. I continue to pray for you and your work and appreciate this stance of truth against the scientific misinformation put out there for so many decades.
Dr Tour I Love your passion. You kept your cool the whole time. And I applaud you! That whole table was set against you. Felt like daniel and the lions! You are amazing, your science is BEYOND amazing. And your faith has inspired a multitude! Never doubt for the lord is with you! God bless you and the whole of your family.
@@alisterrebelo9013 Pointing out that Tour is a nutter isn't an ad hominem, it's an accurate description. I'm happy to discuss the science, but Tour didn't. If you think he made a scientific argument against abiogenesis, perhaps you could tell me what it is, because I didn't hear one out of him.
@@attila.the.honestYou're still here, and still haven't learned anything since you arrived? Show us where he made any "argument against biogenesis." You really, really do not even understand just how blind you are. Pretty sad really.
Thank you, Dr. Tour and Dr. Stadler for this discussion. Research grants with implied or explicit ideological strings coupled with hubris imprison many professional researchers. I was lost in the dark before Yeshua, the Good Shepherd, found me and rescued me from myself, the world and the devil.
Lasked the biochemist Lemken in Germany the following question: "In your opinion, why is it that Lee Cronin's announcement in 2011 to create a living cell in the laboratory by 2013 has still not been realised, even though supercomputers that can perform several quadrillion calculations per second are now available to science? His interesting answer was: "This computing power is nowhere near enough (!!!!)." He then provides me with a detailed scientific explanation... The prebiotic Earth would certainly have been happy if it had had a simulated pocket calculator at its disposal.....
Thank you Dr. Tour, I have totally no knowledge of chemistry but I totally understand what you are saying…thank you for being so humble and passionate.
He is not at all humble. His positions usually entail a claim that he knows all that there is to be known about biochemistry, which is something that no human can ever legitimately claim due to the perhaps infinite number of possible bio-chemical reactions. It is possible that he is simply not smart enough to know that is what he is stating, so he could be humbler than I think, and just not as smart as he says that he is.
@@histreeonics7770it is not dichotomous like that. Tour is certainly intelligent. You are basically just calling him dumb. Your first point is good though, we haven't figured it out yet
@@crabb9966 Tour is intelligent, but is often blinded by his faith resulting in errors that sure make him sound dumb. It is not enough to have intelligence, you must be willing to apply it to all aspects of your life. Tour quotes numbers for "improbability" of various biological molecules forming that use models for that computation that he himself says are invalid. Either he is not smart enough to know that is what he is doing, or he is purposely lying. Which do you think?
Blessings Dr. Tour, I am so grateful and thank GOD every day for introducing me to HIS TRUTH, to your channel, and to the profound prolific scientific research that you are involved in. Thank you for inviting Dr. Stadler to your channel, and for this dynamic conversation you are having to clear up the disrespectful display by Lee Cronin in his inept bombastic boastful, challenging discourse which only showed his envy towards you. I think Harvard showed their indignant stupidity to invite individuals who do not know chemistry and allowed Lee Cronin to throw the TRUTH out the window. I BELIEVE that ALL the attempts that man/woman makes to find the ORIGIN OF LIFE will fail! In Genesis 3:24 GOD drove out man from the garden of EDEN and stationed a cherubim and a flaming sword which turns in every direction to guard the way to the TREE OF LIFE. The TREE OF LIFE is the ORIGIN OF LIFE. GOD will NEVER EVER ALLOW MAN TO FIND IT! GOD obviously allowed the woman and man to make the first mistake (SIN-to disobey HIS command), and allowed both of them to carry on with their life the first time, but not a second time. Man has contempt for GOD, and that contempt remains ingrained in all of us from that very day that woman wanted to be like GOD. Man/woman is in pursuit of immortality, and continues to want to be like GOD. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. I also want to share with you that I watch your Bible Study, and know that we are destined to meet someday. God bless you, your family, Israel, and our beloved USA. Blessings always, your Sister in Christ. Myrta Rivera BS Political Science, PC Broadcasting & Entertainment, PC Motion Picture & Television, BA Business Administration/Marketing, BA Labor Relations, MA Public Policy, MA Negotiations, Conflict Resolutions & Peace Building, Doctoral Candidate.
I love Dr Tour’s attitude and ability. Especially his desire to disseminate this incredibly complex research work to non-researchers so they can get a reasonable grasp of the key aspects/drivers.
Yes, and he does a really great job of that, but his idiotic peers just don't even want to hear it, because they know he is RIGHT, and they just can not stand that because of what the real science is pointing to in regard to origins of life.
@@trevorjameson3213 I cast my mind back to college days during science lessons and how the thought of an invisible mysterious wonder God somehow making all this stuff, it was reasonably difficult to make a case against the overwhelming science that was being espoused from the front of the class and the outstanding textbooks. And now 2024 when the more we uncover each day and the deeper the complexity and rhythm, the idea that this stuff spontaneously came together without any mind or cause, oh dear, the atheists are going to be looking for some large shovels to try and dig themselves out of the ever expanding mess of bankrupt theories and indefensible and desperate ploys. Frankly, the worst thing those professors did a few years back was to educate the James Tour’s of the world. James is smart, but his respect and worship of the mind behind it all lifts him, and those of us who believe, to giddying heights of awe and wonder.
What lie would that be? The only lie I hear is that Jesus is a magical wizard who created everything by magic, and that science can't tell us how it happened, because only religion can. And your evidence for this lie is... oh that's right, you don't need any, because religion doesn't need evidence. I'll stick to science, thanks.
@@mg-ew2xfBefor i ever heard of Tour, which is rather recent, i already knew everything he contends. Its called Pure and Applied Chemistry. Let me guess.....you believe RNA formed by accident in some soup. Its your right to believe anything you want. Americans fought and died for us to have this freedom.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 When a scientist states that "we are on the brink" of understanding OOL and seventeen years later ...we are still on the brink?...that scientist is the one who is lying....not the one pointing out the lie.
@@alantasman8273That absurd objection was brought up and thrown in Tour's face at the Harvard roundtable discussion. Being hopeful about future progress and getting a prediction wrong is an indication of poor prognostication, not bad science, and this is something that Tour is himself guilty of with his own research proposals. When this was brought up to his face, do you know what he said? Nothing, absolutely nothing, likely because he understood in that moment how braindead, knuckledraggingly stupid that objection is.
If you notice the independent scientists who can create and build have no problem with a creator God. Its always the phds who just sit at a desk pushing state approved propaganda who have never built, discovered or created anything who thinks there is no creator. The clear difference between understanding and knowledge. James tour has understanding.
It's the PhDs who do the science and publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Creationists post their claims on their websites. Can you explain to us what "understanding" Tour has?
@annieoaktree6774 he has understanding in chemistry. So he understands how elements work. To imagine people today still believe in spontaneous generation. to think that life can come about through purely natural causes. I wonder what are these purely natural causes?
@@Littleking1985 Sweetie, you can't accept natural causes for the origin of life, but you happily accept magical sky-wizards zapping life into existence out of nothing with secret spells. How, exactly, do you make that work? What gods do you think can account for it? And how do they do it?
I'd like to see Rob Stadler Part 2, where Rob does all the talking, please. Let Rob present his main critique of abiogenesis research, or why he believes we may be approaching a threshold in our understanding of biological systems and reaction chemistry to be able to dismiss a naturalistic explanation.
You mean even existing cells' function will never be fully understood so that we have to simply posit some inscrutable present continual supernatural intervention by some spiritual stuff? Oh well we there goes my investment in MERK
The functions of existing eukaryote cells is still not close to be completely understood. Therefore we have reason to postulate supernatural intercession In the physical world all over the place.
@@edwardj3070 You're missing the point. The inference to design is not based on what we DON'T know as you point to. It's based on what we DO know about the cause and effect structure of our universe and our repeated, uniform experience with the product of intelligence. By the way, ironically, you are relying on your own version of the god of the gaps there, an argument from ignorance, by admitting you dont know enough about origins then insisting on a naturalistic explanation purely due to your philosophical stance. It's unfortunate the dishonest and philosophically inept are often running the show
We have documents, written accounts, of China planting, growing and harvesting rice as far back as 8000 BC. Let that sink in. The Chinese were farming rice 4000 years before earth existed. Ooops. This is awkward.
@@alisterrebelo9013 how does it not follow? Tour claims science is fraudulent, he claims “people searching for answers is a scam”, all the while claiming earth is 6000 years old based on geneology in the bible going back to the creation of Adam and earth, insisting it is fact while saying the scientific method is wrong, in light of the fact that we have proof that people were farming 4000 years longer than he claims the earth has existed. It is entirely relevant. He screams “science is a scam” while his theology is a proven scam. In other words, how can Tour claim to know the origin of life when life existed before he thinks the earth came into existance?
@@DinorwicSongwriter You bring up religion because that's the only way you can ignore Dr. Tour and his questions about the chemistry of prebiotic earth. I need timestamps for all of those quotes you have of him. I've watched this entire video and can't recall where he's said those things. If a person asks: why are OoL scientists buying reagents that should be synthesised prebiotically and then claiming they are close to solving the origin of life? If you bring up religion right after this question, you're avoiding the question.
Just want to say thanks to Dr. Tour and all the other scientists who are seeking honesty and truth in our science. It makes more sense to me, to deal with the realities that we are presented with, than it is to keep dreaming merely because some people have, 'objections,' to what the science may actually point to. I would rather have useful science that actually goes somewhere, than to have outdated scientific hypotheses be foisted on us. The main thing is, as they said, make our science books reflect the reality of the situation instead of claiming a bunch of unproven garbage. Tell the truth.
@@junodonatus4906 what a load of garbage. No amount of slurs and strawmen will save the abysmal state of OoL research, which is absolutely nowhere near creating life. When critiquing abiogenesis, Tour NEVER invokes God. Your attacks on him are pathetic.
@@alexnik1181hiding your true self is bad. Religiom pretending to be science is bad. Why bring religion into a science video anyway? No, your comment is not smart, try harder.
@@alexnik1181 No, false religion is bad. Many religions are not even fully formed, Science™ has no named deity but it has principles which must not be questioned. Namely do as you're told.
With these people and so many of the younger generations, it's more important about "how" you says something versus "what" you say. You must first pass their "how" before they will even listen to you. Sad but that's how it is now.
I haven’t got any degrees at all but I can see for myself how the complexity of the body’s construction cannot possibly have been made by chance or ‘natural selection’ . Take the complexity of the knee joint for instance. It is complicated . It bends , it is stable, it is held together in a functioning form by muscles and ligaments that are strong yet flexible and resilient . The joint is cushioned with a strong flexible cartilage. The knee cannot work without any of these components. When damaged it is very difficult to repair and probably can not be repaired back to its natural working state. It could not be done over time because how could it work in the meantime? It is impossible.
The main reason why evolution can never work (assuming abiogenesis already happened and got us to DNA driven biology - already a HUGE feat) is this: Mutations small enough to be naturally selected cannot cause speciation, and mutations significant enough to cause speciation cannot be naturally selected. For evolution to be true as the engine that explains all the variety of life on earth, it needs to explain both, but it can't. Because mutations occur in individuals, and as soon as one speciates, it can no longer reproduce with the rest of the herd, so dies lonely. I can explain more if you want.
@@forthfarean basically the issue is this: they say evolution is driven by random mutations refined by natural selection. Well, mutations occur in individuals first, not whole populations. So in order for any mutation to get established in a species, it first needs to be naturally selected, I.e. that individual needs to reproduce. Evolutionists often speak however as if as soon a mutation appears, it is instantly conferred onto the whole population. Of course if this were true, we'd all have blue eyes by now. So since mutations occur in individuals, and speciation is the event where one species divides into two, which is driven by mutations, there must be at some point a single mutation that breaks the compatibility. There is a first individual who is no longer reproductively compatible with the rest. That is just a logical fact. Evolutionists try to get around this with the idea of a compatibility gradient, where a population is divided in two parts, say A and B. Part A and part B are compatible, and B some members of B evolve into C, with C being compatible with B, but not with A. So C speciates from A. This *sounds* like an elegant solution, until you realize that the most textbook example of this phenomena would be so-called "ring species" - and sadly for evolutionists, every single alleged example of ring species has been debunked, by secular scientists. So we have zero examples of this gradient phenomenon... The closest they can come up with after that are hybrids like mules, ligers etc, but the problem with those is that they are sterile. If evolution were true, this gradient phenomenon should not have just one example, but literally every extant species, or at least most of them, should be in the process of speciation right now, and we should be utterly surrounded by examples. Where are they?
I suspect everything comes down to funding. Lee Cronin is dependent on Government etc funding resources that want to see development and movement toward a positive End that also has a Financial Payday. GOD only knows what Cronin has pitched to those financing his work.
Dr. Rob Stadler made a good point, to think that eventually there will be a natural cause for why molecules move toward each other to attach correctly, may be illogical. because the answer may only be supernatural. They may only move together because they are responding to the Word of God's Power. A Word based system. The explanation may only be supernatural, and maybe science can eventually prove that the only answer is unnatural.
If Tour weren't so obviously religious he'd probably get more respect. He wears his subjectivity on his sleeve and the proof are in his various videos.
Quite. It's perfectly possible to be scientifically critical of research into abiogenesis... it assumes _this_ unjustifiably, or doesn't investigate _that_ avenue. Those are constructive criticisms and are just fine. Researchers into abiogenesis know they haven't solved the problem. Constructive criticisms are always welcome. Tour's criticisms are purely destructive, because he denies abiogenesis is possible, and therefore all research into it is invalid.
@@attila.the.honest Tour said that it's possible in the future that abiogenesis will be demonstrated. He said that a bunch of times. His critics don't listen. Listening is an art.
@@sliglusamelius8578 listening isn't an art, it's an act of basic human decency and cognition, which a lot of these atheists lack. WHY don't they listen? James has said over and over and over and over again, that it's quite possible one day they will create life in the lab. HOW have they missed it every single time? They are either stupid, or dishonest.
Thanks! Both of you, Amen! You're doing an amazing job at exposing the atheistic lies and liars such as Cronin. God bless you James and all of you honest and godly people in science. God be with you. In Jesus name 😊❤️
Needless to say, Lee was using every tricks in the politician's textbook to get out of that "debate" from personal attack, appeal to feeling, dodging questions like a pro. Look like he already prepared for his next career when his academic reputation ruined.
James Tour is a scientist who has consistently deceived people throughout his career. I’ve never seen someone hype up their own fraudulent and plagiarized paper so hard, only to be forced to retract it, then lie about why it’s being retracted.
Would you say anything about him if he did not precisely demolish the possibility of Naturalism? People tend to spite others who attack their religion. Evoism believers really do not like their faith being poked at.
@@tammyc4430 You’re a moron. He has teams of people that work under him. He just puts his name on a paper. He also has a significant number of retracted papers because he pushes bad science.
I’m an origin of life researcher that just discovered you. I’m gonna be totally blunt: you are one of the most valuable assets an honest origin of life researcher can have. I despise the hype and spin that modern scientists engage in, not just in OoL but in general. So much so that I’ve avoided continuing in academia after bachelor degree and just got a job, doing research as an amateur and hobby. After the pandemic, I decided to keep going in academia and certify myself, and it’s been frustrating to be surrounded by smart people that seemingly suppress their intellect and behave more like advertising executives. It’s annoying. As an evolutionary geneticist, I was super irritated by Lee and the assembly theory garbage (yes, it’s garbage). When you literally list out all the problems that OoL has from the basis of a synthetic organic chemist, I am shocked (… actually, it’s not that surprising. Can’t have the hype train stop!) that OoL people avoid you. YOURE DOING THE TROUBLESHOOTING FOR FREE! This is the most valuable thing that people working on hard problems could have. If we’re not realistic about the difficulties we need to overcome, how on Earth will we? By getting lucky? The problem is too hard to just get lucky. Have to disagree on how far we are from the goal posts, and that they are moving away from us, and the guest’s belief that natural processes may not be able to start life. The reason I say this is not because of specific results in OoL research literature, but because the insights that can get use closer to the goal are completely scattered amongst unrelated bodies of research spanning many fields. It’s hard to synthesize when we don’t have all the relevant knowledge in one place. And yes, RNA is key, but it’s not because it can “replicate itself”. Self replication is not real. There is no molecule that I know of that can simultaneously template, and catalyze the formation of itself with only monomeric input.
Great comment. As Max Planck once stated; science advances one funeral at a time, the younger generation unencumbered by rigid philosophies needs to bear the torch. However, why do you think RNA-first holds the key? If you're a mathematician at heart, what do you think of Dembski's design inference coupled with the 1966 Wistar institute meeting where MIT engineers such as Murray Eden and mathematicians presented a rebuttal to abiogenesis based upon the lacking probabilistic resources problem for even the simplest, or minimally complex components of the DNA transcription and translation system. A good resource to summarize this argument is found in Lee Spetner's "Not by chance". Stephen C Meyer presents a philosophical overview of intelligent design in "Signature in the cell". The PDF is available online and the first 5 chapters build a compelling case to launch your own investigation into.
@@JohnSmith42374 Thank you for your input---- I'm all too aware of Max Planck's saying, it's quite depressing! To answer your questions on the mathematics, the reason I say I'm a mathematician at heart and not "in fact" is precisely due to firmly being a biologist first, all else second. Granted, I'm quite different from my colleagues (I keep getting weird looks whenever I'm around other biologists). Mathematical biologists are doomed to always being looked at as weird, since the mathematicians will think you've gone soft and the biologists will think you've gone insane. To be more explicit, due to this commitment to biological reality I am very, very picky regarding the way mathematics is used in the context of biological systems. Anyone can write any set of equations whatsoever and claim they're modeling biological systems, but the fact of the matter is that life is so darn complicated in terms of the number, span, and diversity of its components that it forces the mere formalization of biological systems nearly intractable, let alone solving any equations based on it. This makes it so that people using mathematics as their microscope have to be very, very careful and be very, very wise when they're making assumptions to simplify this overwhelming complexity down to analytically or computationally tractable forms. Way, wayyy too often I see very mathematically skilled people, way better than I'll ever be but that have never plugged in a microscope in their lives, simplify away all the details that make biological systems special, and that should be the features to be explained rather than simplified away. This makes the conclusions arrived at just a reflection of the bad assumptions that were made, with a bunch of unnecessary math in the way that those who don't speak the language will be intimidated by and are unable to refute. Lord May wrote about this abuse of mathematics in biology and has a paper on it, and unfortunately, things might've gotten worse. I am not familiar with the resources you've cited, so I'll take a look--- but understand that I'll be hypercritical on the assumptions made and the minute hard violations to biological reality are made, I stop. Regardless, I appreciate the input; those that look at the constraints often have the most important insights. To answer the RNA question, when we're talking about what life is from a material perspective, simply looking at cells through a microscope (especially plant cells! they're very pretty) illustrates an overarching principle: it is very structured, organized, non-random; so much so that it looks designed. The key property here is the non-randomness, the *organization*--- this feature of being organized systems of matter is the reason words like "organ" and "organism" and "organic" exist. This organization is currently maintained and renewed by the expression of genetic information which has been inherited or transferred from other sources that already had it. But not all the organization is encrypted in the genetic material, in fact, most of it isn't. This organization was materially inherited in the sense that it wasn't explicitly in chromosomes, just passed on thanks to cell division; so the structural organization is also inherited directly; Life comes from life and every organism has parents. If we start to consider where this organization comes from originally, we will inevitably coalesce back to the origin of life; but before even that, organization of less complexity must have accrued. Today, living systems have a bajillion components, all well ordered by the genetic material or pre-existing structure which genetic expression maintains, but all of this is forbidden to us if we're trying to explain how life started. This leads us to the fundamental question, what sets of chemical species are jointly capable of "moonlighting" in the sense that they can fulfill several roles, even if badly, *at once* (to be clear, I don't mean the exact same molecule, but rather classes of molecules that are somehow physically/chemically related). The reason this is essential is straightforward: if you're trying to run a complex system, like say a company (yes, a business or something like it), the best thing is to have specialists at each respective role so that every function is executed by the very best at that function. But this is very complicated and super expensive! if companies were required to be like that from the start, no companies would exist. Instead, startups where there's one leader, or a very small core of founders that are doing many things at once, even if not optimally, get the company off the ground so that, once it has demonstrated viability, gets further investment or generates surplus revenue which enables growth. The growth facilitates the process by inducing a virtuous cycle; the hardest thing to do is start. The same idea applies to biological organization, the less "things" in the system, that can do more "work", the better. Once you've realized that, RNA stands out alone and in triumph, as being responsible for this. To see why, you can look at extant biology and biochemistry. RNA (I'm abusing the term here a bit, since I'm including the monomers) is responsible for the expression and translation of genetic information and can be the source itself such as in RNA viruses (there are constraints here which is a separate discussion), but even then, DNA, the long term genetic material, is just castrated RNA. Genetic expression, unless you're an RNA virus in which case you're already RNA, starts with the making RNA that reflects the information stored (transcription). RNA is the main entity responsible for metabolism, both in storage, transduction, regulation, and coordination of energy in the form of ATP, GTP, CTP, NADH, FADH, acetyl-CoA, etc. And all the work that's done by protein? Well its produced and encoded by RNA. The ribosome, now a complex ribonucleoprotein machine, is 100% RNA at its functional core, and is therefore a ribozyme which is older than life itself. It executes the genetic code by performing translation; the genetic code being a mapping between molecular alphabets which is embodied in RNA, tRNAs to be exact. There are more reasons I can list, but this is the core. Once you see it you can't unsee it--- RNA has been running the show all along. This is why the RNA world is true *in a sense*; not because there was a time that only had RNA literally doing everything (this is most certainly false and its a problem in this field) but because RNA is a "center of orbit" around which organization can be developed. I do not know of any other class of chemical species that has this property. Proteins had to be there from the start as well, being the Robin to RNA's Batman which is supported by the fact that the only thing truly shared by *all* of life is the core of the translation machinery. Therefore Unlocking translation is the key event in the origin of life, as it enables a virtuous cycle akin to the one described above. The true RNA world is not a phase life passed through and left as it originated; it is life itself--- we're living in it. Just to be clear, I'm not saying RNA is a self replicating molecule; it isn't. Self-replication is fantasy and has nothing to do with life's origin or life at all, since no class of chemical species that I know of contains polymer molecules that can simultaneously be a template AND catalyst for the polymerization reaction that yields as a product a second instance of themselves, using only monomers as input and without being consumed by the reaction. Self-Replication is not reproduction, something only life is capable of, and is therefore not relevant to the origin of life since that's what we're trying to get to. Replication (note lack of word "self") *is* important in the sense that you eventually need template-instructed polymerization, but this is different from what most researchers are looking for. So the question about the origin of life should be parsed into two sequential physicochemical problems: the first in the form that Professor Tour is focusing on, namely the origin of the chemical constituents themselves starting from geochemical processes with no cheating by using something "from the future". But even given this, there is the problem that I focus on, which is the origin of genetic information, not just sequences, but of organization which can eventually be enveloped and escape the confines of its origin and be the source for maintaining itself, a "Kantian whole" as Stu Kaufman calls it. The physical chemistry of polymerization is the key. Sorry for the huge text dump! You asked an important question that I've been obsessing with for a long time; and its a question people have not thought hard enough about. Will be checking out the literature you cited. Cheers!
The truth is the only important thing, religion doesn't matter. If evidence shows origin of life is accurate fine, no problem, but if it doesn't don't make stuff up, don't distort the truth to mislead people. Just say we're not there yet. It's obvious why, there are millions at stake in grant money, can they go up to the grant board and say we don't know jack crap more than yuri miller did 70 years ago. They have to lie, the whole evolution theory has to lie because they have no real evidence.
@@haldanesghost Long comments are great, as long as they are coherent. So you're a "virus-first" proponent? There is a problem assuming life started from simpler molecules as per your analogy (which is the intuitive assumption within the materialistic methodological framework), but we can't assume that from the outset as we attempt to investigate it, at the expense of all other possible explanations. Richard Lenski's longest-running 35-year experiment on bacteria shows that life moves to simplify. On a glucose-only diet the bacteria eject their operons for ribose for a 2% efficiency increase. Every colony in Lenski's labs over many tens of thousands of generations saw their genomes shrink against expectations (see E. Callaway "Legendary bacterial evolution experiment enters new era", 2022 for overview). If we assumed for argument's sake the design hypothesis, then this is exactly what we would expect. In fact, it's fascinating to see the admissions even from OoL community of what constitutes a minimally-complex (and interdependent) system of gene transcription and translation, which would be R/DNA and a suite of about 100 proteins for prokaryotes. I think you could try reading the online PDF of Signature in the cell, ch 1-5 or so and building up to chapter 14; "The RNA world". This is a philosophical foundation for discussing the DNA enigma as outlined by Koonin and Novozhilov 2009. Thereafter if you're curious, give W. Dembski's 2nd edition of Design Inference a try (which released end 2023).
James I am posting this in the hopes you take feedback to heart. There are several factors leading OOL scientists to dismiss you. 1. You style. Call it what you want, passion if you must, but nobody really wants to watch you shouting. I believe you would benefit from passion management. Learn to pause and collect your thoughts and speak once you have mastered your emotional volatility. 2. We all know you hold strong religious beliefs and we can all see how these beliefs influence the things you say. Religious belief or faith is perfectly acceptable many scientists have such beliefs. The difference is we expect you to review the OOL without your religious presuppositions. While you are obviously of the opinion you are able to enter into the discussion without presuppositions, it is glaringly obvious to your colleagues you do not. Your denials of said presuppositions are obviously false. Again the solution is self reflection. Admit your presuppositions and test them. When the evidence contradicts your presuppositions be willing to concede, something you seem incapable of doing. 3. And last you are arguing from ignorance amd/or God of the gaps and/or denial of evidence and/or incredulity (life is too complex to understand), you even go as far as suggesting removing textbooks and shout as you do so. You emphasize what we do not yet understand. In doing so you reject or ignore what we do understand. Origin of life is so much more than synthetic chemistry. It involves geology, biology biochemistry, genetics, astrophysics, etc. We do have self replicating molecules for example. When you fail to acknowledge what we do know the OOL scientists are going to ignore you. Why are you attacking the "primordial soup" model when such a concept is outdated? This is both a straw man but more importantly it only shows how little understand you have of modern hypothesis and theories and more importantly modern evidence. Attacking the primordial soup model is akin to saying we are clueless about astrophysics because the the flat earth model is false. Your understanding is simply outdated and you do not give the impression you are capable of considering the modern evidence. You have been marginalized for the reasons above and will remain so until you correct the errors of your ways.
Uh oh Dr. Tour, the science gestapo is involved now. Oh dear. Not a peep however, about the actual chemistry or science, it's all about what you may personally believe. Apparently, you are not allowed to do science if you don't toe the line in regards to what you personally may believe. How progressive those wanna be tyrants are. The king has now ordered you to bow to the idol, or else. Don't you just love 'freedom'? They are free to make up any garbage they want, but if you dare to disagree, you become persona non grata. What a wonderful group of truth seeking control freaks. Leftists are always full of trumped up allegations. They apparently DEMAND that you bend the knee to their vast greatness and infallibility. They are their own gods.
The very reverend "doctor" tour is no longer regarded as a scientist by anyone familiar with biochemistry. He's just another preacher now. He keeps himself deliberately ignorant of every relevant science, because it's not in the wholly babble. There's just no way to respect a man like that, not as a scientist, anyway.
And you are absolutely right that Tour sets religion above science. He has a strong belief that the book of Genesis is literally true, even though he isn't honest enough to say so. He doesn't even accept the vast swathes of evidence for evolution, because he keeps himself carefully ignorant of it. Sure, we don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened, but no-one has ever shown it to be impossible, not even Tour. Especially not Tour. The man is a very unfunny joke. As a biochemist with a fair amount of experience in the field, I find attitudes like Tour's to be completely incomprehensible. Who, exactly, is he to tell god what he can or can't do? This is what science is about, figuring out how nature does stuff, and if a god is real, it uses nature. But that's not Tour's god, his god is a magician. A wizard zapping living organisms into existence out of absolute nothing. Science is about discovering how nature works. Tour's religion is about telling you what his god demands of you. He's probably never been a real scientist in his life, unless he discovered his current religious mania later.
@@attila.the.honest Please stop, I'm laughing so hard right now I'm gonna bust a gut. -- "He has a strong belief..." Oh dear. Please show us on this doll, where Tour's 'belief' hurt you.
Great discussion! The conversion of science into believe is a big problem in the progress of science. We pretend to students that everything is solved and the rest is just "technology" and that is why they have to learn all the concepts. But, the big questions are still out there. It would be very exciting for students to learn what we do not understand and in the meantime learn about chemical synthesis, yields, pathways, thermodynamics, kinetics, folding problems and how existing biology is solving problems, and how such a thing could get started.
No need to worry, James. The general public are mostly intelligent enough to know that scientists regularly talk nonsense on this topic, as on many others. Few of them seem to be free-thinkers. I'm not even sure most of them are clear thinkers.
So people who have studied science for 40 years in an institution of extreme higher learning are wrong and you are going to tell them how it is huh? Good luck with that you fvcking moron.
_SCIENCE_ *Direct observation of chirality-induced spin selectivity in electron donor-acceptor molecules* cience 12 Oct 2023 Vol 382, Issue 6667 pp. 197-201 DOI: 10.1126/science.adj5328 Editor’s summary Chirality-induced spin selectivity has undergone intensive study in the two decades since its discovery. Essentially, the phenomenon manifests as polarization of electron spin by chiral molecules, although the observations thus far have pertained to samples adsorbed on a solid substrate. Eckvahl et al. report significant chirality-induced spin selectivity signatures during intramolecular electron transfer between donor and acceptor fragments across a chiral bridge in free-floating molecules (see the Perspective by Subotnik). The precise tunability and tractability of these systems should enable systematic comparisons with evolving theoretical models. -Jake S. Yeston Abstract The role of chirality in determining the spin dynamics of photoinduced electron transfer in donor-acceptor molecules remains an open question. Although chirality-induced spin selectivity (CISS) has been demonstrated in molecules bound to substrates, experimental information about whether this process influences spin dynamics in the molecules themselves is lacking. Here we used time-resolved electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy to show that CISS strongly influences the spin dynamics of isolated covalent donor-chiral bridge-acceptor (D-Bχ-A) molecules in which selective photoexcitation of D is followed by two rapid, sequential electron-transfer events to yield D•+-Bχ-A•-. Exploiting this phenomenon affords the possibility of using chiral molecular building blocks to control electron spin states in quantum information applications.
_SCIENCE_ Chiral molecules to transmit electron spin Electron transfer through chiral molecules displays a strong spin preference Science 12 Oct 2023 Vol 382, Issue 6667 pp. 160-161 Abstract Understanding how electrons move through molecules and carry energy with them has been crucial for the development of multiple technologies, including photovoltaic cells and light-emitting diodes. The standard theory (1) establishes that electron transfer (ET) can be understood by considering energy conservation and the movement of electrons and nuclei. However, this view of ET has been challenged with the observation of chirality-induced spin selectivity (CISS), whereby electrons with one spin move differently through a material than do electrons of the other spin (2, 3). On page 197 of this issue, Eckvahl et al. (4) report a CISS signal for an isolated chiral molecular system in a liquid crystal environment, after excitation with light. These results suggest that the standard ET theory should be modified to include both energy and total (orbital plus spin) angular momentum conservation, thereby opening the door to new CISS applications, including “green” hydrogen generation.
I'm glad God gave me a desire to know the truth, although I must admit to having had significant difficulty in my short life of 89 years, to be truthful myself. Thank both of you, Dr. Tour and Dr. Stadler for providing this presentation. May our Lord continue to guide your path with wisdom and His anointing.
This isn’t a debate at Harvard, it was a lecture. You are telling them the truth in the language of science, their supposed language, but they are dull of hearing because it doesn’t fit their paradigm or naturalist agenda. Great job!
The language of science is not the substance of science.
@@CasiBelle73 That isn't happening. Why are you lying?
@@CasiBelle73 you already did, so I don't have to.
Just so you know, Dr. Tour is a stand up, man of his words. One late night when feeling especially lost, I emailed him as he offers at 33:20 in this video. Now my problems was not as a nonbeliever but more of the need for Jesus, to forgive our sins. He responded early the next morning with words of encouragement and much information that it took months to review and mull. I was actually surprised that he bothered to help me with my faith. What a truly special person.
Why did you not contact Jesus Christ directly to discuss this matter? It is your relationship with this spiritual being that will decide your fate and "he" is a lawful teacher for you.
Tour is full of shit
Jesus Christ you are a perfect mirror for the lies and aggression of@@DinorwicSongwriter
@@JessicaSunlight because Jesus commanded His people to encourage one another. He wants His people to participate in this mutual building up of one another. Of course, He speaks through His people, through His providential ordering of all things, and even in Scripture, there are specific times that God makes His people go through valleys of weakness and doubt to humble them. Interfering with that process constantly will restrict growth, which, it appears, you need a lot of.
@@DinorwicSongwriter yeah, he's got all the cool sh*t, like truth and actual science, unlike the pseudoscientists you worship so you can escape from the God you know exists. Lol.
so glad that these two men have finally come together to take on the faux research behind OoL.
Exacto, Rob Stadler es el mejor junto con Tour, solo falta Brian Miller y listo. ✅️
💯
Tour should have Dr Rob Stadler on as a guest speaker again, but this time let Rob present his main critique of abiogenesis research, or why he believes we may be approaching a threshold in our understanding of biological systems and reaction chemistry to be able to dismiss a naturalistic explanation. I'd like to see Rob Stadler Part 2, where Rob does all the talking, please.
@@JohnSmith42374 Good call!
Do you think the Ninth Commandment applies to scientific discussion?
As a professional PhD biochemist, I'm completely on board with Dr. Tour's program questioning the naturalistic story of the origin of life. Keep up the great work!
I'm a published biochemist, and I think Tour is an absolute nutter who hasn't a clue. Where did you get your degree that you can spout such idiocies? What's your evidence for a magical sky-daddy doing magic? I want to see some science supporting your godddidit claims.
I agree with you. My phd is in catalysis, did a lot of organic synthesis. The very idea of chemical evolution is such a foreign concept to me.
@annieoaktree6774 since you brought up the supernatural. I'll bite. It is precisely because of a law giver that we can can do science. It is precisely because the laws of nature were set in motion to be consistent that we can do science.
@@mattprater8828 Well, perhaps you should have majored in biochemistry instead. Then you'd realise chemical evolution is perfectly natural. Tour used to be an organic chemist when he was still a scientist before becoming a preacherman. He was taught to think chemistry only ever happens in test-tubes at the behest of chemists. We biochemists know better.
@@mattprater8828 *_It is precisely because of a law giver that we can can do science._* Let me ask you a question no religious believer has ever been able to answer: where is this god of yours? What evidence do you have for it? What's it made of? What shape and size is it? Oh, we just have to have your faith? Well, that's not a very scientific answer. When you can provide evidence for your law-giver giving us laws, I'll take your daffy religion seriously.
The most courageous and honest scientist Ive ever listened to. PLEASE keep up your righteous endeavor!
Except, based on his discussion of abiogenesis, he's not honest.
I love how he lies to religious people, but when called out by scientists he claims there will be a natural explanation for the beginning of life.
@@oceanfrogfrazer473explain?
"I am going after the people that do not read the scientific literature"
- Dr. James Tour
@@oceanfrogfrazer473lol
The fact that Dr. Tour predicted out loud that Lee Cronin will not even talk about chemistry - the very science that was at the core of the subject - and that even with this prediction, Lee Cronin still didn't even adapt to change his talk to combat the prediction, is... jaw-dropping!
Lee Cronon talked about chemistry all the time. He just would not talk about the chemist Dr Tour talks about because there is no evidence for it. Chemist keep saying to Dr Tour show me the evidence and we can talk about it. Dr Tour star mans position which others do not hold and then tells them to show the evidence. No chemist claims they understand the origin of life, Dr Tour Claims others do that is the very definition of staw man. Dr Tour also claims he knows about the organ of live but has never produced any evidence for it. Not saying he is wrong but just that he has never demonstrated it, despite asking other to when they openly say we do not know. Unless and until Dr Tour provided the evidence for which he claims it is by definition a god of the gaps - because the gap exists..
Anytime a debate opponent says youre mean, rude or refer to feelings, thats not an argument. I frequently watch debates where men of "science" refer to feelings and intuition, without being aware of it.
The best one is when they say something about the "design" of something or other.
"Nope, that's not your word to use. You chose to follow evolution, now see your own brain tell you you're wrong."
Liberal beta males do that as a deffence
Good deflection from Jim's lies
@@mg-ew2xfsuch as?
@@mg-ew2xfwhat and when has hes lied?
If you bothered to read and listen and research you would understand his explanations are truthful and he has humility and admits he doesn’t have all the answers.
I, as merely one of the afformentioned "masses" Dr. Tour says he's putting these videos out for, GREATLY appreciate his efforts! I don't like being lied to (who does) but I am very frustrated by these old, worn out lies that the scientific community will not come clean on. I love science. My dad was a science teacher, and he really was blessed with a lot of raw talent in teaching. I could ask him, when I was little "Daddy, why does the sun shine?" and he would actually explain to me the make up of the sun and the explosions taking place on it! I loved that. Of course, I'm in my 60's now, so I can understand far more. Science has so much more to brag about if they only told the truth! Just hearing of science's discoveries as to the tiny million part cell (essentially, not necessarily literally) is astounding! I wish science folks understood that even a mensa would love to know these things, rather than keep reading about the old tired and proven-false narratives in every article that COULD have been fascinating. As soon as I read that, it's like a big blank with "fill in as you please" under it. It's boring. I want to know the REAL things that have been discovered. Good grief! The world would forget Darwin's Disaster in about 3 minutes if they knew what science actually KNOWS now!
Thank you Dr. Tour, and Dr. Stadler for being willing to positively challenge the,”Primordial soup” status quo.
👍👍
Are we really clueless about abiogenesis? Or is this an untrue statement repeated by Dr Tour?
We're clueless about abiogenesis. Jim said it, so it's got to be true (despite the data).
Did you spot any of Jim's favourite lies?
@@docsavage30 After he listed all of the problems...lol
Lee Cronin was saying you were yelling. Truth hurts the corrupt heart. Passion is the most beautiful cut for a repentant soul. It's so telling...
abiogenesis is a failure!
It's alchemy!
Tour is a plagiarist, pass it on.
@@peppermintgal4302 Tour speaks truth. Abiogenesis hasn't been working
@@peppermintgal4302 Get behind me Satan
@tonymaurice4157 Did Tour speak the truth when he said that overhyped pencil lead could filter CO2 from methane processing?
Abiogenesis, unlike Tour's research, has actual industrial applications. We just recently found out magnetized minerals can filter organic molecules by chirality. That itself could literally save lives.
Tour's presentation of abiogenesis as the field stands is entirely incomplete. He won't talk about PNAs, he won't talk about Martin Hanczyc's experiments, about life as a stress relief pathway or Shannon Information Theory, he won't tell the truth about what wrong chirality nucleotides actually do to polymer, or about proton transport in hydrothermal vents and the resulting acid-base organic reactions....
Dr. Tour, I have watched the talk with Lee Cronin several times over. I have studied not only what he said specifically but also implicitly. His arguments stated that since we "know" simplicity always evolves into complexity. Therefore we know that life aka complexity, came from these basic simple molecules aka simplicity. He gave examples of different man made objects like tools, and how they started out very simple and eventually evolved into increasingly more complex objects. The entire premise of his "new" theory was that we can use identification of complexity to identify life. But this is a falacious argument prima facie. We don't know that simplicity always evolves into complexity. In fact, he stated plainly, that we know evolution from non-living organic prebiotic molecules into living biological material happened because we are here living right now. He even stated that he isn't interested in the exact "how" aka the necessary chemistry. The fact, we are here and alive is the evidence it happened. His new theory isn't a tool to discover how origin of life happened, it uses the assumption he knows how it happened, (even if not exactly or in a testable way) and with that assumption uses his "theory" to try and identify life, aka complexity. His arguments are circular and falacious and his new theory is unfalsifiable in the since of OOL. It seems as though his new theory is a deflection from the fact, he knows he can't create life in the lab with prebiotic chemistry and the whole OOL group isn't even close. So instead of confronting the absurd claims he has made in the past and the real issues in OOL research. He is giving up and deflecting into this "new" theory to keep the research funding flowing in. It is really hard to keep money flowing into research that isn't making any progress. You can only build up and sell so many "major" breakthroughs (that arent actual breakthroughs) and so many bold predictions about life in the lab in 5 years. Before those funding the research realize its not true and move on to funding someone/something else.
It's basically "science of the gaps" with these people.
@@showmeanedge Absolutely, that is my point more simply put. It's untestable and unfalsifiable, "complexity exists, complexity only comes through evolution of simplicity." Ie Sience of the Gaps. The entire argument is circular and fallacious and his "New" theory is an obfuscation from the reality of the science of OOL.
@@dustinfrey3067 his new "theory" is the epitome of snake oil nonsense. One thing I've noticed is that so many scientists have absolutely no grounding in philosophy or logic. In fact may of them deride it while falling into very simple errors. Whenever somebody tries to point out that their hypotheses are predicated on logical impossibilities they act scandalized.
@showmeanedge the irony is that Lee Cronin literally said that he used oil as a way to produce results for how we can make membranes for cells while admitting later that these are only produced by life and that it was well known that oil is not prebiotically relevant but he needed the funds to build a robot for his new "theory" to be tested. He is selling faux science and even making drugs admittedly in order to get funding that he knows he would never get otherwise. It's fraud all the way.
It's interesting that when he says a tool initiate in a SIMPLE object then by INTELIGENT PROCESS It became COMPLEX, It's the argument from theleology, didn't?
"...nobody, the entire evening asked me a single question..." Why? Because the truth isnt useful. Proverbs 23:9 would guide me in that situation which honestly was curious to watch. Thanks Dr Tour for all you great work and Abiogenesis series. GBY
Very interesting! What Dr Tour and Dr Stadler agreed on at 25:55 min in this video, makes it a "game changer" for me, personally: Some day we might conclude that natural processes can never create life all by themselves. I believe personally we should already be able to make that conclusion!
Same here. And not just that but that the evolution of the species, is impossible. Mutation changes the DNA code, it does not add code. So how do you go from a single cell, to a multi cell organism. Much less a human being.
The reason that the "scientists" refuse to say anything, is that they don't want to admit that their god (science) is not omnipotent and omniscient. Only the One True God is, and that fact hurts them.
The reality is, even with infinite time, how would evolution even work? Let's ignore the chemistry and everything else in the natural world that shows that anything that is not working toward growing, is dying (rocks wear away, animals get old or are killed, plants do the same.) Nothing we have ever observed just randomly appears out of nothing, and it wears out or dies unless it or circumstances around it are actually adding to it and sustaining it.
Let's skip the small stuff, let's start off with infinite, unrotting food, infinite water, and a perfect goldilocks planet. *POP* Oh, there's a deer, just evolved from an eggplant. He's healthy, has everything he needs to survive and thrive. How long does he live? 10, 20 years (remember all perfect nutrition, and no predators) what are the odds another deer is going to pop out of another eggplant and even be in the same area? The likelihood is they'll never meet, and if they do, there's a 50/50 chance it's another buck. But let's say it's a doe, and they DO meet. Now what? I guess mother nature forgot to add that replicate feature. They're super early deer. Maybe they hate the sight of another deer. Maybe they're afraid of each other.
Now, that's a bad example, cause it's not the likely first animal that would have experienced this. However, SOMETHING must have experienced that if evolution is true. Think of the probably of a protein folding, then think of HOW MANY of those a deer (or small fish) would take to evolve. Now what happens of it got one thing wrong, and the poor critter can't reproduce during the one chance it has in its life (cause the probability is that one won't appear again for many lifetimes after he does). I have no such scholastic issues as Tour, so I can confidently say that they won't find how life appears on its own. They may possibly see it evolve, but absolutely NOT without outside help from God.
@@lostat400 Mutations add information, anyone with any training in information theory knows that. Gene duplication adds code, information content is directly related to number of tokens and each nucleotide is a token. Most people confound the technical use of the word information with the colloquial phrase which has the implied adjective of "useful". That confounding leads to false statements such as you make here.
An analogy for you: people who have their larynx removed are given a white noise generator to hold to their throat so that they can still make audible speech.The white noise of the generator gets filtered by the shape of the oral cavity to produce sounds that are not at all white noise. Imperfect replication of DNA strands is comparable to that white noise generator, reproducing more (or less) than others as a consequence of that change-due-to-noise is comparable to species. The environment is what determines which genetic patterns get reproduce more than others, and unless you think the environment is sentient then no sentience is needed to produce the variety of life we observe from even a single living cell, given enough generations and resources and genetic noise and environmental change.
--
We have in a lab put a single celled organism under predation pressure and it became multicellular. We have direct confirmation that this thing you say is impossible occurs.
It is impossible to know that there is nothing that you do not know. It is impossible to prove that natural processes can never create life all by themselves as we can never know that we know all possible natural processes.
@@lostat400 "Mutation changes the DNA code, it does not add code."
Due to mistakes in copying, it can both add DNA and delete it.
Btw, can you answer this question? Imagine that we both have a block of a million zeros, and each of us replaces 205, randomly, with numbers and letters (see below for an example), what are the chances that both our blocks match?
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000C00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000050000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000g000000000000000000000000t00000000000w0000000a0000000000000000t0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000w0000000000000000000A000000000000000000000000000R0000000000D00000000000000L000000y000000L000I000000A0007000R0000000000g000000000000002000000000000000
It is so preposterous and outrageous that the only way that Lee Cronin would agree to come is if James couldn’t talk. This is how fragile he is. He can’t have James expose him or else he won’t come. Sheer insanity.
The ironic thing is, Cronin didn't even address the topic anyway. Also, the guy in this interview pointed out something that I noticed as well. Tour went first, and made predictions, then Cronin came up and did exactly what Tour had just previously predicted. That right there is science. Examine the data, make a prediction based upon the data, and then see if the predicted outcome arises. And it DID.
@@codonmatrix4510 all Cronin did was spout off these platitudes about “science”. He sounded like bill nye the science guy or Neil de grasse Tyson advertising STEM to high school students.
“Science is so important and in science we fail and I like failing and I am excited to wake up in the morning and fail because failing teaches us things. Science is very cool and in science we learn”
Uhhh.. okay then 😒
@@Eternal1811 Yeah, he had platitudes. His 'science' was remarkable, in the fact that his speech was pretty much devoid of science.
@@codonmatrix4510 oof you two are ripping him apart. I almost feel sorry for him almost. Other than that he's dug this hole out of hubris.
If tour didn't shout over everyone I'd almost consider agreeing
What a gift to this world is Dr Tour!
Thumbs up, amen!
Amen!
Dr Tour is a hero. my theory is funding is more based on the way things look not the way things actually are.
What is the Ninth Commandment?
Yes, we get to see what it was like for Galileo in real time!
I'm going through Dr Rob Stadler and Change Laura Tan's book right now; "The stairway to life" and they are refreshingly direct and concise about the challenges of abiogenesis. An easy, compact read, I recommend it for anyone.
Thank you.
I've read it. It is excellent and helpful.
@@MarkWCorbett1 Its a fairytail.
The problem with God-in-the-gaps is not really the appeal to God, but rather as we learn more and more about the cell, we find that the gaps keep growing larger and larger. So, it's more like an evolution-in-the-gaps problem. BTW, a scientist CAN say that life cannot form spontaneously in the pre-biotical world. It's called the SECOND law of thermodynamics. Going to the moon is only a physical difficulty. The spontaneous formation of the lunar module, however, is not just a physical difficulty. It's a thermodynamic impossibility. And life is more complex than a lunar module. Dr. Stadler is right and he didn't actually NEED to qualify his sentences.
You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which I can tell as you are applying it to a system that does not meet its preconditions for validity.
There is nothing about the formation of new species that is any way precluded by the 2nd law. Creationist attempts to describe genetics in a way to make it susceptible to the 2nd law are grossly erroneous. They leave out the quantity of organisms when doing the calculations that you seem to be referring to, while that quantity is essential to the computations.
Life is not precisely defined, like species, what is or is not alive is a matter of opinion. There are many common criteria for determining something is alive, but like taxonomy they are a matter of convenience in describing clusters of similar things. If you think otherwise then you must know of some "life meter" which can be used to give a clear yes/no result for any thing presented to it.
The complexity of life is not an argument for design, or even for low probability of formation. If every part of that complexity is necessary for the organism to reproduce you might seem to have an argument, but it would not be a sound argument because a reduction from a system with some non-essential complexity to one where it is all necessary might be evolutionarily advantageous. If many parts of that complexity can be left out and the organism still reproduce, albeit not nearly as frequently as with the extra mess, then mindless evolution is a reasonable hypothesis- that is the expected result of trial and error rather than informed design.
--
And in the end, nothing about life being the result of a sentient being tells you anything at all about that being other than it had the ability to create life and it exercised that ability. You can't even know if the creation of life was intentional, we could be a side effect of designing a system for making pretty galaxies. You can't even determine that there was an intent at all behind the actions, the creator might not be any more sentient than a snail, eating its way through the metaverse pooping out universes such as ours.
The connection of "the universe was created" to any particular God is without validity.
@@histreeonics7770 No amount of "gradual" build up to complexity can happen as long as the 2nd law is operative. That's why a lunar module cannot be gradually built up from less complex parts by the action of wind and rain.
@@VernCrisler You do not understand the 2nd law at all if you think it has any relevance to the operating of genetics other than it being one of the reasons for random mutations. There are very few similarities between the operation of biological organisms and lunar modules. Analogies such as you are trying to make between the two are firstly never a valid logical argument as similarity is not equality, but also must be based on far more similarity to be pedagogically valuable.
The most glaring difference is that biological systems reproduce with variation while lunar modules do not reproduce ever.
When you pay proper attention to the number of instances of each class of organism you will see that there are very few "highly complex" organisms compared to the simple ones, count the number of bacteria and compare that to the number of vertebrates.
The 2nd law is statistical, and even if it were applicable to genetic variation (it is not) that would not preclude a few organisms being far more complex than most.
The 2nd law started as an empirical observation applicable to heat engines. Genetic systems are not heat engines.
Eventually it was understood that the heat engine was a special case and the law could be expressed differently and applied to any system with internal states that follow some very common rules.
All it takes for the variety of life to increase is for energy to be dissipated during the process of that creation. One of the criteria for guessing that something is alive is that the increase in entropy of its surroundings is faster than expected from just the atoms present in the thing. Recent work that is beyond my decrepit math skills to confirm is that when a system is not at equilibrium (one of those preconditions for the 2nd law to fully apply and which is not attained anywhere on Earth) that complexity is likely to be maintained once created as it expedites the increase in entropy. IE now that we are understanding how to extend the principles behind the 2nd law to systems it formerly did not cover, they show that life and its evolution are supported by the 2nd law rather than prevented by it.
--
If you reply with what you think the 2nd law is and how it applies to evolution I'll point out the places where you have gone wrong. Don't feel bad if I do, during my career as an electronics engineer designing scientific measurement equipment I often corrected PhD's in chemistry on such issues. I had to get stuff like this correct for my machines to work and customers to want to buy them.
@@histreeonics7770 How about keeping your response to one paragraph...I have little patience with copy-pasted nonsense.
@@VernCrisler I did not copy and paste a single word.
Keeping it short, how do you think that the 2nd law precludes increase in biological complexity over generations?
James Tour destroyed Cronin. He left him crying in the dark. I enjoyed every minute of it.😀
Cronin was prepared to take his basketball and go home. 😊
Dr James Tour. Bringing integrity back to science. Bravo.
Yes, thank you Mr Tour.
James Tour has been found to be a plagiarist.
@@peppermintgal4302 evidence or take a seat.
We are with you Dr Tour !
Show them !
God bless you !
Great video! Time to replace the mythology of abiogenesis with the observable science and documented history of scripture.
This should be a slam dunk for scientists so confident in their assertions, but they mostly run for the hills or dissemble badly. Very telling, in fact the most telling factor in this debate.
You have given me masive doubts in my previous assumptions that OOL science was basically on the right track and even healthy, so thank you Dr. Tour.
A good heuristic in any issue you are having a problem deciding what to believe:
"I will see what I think after the best experts on either side have had a debate".
of course, persistent non-shows tell their own story.
So Vernon, can you explain to us mere peons with a science education, what argument specifically convinced you that Tour is right, and that the origin of life requires a miracle by his god?
"...But it's remarkable that he [Ventner] could not make a cell from scratch. And even now today [Mar. 15, 2022], synthetic biologists cannot make a cell from scratch, because there's some contingent information embodied outside the genome, in the cell. And that is just incredible."
-Lee Cronin
@@Fistbeardthepirate Sweetums, what's incredible is your stupid believe in magic and fairy wizards popping universes into existence. Evolution is just hard to understand in detail, which is why you will never get it. Away and thump some bibles, they probably need a dusting anyway.
@@attila.the.honestabiogenesis is a failure!
It's alchemy!
@@attila.the.honest So tell us with your "science" background, where Cronin was able to describe-scientifically-how life developed? The problem with most scientists is that they aren't interested in the science, they are interested in keeping their funding and status in the scientific community. The science has always been there, its how scientists interpret or misinterpret the data.
Dr. Tour, you are an incredible soul. May you always find your joy in Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing so much information with us. It supplies me with ample research topics every single time!
You misspelled "misinformation".
@@fckyoutubeshandlesystem Nope
Loving these kinds of interactions with other scientists one-on-one. Well done, Jim and well done, Rob!
You love being lied to?
@@beanbean3535 No, I said I love their interaction, not being lied to.
@@sanjinloncaric1798 hence the reason you love being lied to lol. Did you even watch the video? Reminds me of what flat earthers do
@beanbean3535 Yes, I watched the whole video, including the original Harvard debate. Which part specifically do you believe was attempting to present lies?
@@sanjinloncaric1798 if you watched the Harvard video then you had to have seen the scientists constantly calling out tour. Maybe you should rewatch it and actually pay attention because it’s really showing how he responds to questions.
Tour doesn’t actually believe anything he’s saying. He’s just trying to trick gullible people into buying it.
Love your unwavering intensity to live and uphold the TRUTH in a world gone awry. Thank you for being an ambassador for Christ.
There was a lot of rhetorical sleight of hand on the part of Cronin (and the others at the table); as if being argumentative, or even aggressive, has anything to do with the validity of the claims. This is all rhetorical nonsense, and Lee and others made the genetic fallacy too many times to count.
This should be called the "chemical coup" to hypotheses of evolution from prebiotic matter. These are very strong arguments. Thank you, Dr. Tour, for your work in favor of the truth regarding the possible origin of living beings from prebiotic matter.
abiogenesis is a failure!
It's alchemy!
This is quality content. Cronin and his acolytes should be ashamed for what they are doing, and projecting into an otherwise noble science. God bless you Dr. Tour.
The ONLY reason the trolls come here, is because they themselves recognize the gaping hole that Tour has torn in their favorite fairy tale. So they constantly come here to try and put a patch over that huge hole and emit a constant barrage of personal attacks on the man instead of ever addressing the actual FACTS. They KNOW the facts are against them, it's why they squeal so much instead of providing any actual proof of their hypothesis. They claim it's too complicated to understand yet. Think about that. They want you to believe that life arising totally unguided by itself, is so simple that brainless molecules can do it, while at the same time, claiming it's too difficult to currently duplicate. Which is it? Simple or hard?
A question that should be posed to "origin of life" researchers is this: So far no mechanism has been discovered to show how abiogenesis could occur during the Earth's existence. If in future a new mechanism is discovered that would allow abiogenesis to proceed, then why do we only see one version of DNA? If there is some easier and quicker way for simple amino acids to combine, then why don't we see a myriad of base components and not just the four we currently see: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine?
The problem with biochemistry as a tool is the 'nearness' hurdle, bringing the desired atoms near enough to bond spontaneously.
We have very much difficulty in creating molecular structures because we have few direct manipulation techniques. We rely on natural mixing, bringing atoms to such close proximity, that they will bond. Apart from atomic sputtering (producing vapors from a hot filament in a vacuum), we cannot hold a molecule in a fixture, and add another atom to it. Because we are such large macroscopic creatures ourselves, we can't work at that scale. But that's what you need to do to build molecules.
Atomic forceps, atomic vises, working at near absolute zero, that's what is needed. Working with solutions is a dead end for answering the OOL question.
I got Rob’s book “The Stairway to Life” several years ago which is using simple words to explain complex problems in the origin of life… impressive!
Thank you for the video Dr. James tour! Your channel has been very resourceful!
You are a hero Dr.Tour
God Bless you for speaking the truth when it’s easier to please the crowd. May God clean the sciences of the insincere and deliver us from the harm they cause.
The truth? How do you not see Tour is lying to you for money?
@@fckyoutubeshandlesystem Where is the lie? And what money? Lol. He put scientific integrity before money.
@@fckyoutubeshandlesystem If you think Tour is lying, you haven spent on minute in a chemistry class. Tons of armchair chemists here in you tube.
I'm so very proud of you Dr Tour. People in the lay world need to be correctly informed. Well done sir.
Excellent, thought provoking discussion. Thank you both for sharing this and for your very interesting work.
One thing that wasn’t directly addressed: Evolutionary minded people assume that the moment ANY self-replicating cycle is formed, then complexity will automatically increase and evolution by selection will kick in. But that is not only an unproven assumption, what we actually see is the opposite: selection actually favors shorter, less resource demanding, and faster cycles. Not more complex, more resource demanding, and longer cycles, which is the direction that is required to eventually produce life.
Well put brother! You're absolutely right.
Allot of them seem to ignore the obvious.
@@rbzuuka7948 //Wrong// Wow, such a pithy and insightful response. I don’t even know where to start! Seriously, simply declaring someone’s statement wrong is not an argument, doesn’t prove them wrong, and enlightens literally no one. What, exactly is wrong with what I said, why is it wrong, and based on what sources? Otherwise, I stand by my statement as you have provided us with no reasons to think differently.
@@rbzuuka7948 you're really not thinking right. Everyone knows that changes happen but you really gotta know the limitations, one celled organism becoming multicellular doesn't proof a thing (if that was truly the case), the limits of what we know can't happen by chance still stands, they're things you really need to consider like what new proteins was formed, what new enzyme was formed, what new molecular machine was created, etc. You really have to understand that Cells are so well designed that they can change and adapt, without losing functionality and allot of times these changes are preprogrammed. it doesn't mean that a cell can become anything. And the 35 year old e coli bacteria ( if I remember correctly) is not a very thoughtful example of evolution, it's really a degrade.
@@rbzuuka7948 Damn! You really are still in the dark, sorry.
If you haven't heard of adaptations of organisms that are preprogrammed then I pity you.
What do you mean by prebioticaly produced protein? If you think that they are truly prebiotic (hands off) then I'm even more sorry, you need to be thrown into the light of true science.
And I wonder if you're deaf to what this very video properly explained; that there's a limit to what we can call life, there's a required amount of complexity to maintain the simplest form of life.
And how do you still have the boldness to talk about RNA as the route to making cells man, I don't have the time to even talk about that, it's been well done with!
@@rbzuuka7948
Lenski experiment in E. Coli "evolving" to metabolize citrate is not very exciting regarding evolution. It's so minimally interesting that I'm shocked that it is used as an argument for macro evolution.
Where has a single-celled organism visibly evolved in an experiment or in nature to become multicellular?
Great to hear about the Origins science.
👍
To all who questioned my assertion that undirected chemical processes tend to favor shorter, less complex cycles, consider this quote from a recent Nature article on RNA world theory problems, by Nick Lane and Joana Xavier: “The problems are that there is little evidence that RNA can catalyse many of the reactions attributed to it (such as those required for metabolism); and copying ‘naked’ RNA (that is not enclosed in compartments such as cells) favours the RNA strands that replicate the fastest. *Far from building complexity, these tend to get smaller and simpler over time.* Worse, by regularly drying everything out, wet-dry cycles keep forming random groupings of RNA (in effect, randomized genomes). The best combinations, which happen to encode multiple useful catalysts, are immediately lost again by re-randomization in the next generation, precluding the ‘vertical inheritance’ that is needed for evolution to build novelty.”
Protien folding problem!
"The problem is that this is extremely computationally intensive. A typical protein has hundreds of amino acids, which means thousands of atoms. But the environment also matters: the protein interacts with surrounding water when folding. So you have more like 30k atoms to simulate......
What is the “protein folding problem”? A brief explanation
by Jason Crawford · November 30, 2020 · 5 min read
abiogenesis is a failure!
It's alchemy!
Great Work. I am very thankful for both of you to make this clarification of the Harvard meeting.
It awesome that James is a Christian, and would never bear false witness.
abiogenesis is a failure!
It's alchemy!
@@oceanfrogfrazer473 Oh yeah, he'd never bear false witness, by, say, misrepresenting how pure the graphene in his experiments actually is, or claiming that this graphene could help cure cancer or trap CO2 from methane.... he'd never bear false witnesss by forcing his colleagues to sign his name on papers he had little to no input in. He'd never fail to pay his graduate students for papers they made all by themselves that he put his name on that he said he'd pay them for working on.
Amen Brother! God Bless you against the flood of nonsense from the enemy who is full of himself and empty of his Creator.
I wanted to thank Dr. Tour he is absolutely great at this but he is so smart and knowledgeable he needs a normal person to ask him questions and explain things where most everyone can grasp what Dr. Tour is saying. Thanks again
I agree with you. Science books in schools need to be updated. Young people should not only be taught the materialistic atheist worldview. They need hope and answers to their questions. Thank you for your work. God bless you!
Sweetie, I don't know which god-awful US state you live in, but no science books "teach atheism." You lot ban science books in any case, so why should you be worried about them? You've already destroyed science education across much of the US, so it will turn into a wasteland. And stop using the products of science, you know, like computers. It's all the work of the devil.
Hope is not relevant to providing legitimate answers to questions.
Hope that is based on lies is diminishing the role of reason in public discourse, and the alternative is authoritarianism. Authoritarianism always has segued into despotism.
You are a good man, Dr. Tour. Thank you for this podcast and please keep doing them.
Why does he repeat untrue things about science?
@@oceanfrogfrazer473Why speak in generalities and ask questions with no substance expecting answers?
@@esq8why do you not know what a generality is.
@@esq8you don’t pay attention do you
He’s a good shit in the long run, but who likes long runny shits?
Just bear in mind, folks, Tour hasn't provided any argument that proves abiogenesis is chemically impossible. Sure, it's possible to criticise individual research approaches, but you have to point out why, not simply whine that the whole idea is impossible.
The real question is in figuring out what the first replicating polymers were - assuming a definition of proto-life as replicating biochemistry - and the simplest chemistry and environmental conditions needed to support them and allow them to evolve. Clearly, any honest scientist - Tour isn't one, he's prejudiced against it - will point out we're not sure where to look. That's why a lot of different ideas need to be explored to have any hope of answering the question.
And sure, you can argue there are more important research areas biologically. But this kind of research is mostly funded privately by folk interested in the answer. To understand why Tour gets bent out of shape about it, you have to realise that religion is far more important to Tour than science. He feels personally threatened by particular research avenues, because he fears what they'll discover, and force him to re-evaluate his religious beliefs.
ur great master Richard
Dawkinshas clearly said that
life did NOT originate on earth.what are you moaning about abiogenesis ???
@@georgbenad4436 (1) Dawkins isn't my master, and (2) he never said life didn't originate on earth. Get up to speed.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 I received an answer from KI....Who is not up to date?
@@georgbenad4436 Citation needed. So far as I've read, and I've read Dawkins extensively, he's never claimed life could only have originated extra-terrestrially. It would be foolish to claim that, and even given my reservations about Dawkins, he's not that gaga yet.
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 Leszek, you can see how you can rely on science...
Are you on duty at Farina's again today?
I have worked for passionate employers where I had to actually listen, it was surprising to find out their words contained logic and reason. It also was uncomfortable and it's never easy to man up and get over your self *interest*.
Thumbs up.
Lee Cronin is a classic gamma, who thinks he's the greatest. The reality is he's mediocre. He's smart, but not genius. Tour is a level of IQ higher and that bothers Cronin. I like to meet high IQ people, especially when they teach me new stuff. Yup it can be a humbling experience too.
Did your employer insist that you sit silently while they insult you, gaslight and put words in your mouth that aren’t true?
No. One memorable event happened when five minutes later he wrapped his arm around my shoulder and told me he thought I was a good person.
Generally most guys recognize when their boss is mean but fair. Like what else do you expect when you botch up and cost him thousands of dollars. A smile and a handshake?@@FindTheTRUTH337
Self interest is fed by hubris.
Very generous of you to refer to a lecture followed by a gag order as a "debate".
THANK YOU, Dr. Tour!!!! You are the ONLY VISIBLE (AND MUCH NEEDED) critic of abiogenesis!!!
thank you both.. it's phantastic
Great Podcast and guest. Keep up the good work with the podcast and information. I continue to pray for you and your work and appreciate this stance of truth against the scientific misinformation put out there for so many decades.
Dr Tour I Love your passion. You kept your cool the whole time. And I applaud you! That whole table was set against you. Felt like daniel and the lions! You are amazing, your science is BEYOND amazing. And your faith has inspired a multitude! Never doubt for the lord is with you! God bless you and the whole of your family.
Unlike his screaming fit with "Professor" Dave, where he lost his marbles when Dave wouldn't write on the board with chalk. Tour is a right nutter.
@@attila.the.honest Resorting to ad hominems because you cant discuss the underlying chemistry?
@@alisterrebelo9013 Pointing out that Tour is a nutter isn't an ad hominem, it's an accurate description. I'm happy to discuss the science, but Tour didn't. If you think he made a scientific argument against abiogenesis, perhaps you could tell me what it is, because I didn't hear one out of him.
@@attila.the.honestYou're still here, and still haven't learned anything since you arrived? Show us where he made any "argument against biogenesis."
You really, really do not even understand just how blind you are. Pretty sad really.
Thank you, Dr. Tour and Dr. Stadler for this discussion.
Research grants with implied or explicit ideological strings coupled with hubris imprison many professional researchers.
I was lost in the dark before Yeshua, the Good Shepherd, found me and rescued me from myself, the world and the devil.
That isn't the issue at all. Research and grants do not operate as you imagine.
@@sentientflower7891 oh, okay.
@@joewright9879 Lee Cronin's peer reviewed papers are all available online. Read them. There's a bunch about a great many different subjects.
@@sentientflower7891 Cronin is a joke
@@rl7012 no educated person says that. Nor is it even relevant. Lee Cronin isn't on trial.
The odds of the scientific community changing the text books is rare but Tour is the man.
Such honesty and achievements from Dr. Tour. His strides with Graphene are already effecting the world.
HA! I mean, _cough._ Uhhh, yeah, about that.... he's a plagiarist who sometimes forces other researchers to put his name on their papers.
No they aren't at all
Thank you both for spreading the truth on the issue. May God bless you all❤️🙏❤️🙏❤️🙏❤️
Lasked the biochemist Lemken in Germany the following question: "In your opinion, why is it that Lee Cronin's announcement in 2011 to create a living cell in the laboratory by 2013 has still not been realised, even though supercomputers that can perform several quadrillion calculations per second are now available to science? His interesting answer was: "This computing power is nowhere near enough (!!!!)." He then provides me with a detailed scientific explanation... The prebiotic Earth would certainly have been happy if it had had a simulated pocket calculator at its disposal.....
Thank you Dr. Tour, I have totally no knowledge of chemistry but I totally understand what you are saying…thank you for being so humble and passionate.
He is not at all humble. His positions usually entail a claim that he knows all that there is to be known about biochemistry, which is something that no human can ever legitimately claim due to the perhaps infinite number of possible bio-chemical reactions. It is possible that he is simply not smart enough to know that is what he is stating, so he could be humbler than I think, and just not as smart as he says that he is.
That's why he's dangerous. He can convince people who know absolutely nothing into thinking they understand something.
@@histreeonics7770it is not dichotomous like that. Tour is certainly intelligent. You are basically just calling him dumb. Your first point is good though, we haven't figured it out yet
@@bentucker2301dangerous? Chill haha, it's hardly dangerous
@@crabb9966 Tour is intelligent, but is often blinded by his faith resulting in errors that sure make him sound dumb. It is not enough to have intelligence, you must be willing to apply it to all aspects of your life.
Tour quotes numbers for "improbability" of various biological molecules forming that use models for that computation that he himself says are invalid. Either he is not smart enough to know that is what he is doing, or he is purposely lying. Which do you think?
Blessings Dr. Tour,
I am so grateful and thank GOD every day for introducing me to HIS TRUTH, to your channel, and to the profound prolific scientific research that you are involved in. Thank you for inviting Dr. Stadler to your channel, and for this dynamic conversation you are having to clear up the disrespectful display by Lee Cronin in his inept bombastic boastful, challenging discourse which only showed his envy towards you. I think Harvard showed their indignant stupidity to invite individuals who do not know chemistry and allowed Lee Cronin to throw the TRUTH out the window.
I BELIEVE that ALL the attempts that man/woman makes to find the ORIGIN OF LIFE will fail! In Genesis 3:24 GOD drove out man from the garden of EDEN and stationed a cherubim and a flaming sword which turns in every direction to guard the way to the TREE OF LIFE.
The TREE OF LIFE is the ORIGIN OF LIFE. GOD will NEVER EVER ALLOW MAN TO FIND IT!
GOD obviously allowed the woman and man to make the first mistake (SIN-to disobey HIS command), and allowed both of them to carry on with their life the first time, but not a second time. Man has contempt for GOD, and that contempt remains ingrained in all of us from that very day that woman wanted to be like GOD. Man/woman is in pursuit of immortality, and continues to want to be like GOD. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED.
I also want to share with you that I watch your Bible Study, and know that we are destined to meet someday. God bless you, your family, Israel, and our beloved USA.
Blessings always, your Sister in Christ.
Myrta Rivera
BS Political Science, PC Broadcasting & Entertainment, PC Motion Picture & Television,
BA Business Administration/Marketing, BA Labor Relations, MA Public Policy, MA Negotiations, Conflict Resolutions & Peace Building, Doctoral Candidate.
I admire you SO MUCH Dr. Tour!!!!!
I love Dr Tour’s attitude and ability. Especially his desire to disseminate this incredibly complex research work to non-researchers so they can get a reasonable grasp of the key aspects/drivers.
Yes, and he does a really great job of that, but his idiotic peers just don't even want to hear it, because they know he is RIGHT, and they just can not stand that because of what the real science is pointing to in regard to origins of life.
@@trevorjameson3213 I cast my mind back to college days during science lessons and how the thought of an invisible mysterious wonder God somehow making all this stuff, it was reasonably difficult to make a case against the overwhelming science that was being espoused from the front of the class and the outstanding textbooks.
And now 2024 when the more we uncover each day and the deeper the complexity and rhythm, the idea that this stuff spontaneously came together without any mind or cause, oh dear, the atheists are going to be looking for some large shovels to try and dig themselves out of the ever expanding mess of bankrupt theories and indefensible and desperate ploys. Frankly, the worst thing those professors did a few years back was to educate the James Tour’s of the world. James is smart, but his respect and worship of the mind behind it all lifts him, and those of us who believe, to giddying heights of awe and wonder.
God bless you and your work Dr. Tou1
Thank You, Dr JT, for Your bold, i.e., fearless stand against the prevailing lie that's permeating culture and society !
What lie would that be? The only lie I hear is that Jesus is a magical wizard who created everything by magic, and that science can't tell us how it happened, because only religion can. And your evidence for this lie is... oh that's right, you don't need any, because religion doesn't need evidence. I'll stick to science, thanks.
God bless you doctor Tour!
Dr Tour, thanks 🙏. Prayers for your ministry 🙏🙏
abiogenesis is a failure!
It's alchemy!
We're calling lies ministry now?
@@mg-ew2xf If you think Tour is lying, You have never even spent one minute in a chemistry class.
@@peterzinya1 boy wait until you find out he speaks outside of chemistry class lol you're gullible when people tell you what you want to here
@@mg-ew2xfBefor i ever heard of Tour, which is rather recent, i already knew everything he contends. Its called Pure and Applied Chemistry. Let me guess.....you believe RNA formed by accident in some soup. Its your right to believe anything you want. Americans fought and died for us to have this freedom.
Blessings from Canada! Understand more because of you, Dr. Tour!
Rob Stadler's "Stairway to Life" is an absolute "must-read" for anyone interested in OOL subject.
Rob Stadler is a clueless moron
Loved it!! Along with the Stephen C. Meyer trilogy😊
It is incredible that people still listen to Cronin. He is the most obvious snake oil salesman ever 😅
That's ironic, considering that Tour is the one misrepresenting Science.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 When a scientist states that "we are on the brink" of understanding OOL and seventeen years later ...we are still on the brink?...that scientist is the one who is lying....not the one pointing out the lie.
Amen. 👍👍
Your definition of science is opposed to the factual etymological basic definition of "practical knowledge."@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440
@@alantasman8273That absurd objection was brought up and thrown in Tour's face at the Harvard roundtable discussion. Being hopeful about future progress and getting a prediction wrong is an indication of poor prognostication, not bad science, and this is something that Tour is himself guilty of with his own research proposals. When this was brought up to his face, do you know what he said? Nothing, absolutely nothing, likely because he understood in that moment how braindead, knuckledraggingly stupid that objection is.
Thank you Dr. Tour and Dr. Stadler, gifted and inspiring scientists
If you notice the independent scientists who can create and build have no problem with a creator God. Its always the phds who just sit at a desk pushing state approved propaganda who have never built, discovered or created anything who thinks there is no creator. The clear difference between understanding and knowledge. James tour has understanding.
It's the PhDs who do the science and publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Creationists post their claims on their websites. Can you explain to us what "understanding" Tour has?
@Sparrow-hawk-666 James tour invents and creates, you can not invent and create without understanding
@annieoaktree6774 he has understanding in chemistry. So he understands how elements work. To imagine people today still believe in spontaneous generation. to think that life can come about through purely natural causes. I wonder what are these purely natural causes?
@@Littleking1985 Sweetie, you can't accept natural causes for the origin of life, but you happily accept magical sky-wizards zapping life into existence out of nothing with secret spells. How, exactly, do you make that work? What gods do you think can account for it? And how do they do it?
@@Sparrow-hawk-666 you mean like the 700 papers Tour has published?
I'd like to see Rob Stadler Part 2, where Rob does all the talking, please. Let Rob present his main critique of abiogenesis research, or why he believes we may be approaching a threshold in our understanding of biological systems and reaction chemistry to be able to dismiss a naturalistic explanation.
You mean even existing cells' function will never be fully understood so that we have to simply posit some inscrutable present continual supernatural intervention by some spiritual stuff? Oh well we there goes my investment in MERK
I'm pretty sure we're already at that threshold... But I like the way you think! 😭🙏
The functions of existing eukaryote cells is still not close to be completely understood. Therefore we have reason to postulate supernatural intercession In the physical world all over the place.
@@edwardj3070 You're missing the point. The inference to design is not based on what we DON'T know as you point to. It's based on what we DO know about the cause and effect structure of our universe and our repeated, uniform experience with the product of intelligence.
By the way, ironically, you are relying on your own version of the god of the gaps there, an argument from ignorance, by admitting you dont know enough about origins then insisting on a naturalistic explanation purely due to your philosophical stance.
It's unfortunate the dishonest and philosophically inept are often running the show
abiogenesis is a failure!
It's alchemy!
We have documents, written accounts, of China planting, growing and harvesting rice as far back as 8000 BC.
Let that sink in.
The Chinese were farming rice 4000 years before earth existed.
Ooops.
This is awkward.
Your best response to questions about the origin of life is to make a nonsequiter about the age of the planet. Slow clap 👏 😂😂
@@alisterrebelo9013 how does it not follow? Tour claims science is fraudulent, he claims “people searching for answers is a scam”, all the while claiming earth is 6000 years old based on geneology in the bible going back to the creation of Adam and earth, insisting it is fact while saying the scientific method is wrong, in light of the fact that we have proof that people were farming 4000 years longer than he claims the earth has existed.
It is entirely relevant. He screams “science is a scam” while his theology is a proven scam.
In other words, how can Tour claim to know the origin of life when life existed before he thinks the earth came into existance?
@@DinorwicSongwriter You bring up religion because that's the only way you can ignore Dr. Tour and his questions about the chemistry of prebiotic earth.
I need timestamps for all of those quotes you have of him. I've watched this entire video and can't recall where he's said those things.
If a person asks: why are OoL scientists buying reagents that should be synthesised prebiotically and then claiming they are close to solving the origin of life? If you bring up religion right after this question, you're avoiding the question.
@@alisterrebelo9013 and Tour keeps deleting my responses to you
@@alisterrebelo9013 because he can’t handle the truth being told where his followers will see it
Just want to say thanks to Dr. Tour and all the other scientists who are seeking honesty and truth in our science. It makes more sense to me, to deal with the realities that we are presented with, than it is to keep dreaming merely because some people have, 'objections,' to what the science may actually point to. I would rather have useful science that actually goes somewhere, than to have outdated scientific hypotheses be foisted on us. The main thing is, as they said, make our science books reflect the reality of the situation instead of claiming a bunch of unproven garbage. Tell the truth.
It's not about what we do not know (God of the gaps argument) but about what we DO know.
Tour is nothing but god of the gaps. Regardless of how much benefit of the doubt I give him.
Exactly.
@@junodonatus4906 what a load of garbage.
No amount of slurs and strawmen will save the abysmal state of OoL research, which is absolutely nowhere near creating life.
When critiquing abiogenesis, Tour NEVER invokes God.
Your attacks on him are pathetic.
@@bc4yt
Empty word salad.
@@bc4yt
You: "Please don't research OOL because I'm afraid of losing my faith in magic-man." Go cry!
You're just very passionate about your beliefs and thoughts, Jim. Bravo.
Opinions are entitled.
"Some how" , is not a science, its a religion
Auto catalyse is a magic word for that
Actually, it’s not even religion.
It’s just purely make believe.
It does a major disservice to religion to equate it with this
👍👍
So, religion is bad? We can at least agree on that.
@@alexnik1181hiding your true self is bad. Religiom pretending to be science is bad. Why bring religion into a science video anyway?
No, your comment is not smart, try harder.
@@alexnik1181 No, false religion is bad. Many religions are not even fully formed, Science™ has no named deity but it has principles which must not be questioned. Namely do as you're told.
I highly respect Dr Tour, hes so matter of fact towards creation. Praise the Lord!
With these people and so many of the younger generations, it's more important about "how" you says something versus "what" you say. You must first pass their "how" before they will even listen to you. Sad but that's how it is now.
What do you mean? Just wanna understand more please. This video is a game changer
I haven’t got any degrees at all but I can see for myself how the complexity of the body’s construction cannot possibly have been made by chance or ‘natural selection’ . Take the complexity of the knee joint for instance. It is complicated . It bends , it is stable, it is held together in a functioning form by muscles and ligaments that are strong yet flexible and resilient . The joint is cushioned with a strong flexible cartilage. The knee cannot work without any of these components. When damaged it is very difficult to repair and probably can not be repaired back to its natural working state. It could not be done over time because how could it work in the meantime? It is impossible.
The main reason why evolution can never work (assuming abiogenesis already happened and got us to DNA driven biology - already a HUGE feat) is this:
Mutations small enough to be naturally selected cannot cause speciation, and mutations significant enough to cause speciation cannot be naturally selected.
For evolution to be true as the engine that explains all the variety of life on earth, it needs to explain both, but it can't.
Because mutations occur in individuals, and as soon as one speciates, it can no longer reproduce with the rest of the herd, so dies lonely. I can explain more if you want.
@@bc4yt Thank you very much. That is very interesting. Feel free to expand on your answer.
@@forthfarean OK I'll expand in the next message. If you don't see a longer reply let me know, sometimes YT hides messages that get too long 😂
@@forthfarean basically the issue is this: they say evolution is driven by random mutations refined by natural selection.
Well, mutations occur in individuals first, not whole populations. So in order for any mutation to get established in a species, it first needs to be naturally selected, I.e. that individual needs to reproduce.
Evolutionists often speak however as if as soon a mutation appears, it is instantly conferred onto the whole population. Of course if this were true, we'd all have blue eyes by now.
So since mutations occur in individuals, and speciation is the event where one species divides into two, which is driven by mutations, there must be at some point a single mutation that breaks the compatibility. There is a first individual who is no longer reproductively compatible with the rest. That is just a logical fact.
Evolutionists try to get around this with the idea of a compatibility gradient, where a population is divided in two parts, say A and B. Part A and part B are compatible, and B some members of B evolve into C, with C being compatible with B, but not with A. So C speciates from A.
This *sounds* like an elegant solution, until you realize that the most textbook example of this phenomena would be so-called "ring species" - and sadly for evolutionists, every single alleged example of ring species has been debunked, by secular scientists.
So we have zero examples of this gradient phenomenon...
The closest they can come up with after that are hybrids like mules, ligers etc, but the problem with those is that they are sterile.
If evolution were true, this gradient phenomenon should not have just one example, but literally every extant species, or at least most of them, should be in the process of speciation right now, and we should be utterly surrounded by examples.
Where are they?
@@bc4yt ok.
Thank you gentlemen🌹🌹
Thank you for taking the time to produce this valuable resource.
I suspect everything comes down to funding. Lee Cronin is dependent on Government etc funding resources that want to see development and movement toward a positive End that also has a Financial Payday. GOD only knows what Cronin has pitched to those financing his work.
Thanks so much for your efforts Drs.
It all a Piltdown Man project revisited.
God bless you dr. Tour i love your passion and honesty
Dr. Rob Stadler made a good point, to think that eventually there will be a natural cause for why molecules move toward each other to attach correctly, may be illogical. because the answer may only be supernatural. They may only move together because they are responding to the Word of God's Power. A Word based system. The explanation may only be supernatural, and maybe science can eventually prove that the only answer is unnatural.
If Tour weren't so obviously religious he'd probably get more respect. He wears his subjectivity on his sleeve and the proof are in his various videos.
Quite. It's perfectly possible to be scientifically critical of research into abiogenesis... it assumes _this_ unjustifiably, or doesn't investigate _that_ avenue. Those are constructive criticisms and are just fine. Researchers into abiogenesis know they haven't solved the problem. Constructive criticisms are always welcome. Tour's criticisms are purely destructive, because he denies abiogenesis is possible, and therefore all research into it is invalid.
@@attila.the.honest Excellent response! Thanks!
@@attila.the.honest
Tour said that it's possible in the future that abiogenesis will be demonstrated. He said that a bunch of times. His critics don't listen. Listening is an art.
@@sliglusamelius8578 listening isn't an art, it's an act of basic human decency and cognition, which a lot of these atheists lack.
WHY don't they listen? James has said over and over and over and over again, that it's quite possible one day they will create life in the lab.
HOW have they missed it every single time? They are either stupid, or dishonest.
Thanks! Both of you, Amen! You're doing an amazing job at exposing the atheistic lies and liars such as Cronin. God bless you James and all of you honest and godly people in science. God be with you. In Jesus name 😊❤️
Whether or not they are godly, I'll leave up to god. They aren't really doing science, though, what they are doing is science denial.
Dr.Tour's opponents are clearly afraid so they react like a child and start crying in fear and distress 😊
Needless to say, Lee was using every tricks in the politician's textbook to get out of that "debate" from personal attack, appeal to feeling, dodging questions like a pro. Look like he already prepared for his next career when his academic reputation ruined.
James Tour is a scientist who has consistently deceived people throughout his career. I’ve never seen someone hype up their own fraudulent and plagiarized paper so hard, only to be forced to retract it, then lie about why it’s being retracted.
Would you say anything about him if he did not precisely demolish the possibility of Naturalism?
People tend to spite others who attack their religion. Evoism believers really do not like their faith being poked at.
Sure, he's written over 600 scientific papers. Move on.
@@tammyc4430 You’re a moron. He has teams of people that work under him. He just puts his name on a paper. He also has a significant number of retracted papers because he pushes bad science.
@@pitchlumin Did you see me mention that anywhere? No.
@@youoyouoyou a guy who has been as published as Jim, he would likely be well flaunted by Naturalismists if he were of the Naturalism worldview.
I’m an origin of life researcher that just discovered you. I’m gonna be totally blunt: you are one of the most valuable assets an honest origin of life researcher can have. I despise the hype and spin that modern scientists engage in, not just in OoL but in general. So much so that I’ve avoided continuing in academia after bachelor degree and just got a job, doing research as an amateur and hobby. After the pandemic, I decided to keep going in academia and certify myself, and it’s been frustrating to be surrounded by smart people that seemingly suppress their intellect and behave more like advertising executives. It’s annoying.
As an evolutionary geneticist, I was super irritated by Lee and the assembly theory garbage (yes, it’s garbage). When you literally list out all the problems that OoL has from the basis of a synthetic organic chemist, I am shocked (… actually, it’s not that surprising. Can’t have the hype train stop!) that OoL people avoid you.
YOURE DOING THE TROUBLESHOOTING FOR FREE! This is the most valuable thing that people working on hard problems could have. If we’re not realistic about the difficulties we need to overcome, how on Earth will we? By getting lucky? The problem is too hard to just get lucky.
Have to disagree on how far we are from the goal posts, and that they are moving away from us, and the guest’s belief that natural processes may not be able to start life. The reason I say this is not because of specific results in OoL research literature, but because the insights that can get use closer to the goal are completely scattered amongst unrelated bodies of research spanning many fields. It’s hard to synthesize when we don’t have all the relevant knowledge in one place. And yes, RNA is key, but it’s not because it can “replicate itself”. Self replication is not real. There is no molecule that I know of that can simultaneously template, and catalyze the formation of itself with only monomeric input.
Great comment. As Max Planck once stated; science advances one funeral at a time, the younger generation unencumbered by rigid philosophies needs to bear the torch. However, why do you think RNA-first holds the key? If you're a mathematician at heart, what do you think of Dembski's design inference coupled with the 1966 Wistar institute meeting where MIT engineers such as Murray Eden and mathematicians presented a rebuttal to abiogenesis based upon the lacking probabilistic resources problem for even the simplest, or minimally complex components of the DNA transcription and translation system. A good resource to summarize this argument is found in Lee Spetner's "Not by chance". Stephen C Meyer presents a philosophical overview of intelligent design in "Signature in the cell". The PDF is available online and the first 5 chapters build a compelling case to launch your own investigation into.
@@JohnSmith42374 Thank you for your input---- I'm all too aware of Max Planck's saying, it's quite depressing!
To answer your questions on the mathematics, the reason I say I'm a mathematician at heart and not "in fact" is precisely due to firmly being a biologist first, all else second. Granted, I'm quite different from my colleagues (I keep getting weird looks whenever I'm around other biologists). Mathematical biologists are doomed to always being looked at as weird, since the mathematicians will think you've gone soft and the biologists will think you've gone insane. To be more explicit, due to this commitment to biological reality I am very, very picky regarding the way mathematics is used in the context of biological systems. Anyone can write any set of equations whatsoever and claim they're modeling biological systems, but the fact of the matter is that life is so darn complicated in terms of the number, span, and diversity of its components that it forces the mere formalization of biological systems nearly intractable, let alone solving any equations based on it. This makes it so that people using mathematics as their microscope have to be very, very careful and be very, very wise when they're making assumptions to simplify this overwhelming complexity down to analytically or computationally tractable forms. Way, wayyy too often I see very mathematically skilled people, way better than I'll ever be but that have never plugged in a microscope in their lives, simplify away all the details that make biological systems special, and that should be the features to be explained rather than simplified away. This makes the conclusions arrived at just a reflection of the bad assumptions that were made, with a bunch of unnecessary math in the way that those who don't speak the language will be intimidated by and are unable to refute. Lord May wrote about this abuse of mathematics in biology and has a paper on it, and unfortunately, things might've gotten worse. I am not familiar with the resources you've cited, so I'll take a look--- but understand that I'll be hypercritical on the assumptions made and the minute hard violations to biological reality are made, I stop. Regardless, I appreciate the input; those that look at the constraints often have the most important insights.
To answer the RNA question, when we're talking about what life is from a material perspective, simply looking at cells through a microscope (especially plant cells! they're very pretty) illustrates an overarching principle: it is very structured, organized, non-random; so much so that it looks designed. The key property here is the non-randomness, the *organization*--- this feature of being organized systems of matter is the reason words like "organ" and "organism" and "organic" exist. This organization is currently maintained and renewed by the expression of genetic information which has been inherited or transferred from other sources that already had it. But not all the organization is encrypted in the genetic material, in fact, most of it isn't. This organization was materially inherited in the sense that it wasn't explicitly in chromosomes, just passed on thanks to cell division; so the structural organization is also inherited directly; Life comes from life and every organism has parents. If we start to consider where this organization comes from originally, we will inevitably coalesce back to the origin of life; but before even that, organization of less complexity must have accrued. Today, living systems have a bajillion components, all well ordered by the genetic material or pre-existing structure which genetic expression maintains, but all of this is forbidden to us if we're trying to explain how life started. This leads us to the fundamental question, what sets of chemical species are jointly capable of "moonlighting" in the sense that they can fulfill several roles, even if badly, *at once* (to be clear, I don't mean the exact same molecule, but rather classes of molecules that are somehow physically/chemically related).
The reason this is essential is straightforward: if you're trying to run a complex system, like say a company (yes, a business or something like it), the best thing is to have specialists at each respective role so that every function is executed by the very best at that function. But this is very complicated and super expensive! if companies were required to be like that from the start, no companies would exist. Instead, startups where there's one leader, or a very small core of founders that are doing many things at once, even if not optimally, get the company off the ground so that, once it has demonstrated viability, gets further investment or generates surplus revenue which enables growth. The growth facilitates the process by inducing a virtuous cycle; the hardest thing to do is start. The same idea applies to biological organization, the less "things" in the system, that can do more "work", the better. Once you've realized that, RNA stands out alone and in triumph, as being responsible for this. To see why, you can look at extant biology and biochemistry. RNA (I'm abusing the term here a bit, since I'm including the monomers) is responsible for the expression and translation of genetic information and can be the source itself such as in RNA viruses (there are constraints here which is a separate discussion), but even then, DNA, the long term genetic material, is just castrated RNA. Genetic expression, unless you're an RNA virus in which case you're already RNA, starts with the making RNA that reflects the information stored (transcription). RNA is the main entity responsible for metabolism, both in storage, transduction, regulation, and coordination of energy in the form of ATP, GTP, CTP, NADH, FADH, acetyl-CoA, etc. And all the work that's done by protein? Well its produced and encoded by RNA. The ribosome, now a complex ribonucleoprotein machine, is 100% RNA at its functional core, and is therefore a ribozyme which is older than life itself. It executes the genetic code by performing translation; the genetic code being a mapping between molecular alphabets which is embodied in RNA, tRNAs to be exact. There are more reasons I can list, but this is the core.
Once you see it you can't unsee it--- RNA has been running the show all along. This is why the RNA world is true *in a sense*; not because there was a time that only had RNA literally doing everything (this is most certainly false and its a problem in this field) but because RNA is a "center of orbit" around which organization can be developed. I do not know of any other class of chemical species that has this property. Proteins had to be there from the start as well, being the Robin to RNA's Batman which is supported by the fact that the only thing truly shared by *all* of life is the core of the translation machinery. Therefore Unlocking translation is the key event in the origin of life, as it enables a virtuous cycle akin to the one described above. The true RNA world is not a phase life passed through and left as it originated; it is life itself--- we're living in it. Just to be clear, I'm not saying RNA is a self replicating molecule; it isn't. Self-replication is fantasy and has nothing to do with life's origin or life at all, since no class of chemical species that I know of contains polymer molecules that can simultaneously be a template AND catalyst for the polymerization reaction that yields as a product a second instance of themselves, using only monomers as input and without being consumed by the reaction. Self-Replication is not reproduction, something only life is capable of, and is therefore not relevant to the origin of life since that's what we're trying to get to. Replication (note lack of word "self") *is* important in the sense that you eventually need template-instructed polymerization, but this is different from what most researchers are looking for. So the question about the origin of life should be parsed into two sequential physicochemical problems: the first in the form that Professor Tour is focusing on, namely the origin of the chemical constituents themselves starting from geochemical processes with no cheating by using something "from the future". But even given this, there is the problem that I focus on, which is the origin of genetic information, not just sequences, but of organization which can eventually be enveloped and escape the confines of its origin and be the source for maintaining itself, a "Kantian whole" as Stu Kaufman calls it. The physical chemistry of polymerization is the key.
Sorry for the huge text dump! You asked an important question that I've been obsessing with for a long time; and its a question people have not thought hard enough about. Will be checking out the literature you cited. Cheers!
The truth is the only important thing, religion doesn't matter. If evidence shows origin of life is accurate fine, no problem, but if it doesn't don't make stuff up, don't distort the truth to mislead people. Just say we're not there yet. It's obvious why, there are millions at stake in grant money, can they go up to the grant board and say we don't know jack crap more than yuri miller did 70 years ago. They have to lie, the whole evolution theory has to lie because they have no real evidence.
@@haldanesghost Long comments are great, as long as they are coherent. So you're a "virus-first" proponent?
There is a problem assuming life started from simpler molecules as per your analogy (which is the intuitive assumption within the materialistic methodological framework), but we can't assume that from the outset as we attempt to investigate it, at the expense of all other possible explanations. Richard Lenski's longest-running 35-year experiment on bacteria shows that life moves to simplify. On a glucose-only diet the bacteria eject their operons for ribose for a 2% efficiency increase. Every colony in Lenski's labs over many tens of thousands of generations saw their genomes shrink against expectations (see E. Callaway "Legendary bacterial evolution experiment enters new era", 2022 for overview). If we assumed for argument's sake the design hypothesis, then this is exactly what we would expect.
In fact, it's fascinating to see the admissions even from OoL community of what constitutes a minimally-complex (and interdependent) system of gene transcription and translation, which would be R/DNA and a suite of about 100 proteins for prokaryotes. I think you could try reading the online PDF of Signature in the cell, ch 1-5 or so and building up to chapter 14; "The RNA world". This is a philosophical foundation for discussing the DNA enigma as outlined by Koonin and Novozhilov 2009. Thereafter if you're curious, give W. Dembski's 2nd edition of Design Inference a try (which released end 2023).
James I am posting this in the hopes you take feedback to heart. There are several factors leading OOL scientists to dismiss you.
1. You style. Call it what you want, passion if you must, but nobody really wants to watch you shouting. I believe you would benefit from passion management. Learn to pause and collect your thoughts and speak once you have mastered your emotional volatility.
2. We all know you hold strong religious beliefs and we can all see how these beliefs influence the things you say. Religious belief or faith is perfectly acceptable many scientists have such beliefs. The difference is we expect you to review the OOL without your religious presuppositions. While you are obviously of the opinion you are able to enter into the discussion without presuppositions, it is glaringly obvious to your colleagues you do not. Your denials of said presuppositions are obviously false.
Again the solution is self reflection. Admit your presuppositions and test them. When the evidence contradicts your presuppositions be willing to concede, something you seem incapable of doing.
3. And last you are arguing from ignorance amd/or God of the gaps and/or denial of evidence and/or incredulity (life is too complex to understand), you even go as far as suggesting removing textbooks and shout as you do so. You emphasize what we do not yet understand. In doing so you reject or ignore what we do understand. Origin of life is so much more than synthetic chemistry. It involves geology, biology biochemistry, genetics, astrophysics, etc. We do have self replicating molecules for example. When you fail to acknowledge what we do know the OOL scientists are going to ignore you.
Why are you attacking the "primordial soup" model when such a concept is outdated? This is both a straw man but more importantly it only shows how little understand you have of modern hypothesis and theories and more importantly modern evidence. Attacking the primordial soup model is akin to saying we are clueless about astrophysics because the the flat earth model is false. Your understanding is simply outdated and you do not give the impression you are capable of considering the modern evidence.
You have been marginalized for the reasons above and will remain so until you correct the errors of your ways.
Uh oh Dr. Tour, the science gestapo is involved now. Oh dear. Not a peep however, about the actual chemistry or science, it's all about what you may personally believe. Apparently, you are not allowed to do science if you don't toe the line in regards to what you personally may believe. How progressive those wanna be tyrants are. The king has now ordered you to bow to the idol, or else. Don't you just love 'freedom'? They are free to make up any garbage they want, but if you dare to disagree, you become persona non grata. What a wonderful group of truth seeking control freaks. Leftists are always full of trumped up allegations. They apparently DEMAND that you bend the knee to their vast greatness and infallibility. They are their own gods.
The very reverend "doctor" tour is no longer regarded as a scientist by anyone familiar with biochemistry. He's just another preacher now. He keeps himself deliberately ignorant of every relevant science, because it's not in the wholly babble. There's just no way to respect a man like that, not as a scientist, anyway.
And you are absolutely right that Tour sets religion above science. He has a strong belief that the book of Genesis is literally true, even though he isn't honest enough to say so. He doesn't even accept the vast swathes of evidence for evolution, because he keeps himself carefully ignorant of it. Sure, we don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened, but no-one has ever shown it to be impossible, not even Tour. Especially not Tour.
The man is a very unfunny joke. As a biochemist with a fair amount of experience in the field, I find attitudes like Tour's to be completely incomprehensible. Who, exactly, is he to tell god what he can or can't do? This is what science is about, figuring out how nature does stuff, and if a god is real, it uses nature.
But that's not Tour's god, his god is a magician. A wizard zapping living organisms into existence out of absolute nothing. Science is about discovering how nature works. Tour's religion is about telling you what his god demands of you. He's probably never been a real scientist in his life, unless he discovered his current religious mania later.
@@attila.the.honest Please stop, I'm laughing so hard right now I'm gonna bust a gut.
-- "He has a strong belief..."
Oh dear. Please show us on this doll, where Tour's 'belief' hurt you.
@@codonmatrix4510 Yeah, you're right, There's absolutely nothing on Tour's website that says he's a nutty bible-thumper like you. ROTFLMFAO! Idiot.
Great discussion! The conversion of science into believe is a big problem in the progress of science. We pretend to students that everything is solved and the rest is just "technology" and that is why they have to learn all the concepts. But, the big questions are still out there. It would be very exciting for students to learn what we do not understand and in the meantime learn about chemical synthesis, yields, pathways, thermodynamics, kinetics, folding problems and how existing biology is solving problems, and how such a thing could get started.
No need to worry, James. The general public are mostly intelligent enough to know that scientists regularly talk nonsense on this topic, as on many others. Few of them seem to be free-thinkers. I'm not even sure most of them are clear thinkers.
So people who have studied science for 40 years in an institution of extreme higher learning are wrong and you are going to tell them how it is huh? Good luck with that you fvcking moron.
Nice talk. Very good explanation from Dr. Stadler. Just maybe he should use more time and bring in some other details or examples
Could any one give some references about the discovery Dr Tour speaks about @15:47 15:49
_SCIENCE_
*Direct observation of chirality-induced spin selectivity in electron donor-acceptor molecules*
cience
12 Oct 2023
Vol 382, Issue 6667
pp. 197-201
DOI: 10.1126/science.adj5328
Editor’s summary
Chirality-induced spin selectivity has undergone intensive study in the two decades since its discovery. Essentially, the phenomenon manifests as polarization of electron spin by chiral molecules, although the observations thus far have pertained to samples adsorbed on a solid substrate. Eckvahl et al. report significant chirality-induced spin selectivity signatures during intramolecular electron transfer between donor and acceptor fragments across a chiral bridge in free-floating molecules (see the Perspective by Subotnik). The precise tunability and tractability of these systems should enable systematic comparisons with evolving theoretical models. -Jake S. Yeston
Abstract
The role of chirality in determining the spin dynamics of photoinduced electron transfer in donor-acceptor molecules remains an open question. Although chirality-induced spin selectivity (CISS) has been demonstrated in molecules bound to substrates, experimental information about whether this process influences spin dynamics in the molecules themselves is lacking. Here we used time-resolved electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy to show that CISS strongly influences the spin dynamics of isolated covalent donor-chiral bridge-acceptor (D-Bχ-A) molecules in which selective photoexcitation of D is followed by two rapid, sequential electron-transfer events to yield D•+-Bχ-A•-. Exploiting this phenomenon affords the possibility of using chiral molecular building blocks to control electron spin states in quantum information applications.
_SCIENCE_
Chiral molecules to transmit electron spin
Electron transfer through chiral molecules displays a strong spin preference
Science
12 Oct 2023
Vol 382, Issue 6667
pp. 160-161
Abstract
Understanding how electrons move through molecules and carry energy with them has been crucial for the development of multiple technologies, including photovoltaic cells and light-emitting diodes. The standard theory (1) establishes that electron transfer (ET) can be understood by considering energy conservation and the movement of electrons and nuclei. However, this view of ET has been challenged with the observation of chirality-induced spin selectivity (CISS), whereby electrons with one spin move differently through a material than do electrons of the other spin (2, 3). On page 197 of this issue, Eckvahl et al. (4) report a CISS signal for an isolated chiral molecular system in a liquid crystal environment, after excitation with light. These results suggest that the standard ET theory should be modified to include both energy and total (orbital plus spin) angular momentum conservation, thereby opening the door to new CISS applications, including “green” hydrogen generation.
If you just do a search for, 'chiral induced spin selectivity,' you will find tons of articles.
The snowflakes are melting, and it's only February!