A sampling of scientific literature references (first 3 featured in the video): • Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story (Canto) - A. G. Cairns-Smith • The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth - Leslie E. Orgel • Origins : A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth - Robert Shapiro • Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life - Robert Shapiro **Look for an upcoming video on how Dr. Tour takes a critical look Otangelo Grasso's book "X-ray of Life :Volume 1"**
Hi Dr James tour please write a paper about the impossibility of abiogenesis I usually argue with Atheist online and point to your research.They say such negative things about you so just write a paper that I can refer to silence the fools.
Your knowledge reminds me of Festus and his response to Paul "Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, You rave! Your many letters turned you into madness." The gospel was simple for Paul and it made perfect sense. Now you are a vessel to push back on the lies and wistful-wishful thinking of lazy science. Bless you doctor. Are you a son of Benjamin?
@@victorobanda769 Because you can't prove something impossible if you don't know how it happened. More importantly, why do you care? It is not a scientific question.
@@Belmondo_RHYour confidence in life having a natural origin and the process of non living matter became living without design or purpose faith or belief?
@@Belmondo_RH you got it wrong, pal, nothing he says here has anything to do with religion. He's showing how scientifically nobody can explain life's origins. Maybe someday, but certainly not yet.
@@ferrantepallas "He's showing how scientifically nobody can explain life's origins. " But everybody already knows that. There would be no resaon to argue about it UNLESS you were making it about religion.
@ "He's showing how scientifically nobody can explain life's origins" He is showing is how gullable his flock is, given that you really think this is not about religion. Why is not publishing his "opinions" in scientific journals? Instead he is making the rounds through Jesus TV shows, Apologetic YT channels and holds sermons in fromt of his flock.
Thanks again Dr. Tour. I worked for 20 years as volunteer apologist with Dr. Hugh Ross at Reasons To Believe. I was very excited to learn that you are Jewish as well as Christian. I have had my understanding of the Bible and Christianity filled out in such invaluable ways by learning from Messianic Believer ministries like Christian Jew Foundation. You have extra blessings from Yeshua, according to HIs numerous promises.
Any god in particular? Do 1.2 billion Hindu get theirs from Vishnu? Do Shinto Japanese get theirs from Kami? Do Zoroastrians get theirs from Zarathustra?
@@mirandahotspring4019 Don't be a typical Droid. You know there is only 1 God. The fact that somebody has an amazing idol of a marshmallow doesn't mean that they have a Creator; it means they have a marshmallow.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Thank You! for asking that question, i'm glad you are looking for solving these observations as i was when i was 15-30 years old - there is only one God and this is the God of truth and mind - if Shinto and Vishnu and even if some small american or south asia tribe wish to follow the truth about the nature, truth about the human behaviour and mind their decisions then they are following Christianity (because its the only one i know so i call it that way and paint it by the history i know). There is also a very important separation between profanum - the things that are available on earth and sacrum which are things that are expanding transcendentally above the earth and possible computations. Regarding the Zarathustra - i think Nietzsche (the nihilist Nietzsche ) was lying about Zarathustrianism but it should also be ok as for a religion. I strongly disregard babilonian Talmudic worshippers if they do follow the book by each letter. Everybody should have a critical approach to the words that are written. Christianity is the religion of keeping the mind over the law (over the Right) not having a right over ones mind :D God bless You Miranda!
@@cocoloco5533You obviously have no depth in science, Biology quashes the Fraud of evolution. Every life comes from life, never a spontaneous eruption of life from a clump of goo. Sad that you express nonsense.
@BillG8718 Utter nonsense! What have the scientists ever done in a lab that makes it possible to create any life-form. ZIP, ZERO, NADA... The only thing they care about was is pseudoscience and government grants. If evolution were privately funded, it would go broke in an hour.
sara walker and lee cronin on assembly theory also posits that information is necessary for things to exist. the combinatorial gap in chemistry to achieve life from abiogenisis is a huge gulf without an intelligence behind it. there are limits, according to them, what random chemistry can do without intelligence
The two main trolls on Tour's channel, are Dave himself and his "buddy" Aron ra-ra, playing with their multiple sock puppet accounts, with the help of a handful of wannabe sycophantic trolls that hang out on Dave and Aron's channels.
-He lied about our ability to make the basic building blocks of life for example. -He lied when he claimed that we can not make: polypeptides, nucleotides, saccharides, lipids, and RNA. In a prebiotic manner. We are able to do this for a decade.
-He lied when he claimed: “Peptides do not form under water”. -He lied when he claimed that Autocatalysis is not capable of solving the pre-R/DNA formation of proteins. Multiple times! -He lied about the nature of ool research in general (making a cell from scratch is not a priority).
-He called the entire field a "scam" and still does. This example of quote-mining this typical. -He is still using this, even though he got callout out for it multiple times. -He lied when he said " he cannot be sure how old the earth" even though he defended radiometric dating a few years earlier before he sold his soul to the Discovery Institute, -He lied when he said that "“No real chemist ever going to use Dave Farina's answers as their answers." when Farina is just presenting the actual research aka "their answers"
@@BillG8718That's a load of bull-pucky. Those papers are only published because they fit the evolutionists narrative. It's all rinse and repeat garbage that gets passed through, for the love of money and not true science, but is pseudoscience, because they have to have a quota of papers that get published.
@@Alec_Cox It's obvious you have no science education or experience at all. You really should stop embarrassing yourself. BTW the topic is abiogenesis, not evolution.
@@BillG8718 Absolutely none, I read the findings from them many years ago in articles from New Scientist and Nature. It turns out the findings were filled with over inflated claims.
I found a genuine Scintist. Wow you are genius. This king nd of mind that challenges a false scintists come about once in century. What a great mind. You are amaizing Dr.
@@otangelograsso1179 LOL! Otangelo Grasso is a well known creationist ignoramus with zero training in biology or genetics who claims in his self-published books to have disproven evolution. 🤣🤣🤣 Extremely telling but not surprising Tour would push a book by this creationist clown.
I talked to you in the RUclips comments before. I think below Salvador Cordovas videos. I knew you were smart. But I didn't know you were that good. This just made my day. :D
He didn't give an answer at all. He just made the lame excuse "the data is already published" but didn't say when or where or by whom. It was an exceptionally craven cop-out.
@@cocoloco5533 it appears the public education system has failed you, but Christ won't fail you. Declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
@@cocoloco5533 But Homer, what if God revealed himself by giving us the commandments that produce the best results for all humanity and all he asks is that we accept him 😇
Prebiotic chemistry can't sort, count or spell. How could a mindless, random process sort through 500 different types of amino acids, arranging only the 20 specific in only their left hand forms except glycine. In sequences as specific as 20 amino acid letters spelling protein words of anywhere from 50 to the 35,000 in the muscle protein Titin?Hand a person a couple thousand sets of the 20 particular amino acids and tell him to "spell," sequence a protein. You think those in a warm little pond have any advantage over a person with design and purpose? The simplest cell has 12.6 billion amino acids, averaging 300 each assembled into 42 million proteins. Absurditly ridiculous!
You still make ignorance based personal incredulity into an art form. Extant proteins aren't the only ones possible or the only ones which will support life. They're just the ones we ended up with after almost 4 billion years of evolution.
Maybe OOL researchers don't know the answers to your questions. But they don't think the process was entirely random. That is why they appeal to chemistry and chemical processes, and perhaps physics and physical processes. As for your 42 million proteins, was that for the simplest cell possible or was it for the "average" cell known today, say, something like Saccharomyces cerevisiae? //Absurditly ridiculous!// That’s why OOL researchers know it’s a tough nut to crack, assuming the problem can be solved.
@ Srch: simple cell contains 42 million protein molecules biologists say Scinews jan 11 2018 Srch: absolute minimum set of genes. mycoplasma genitalia 473 256 has been proposed. And ran across Carsonella ruddii, a symbiotic bacterium inside sap feeding insects. Around 160,000 base pairs and 182 protein coding genes
@@Vernon-Chitlen I saw that article. It's where I got the point about S. cerevisiae from. FYI, that article points out that the yeast has about 6,000 proteins. The article was written in 2018. If you enter the question "How many different proteins does S cerevisiae have" you get this:- "The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has an estimated 5,858 proteins. The genome of S. cerevisiae has about 6,275 genes, but only about 5,800 of these are thought to be functional. " ^^ Note those numbers. 5,858 proteins, 6,275 genes. Now move forward three years to 2021. Do a search for the article "Scientists create simple synthetic cell that grows and divides normally". There you find the following:- "... a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. ..." ^^ That is, this organism is about a factor of 10 smaller. And here's the kicker. Scientists don't think the first cell was anything like our modern cells. Rather it was much simpler. So they are not aiming to explain the origin of something like S cerevisiae. Rather they are going to be aiming for something more simple, even simpler than the much smaller cell created by Venter.
@rolandwatts3218 Venter used existing cells (yeast) to assemble the genetic material they programed to insert into existing Mycoplasma capricolum cells. Just programed genetic material into existing, live, metabolically undisturbed Mycoplasma Capricolum cells. No where near a man made synthetic cell from scratch. You're confusing types of proteins to the number of proteins in the simplest cell. And you seem to be so blind to the obvious amount of design and purpose required for these so called synthetic cells. And your scientists "don't think" the first cell is anything like our modern cells? So the first cell didn't have any proteins, genes, cell membranes etc;? Whatever the minimum number of proteins or protein coding genes are required. Scientists cannot induce carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus to form a single protein or gene in a prebiotic manner. Yes or no?
The more the look the more they see their theories are wrong and their goal is moving further away. Common sense should tell them they are going in the wrong direction. Then of course atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed. Enough said.
"You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull." Mt 13:14-15. If you conduct origins research where God is firmly excluded from consideration, then you will not recognize him, even if you manage to climb halfway up his leg. Initial assumptions matter.
No, of course it doesn't mean it's impossible. The problem is that there is so much lying literature out there saying that scientists have already done it, ie. made these necessary chemicals, and that fake news is deceiving the non-scientific public.
@jockyoung4491 It doesn't bother me in the least. Anyone can look all they want, but the problems have persisted, and will persist. James Tour has done a pretty good job arguing that the problems are insurmountable. Have a crack at it yourself, and explain where Mr. Tour has it wrong.
So the origin of life people are standing by a volcano and an eruption starts so they're hanging out and some basalt forms and hardens by the road they are on and some eruption splatter hits the slabs of basalt and cools rolling down the basalt slope and a tiny impure hardened ejecta iron bb flops off the end of a piece of basalt and onto the road there it sits lopsided and approaching ambient temperature and the origin of life people shriek " We've done it ! " as a vahicle pulls up on the road and stops and the driver says what have you done, and they respond, see, see it ? "We have made a Rolls Royce !"
HEY Otangelo Grasso! He's a big time contributor on a bunch of the creation evolution forums I post on. I comment on his stuff all the time! We see eye to eye on like 98% of stuff, except he's big into the Shroud of Turin and I'm kinda meh on that. Definitely linking him to this video!
Re: formation of the Sun during billions of years. Two billions years ago the Sun would be 70% cooler. That's another condition that should be taken into account when proposing ideas of the origin of life.
Questions: Regarding Assembly (Theory) Hypothesis, is it possible to determine the Assembly Index (AI) of Polypeptides, Polysaccharides, Polynucleotides, etc? If so, what would be the AI for these bio-molecules? And what would assembly hypothesis conclude about the intelligent origins of these molecules?
-He called the entire field a "scam" and still does. This example of quote-mining this typical. -He is still using this, even though he got callout out for it multiple times. -He lied when he said " he cannot be sure how old the earth" even though he defended radiometric dating a few years earlier before he sold his soul to the Discovery Institute,
Science takes care of proving our creator. The evolutionist is doing their best to disproved the basic science but the more they try the further away they get.
@@daveblock Why on earth would you claim something that is a complete lie science does not deal with the supernatural so who are you trying to fool us or yourself?
@@daveblock "Science takes care of proving our creator." What a ways to say: I don't know what science is. Darling, nothing about any field of science points to a deity. NOTHING.
@@truthgiver8286 Ok. Jack Szostak- “ The first simple cell must contain a genome, a form of metabolism and a functional phospholipid membrane. All three are dependent on each other so all must be created at the same time. We have no clue how this is possible “. Creation. I see I’m dealing with people that lack an education in a biological science. I probably need to use smaller words.
@@truthgiver8286 The earth has 600 and 300 times more uranium and thorium respectively than all other rocky surfaces in the Universe. This creates a hot core and a magnetic field that protects us from radiation and hold the atmosphere. The earth also has 30 times less sulfur which permits life. Tell me, how could this happen without a creator? Some minerals at extreme concentrations but others at a much lower. Science.
The 2024 Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine attest to the facts you have repeatedly presented. Is that why you now acknowledge your belief in God and the Salvation of Jesus Christ?
That question is poorly written, he always "acknowledged" his faith after some Nobel Prize winner attest to his research and findings? He always believed and have made public statements about his faith way before his videos got traction for mass attention or some Nobel prize winner to back up his claims about life's origins.
Leslie Orgel, the founder of the RNA world hypothesis, publicly declared at an origin-of-life conference “It would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the early Earth.”
absolutely love how you explain the difference between chemistry and biology. But again, The Bible is restoration history, spiritual re-creation of human beings, after they fell. The God of creation, had an ideal in mind, purpose of creation, and a direction with a goal. God created all the laws which we call science today. Therefore the origin of life is found with the original ideal of God, Genesis 1 is the only pre-fall book in the Bible, and it describes the laws God used for creation.
Dr Tour, as I remember you saying that Dinosaur red blood cells have been found and you said that it can't survive deep time, can you cite the papers and point out closely that said that they have found it? You could even elaborate on the survivability of it purely based on chemistry in the context of geothermal gradient environments.
*Dinosaur red blood cells have been found* Dinosaur red blood cells have NOT been found. What was found were indications (not confirmed) of some molecular residues of hemoglobin breakdown products. The 1997 paper in _Nature_ by Dr. Mary Schweitzer is *Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone* The proposed mechanism for the preservation of these biological molecules is cross-linking with iron molecules which forms virtually indestructible polymers.
Mary Schweitzer-Science-Paleontology-13 Sep 2017 ‘I don't care what they say about me': Paleontologist stares down critics in her hunt for dinosaur proteins Defying conventional wisdom, Mary Schweitzer works to transform dinosaur paleontology into a molecular science "The evidence, which she has laid out in a series of papers in Science and other journals, challenges traditional notions of what a fossil is: a stone replica of the original bone. If that "stone" includes proteins from the living animal, "I don't know what the definition is anymore," Schweitzer says."" The atheistic science "elite" are trying to thwart her as well. They don't seem interested in truth, only in things that support their narrow atheistic religion. They fancy themselves as the high priests of scientism and don't really care about the truth. Money and control, money and control is all they are interested in.
Why do origin of life researchers only consider mainstream theories and not alternatives such as stellar metamorphosis theory? If they are so lost, and they don’t know what they are doing, wouldn’t it be beneficial to consider that maybe their own beliefs and theories are misguided?
Because stellar metamorphosis is a crank hypothesis that claims that planets are old stars that have lost mass and thus the difference between a "star" and "planet" is baseless distinction....which has frankly nothing to do with the origin of life.
@@Belmondo_RH Because its just as ridiculous as thinking hundreds of proteins required to build a first simple cell could just randomly form in the same place and work together as if there is a plan.
@@Belmondo_RHit has everything to so with it. Prebiotic chemistry happens inside of stars as they cool and collapse. The entropic cost is paid by dissolution of the star.
What irritates me the most with these origin of life apologists is that they respond in a very petulant manner when pressed with these basic questions. These aren't serious people.
What bothers me about the atheists or evolutionists is they cannot disprove basic science that shows creation so they just do evolution of the gaps...they are not educated.people.
@@cocoloco5533 Oh really. Jack Szostak-"a first simple cell requires a genome, a form of metabolism and a functional phospholipid membrane, all three are dependent on the others so ALL MUST BE CREATED AT THE SAME TIME AND WE HAVE NO CLUE HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE.:" You cannot get a better explanation of creation . Time to sit down,
@@daveblock Yes it's true you are an uneducated idiot. You really think an out-of-context quote mined passage shows Dr. Szostak says abiogenesis is impossible? 😆😆🤣🤣 Please supply a reference where Dr. Szostak even said that. It sounds like more creationist bullsh1t.
Of course it is about faith. Whether abiogenesis is possible or not is an opinion that nobody would bother arguing about UNLESS they were making it about faith.
The GREAT ERROR of all the materialism-based OOL people is the problem of information. Every time I look at their papers I am stunned at the utter LACK of any reference to the algorithmic, prescriptive information that is absolutely necessary for life. Where did it come from? How? Algorithmic information CANNOT arise by any stochastic, chemical, material process. By DEFINITION, it requires a planning, purposing mind.And yet that information is ubiquitous in al lliving things. Not a single reference in any of the papers I've read to date talks about it. They ALL just blind themselves to it and pretend to themselves that somehow, somewhere over the rainbow of materialistic balderdash, that information is just going to magically appear by the power of their Earth Mommy goddess. They just DO not and WILL not "get it".
You would be a maverick and a scientific miracle if your critisims of research regarding the different origins of life hypothesis have any substance. Entire fields of science would become unvalid and would be needed to be rebuild from the ground up. So yeah, I really don't get why you don't write your own papers on this topic and on the boutique of overlapping fields. You would be a scientific genius like the ones in the range of 200 to 50 years ago. When science was less specialised. So I can't wait James. I would love for deeper understanding and you are the one that seees where all goes wrong, but you never produced anything for the community to improve their research methodology, datasets, scope or their methods of reaching a conclusion. So please, do it. I would love it. Otherwise: It's clear that you are not serious.
Shows you have no education in the field. Papers are published about research that attempts to show how something happens….that is how the funding to do the work is obtained. No scientific work is done and published to prove a negative…..Tour is showing the flaws in published work. 100% of published abiogenesis research is nothing more than highly manipulated work done in a lab in conditions that nature cannot duplicate. Please get an education before commenting further.
@@daveblock you're talking about yourself, right? Tour doesn't show the flaws. He makes up legions of strawmen and finds flaws in these. If he would find significant flaws in the actual research he points towards, then he would make official critiques of the papers. And he would be proudly attaching them to his degree and expertise. That way he would actually help the science. Because then it becomes useful. And given his strong opinions, he would have so much impact that he would kill entire fields of science... if he has valid critiques that are verifiable by others.
@@inajosmood Why are you commenting here? Seriously . Tour simply went to the materials and methods sections of the papers and pointed out the lengths to which the researchers had to go to force the reactions to happen. The whole point is to show all the chemistry can happen without humans, there is not a single paper published that does this. If you were educated in a biological science you would see that problem with your comments.
@@daveblock Ah, one of my favorite bits of creationist stupidity. Any scientific research into life's origins doesn't count since in was done in a lab by humans. 😆😆😄😄
@ denying that something exists is a whole lot different than scientifically disproving it. What we know is that the entire world is covert in a mile or more thick layer of sediments, some of the strata crossing entire continents, containing billions of plant and animal fossils. Now I know that the evolutionary model claims that this has all happened uniformly over millions and millions of years. The problem is that if that were true we would be able to demonstrate it happening that way today. We cannot.
@@littleacorn2244 How much erosion do you think would take place over "millions of years," in sedimentary rock? SEDIMENTARY. Do those rock layers show evidence of being eroded for millions of years before the next layer? Take a look at how fast St. Helens volcanic ash deposited and eroded and compare.
What does Dr. Tour want to happen? For scientists to stop asking questions? That's not going to happen. If you think abiogenesis is impossible, then study something else. Others want to find out more, and they have every right to do that. What's the problem?
After several years of interaction with the origins of life community, do you have any insights of your own as to how life may have started on a pre-biotic earth?
Until the totally clueless OOL community fail to refute Dr Tour, we need to accept that science is totally unable to account for miracles. In the Beginning... How totally clueless do you need to be to believe that everything around us came from nothing in the absence of an Almighty Creator?
@@cinemadart Until the totally clueless Dr. Tour decides to actually publish his critiques in a peer-reviewed journal the OOL community is perfectly justified in ignoring his religiously motivated blithering.
@@BillG8718 He's explained it many times and he's specifying more of the problems. Remember there is more to creating a living thing than assembling all the pure molecules -- you need to arrange them in a functional configuration and even that may need some unknown step to come alive, doofus.
I want to know why OOL researchers are working in labs not in muddy puddles? Obviously life can happen by natural processes, but the problem is they are doing their research in labs. If they stopped trying to control all the variables it would happen! All they need is time!
Life started on earth before there was an oxidising atmosphere, so a reducing atmosphere nowadays can created in a lab to duplicate the conditions of a prebiotic earth.
Because it would not be possible under modern atmospheric conditions. Only in a lab can they study it under the conditions of the primitive Earth. It can't be done in the presence of oxygen.
It’s hilarious. You know that tendency that life has of .. moving of its own accord .. BEHAVIOUR .. more accurately .. behaviour of a conscious entity. As an origin of life researcher you will have it all sewn up when you can coax those chemicals into some conscious self directed behaviour. Why do they never address the fact that they haven’t a clue how that happens , within the materialist paradigm which dominates the scientific community. That being the case how can they hope to solve the puzzle? The Universe (all that is was and will be) grew Einstein from a cosmic egg 🥚 💥… ordered, lawful, geometric, informational, atoms flipping bits as they interact .. therefore a computational, relational, and alive Universe. Big Bang Plasma to Einstein … with some cooling clumping and relating and waiting around for 14 billion years . How it’s done .. the old way .. the way nature managed to do it .. the old fashioned way .. without the help of a single human thought or scientific theory . 🥚 to 🐓 🌱 to 🌳 The Universe grew it all. It’s organismic just like the organisms it grew from plasma via stars planets seas 🌊 and cells 🦠 They say “life is hard” Origin of life is harder .. especially if it’s never occurred to you that the conscious organismic holonic Universe did it without a lab 🧪 or a 🧫 Just the process that every seed or egg uses but at cosmic scale 🥚 💥 👴🏻… hey presto .. I give you Einstein. Just like an organism .. the universe is likely cyclic .. and eternally so . Consciousness is likely primary not matter . No less crazy than something from .. nothing .
Origin of life research is extremely technical and I am not sure it would be possible for most people to follow anyway. Advanced chemistry and bioenergetics is more than I can follow, so it is hard to expect others to.
@@Vernon-Chitlen Actually many of the prebiotic steps involved have been demonstrated. Just not the entire end-to-end process. Tour knows that but he lies about it just as you lie about it.
@cocoloco5533 No, you're the liar. The Miller Urey experiments are one of the most cited experiments as evidence for abiogenesis. Every experiment failed the scientific method. Never producing more than 14 of the 20 particular amino acids proteins are made of. And half of those the wrong Chirality.
@cocoloco5533 The limited progress in producing biomolecules all require large amounts of the design, purpose and foresight of the scientists. Just limiting the starting elements to the few 6-10 elements living things are made of instead of a prebiotic world's 98.
Claiming that abiogenesis is impossible is just as unscientific as claiming that it MUST be possible. Why argue about it? State your opinion and move on.
Is claiming that pigs can't fly just as unscientific as claiming that it MUST be possible? False equivalence. Is there ANY evidence that shows a pig can fly? How about any evidence that a cake has ever baked itself? What would logic, reason and observed experience dictate?
@@codonmatrix4510 Since we don't know how it happened, we can't know what the probabilty is. And scientists want to keep looking because they are curious. What is wrong with that?
@@jockyoung4491 I would say we have a pretty good idea of what the probability is. It's highly complex and integrated. Why then would you say that since some people just want to know, when many refuse to acknowledge or even consider that an intelligence of some kind was involved? Would that not also fall into the same category? What do the textbooks teach? Do you think it's fair to push only one hypothesis and ignore other possibilities? Should they just clearly say, we don't know, and leave it at that, or list the two possibilities equally, and let people make up their own minds?
@@codonmatrix4510 But they are not asking a yes or no question. They are trying to see how it MIGHT be possible, because they are curious. The only alternative is to stop asking questions, and scientists won't do that.
@@codonmatrix4510 _many refuse to acknowledge or even consider that an intelligence of some kind was involved?_ It's not acknowledged or considered since there is no evidence for the claim at all.
-He lied about our ability to make the basic building blocks of life for example. -He lied when he claimed that we can not make: polypeptides, nucleotides, saccharides, lipids, and RNA. In a prebiotic manner. We are able to do this for a decade.
Do you have a clue what you are saying? We have been "making" these building blocks? Non living matter didn't become living without design and purpose. It should be obvious to you
@@daveblock "Nothing used in biological life has ever been produced prebiotic" It has, just becouse you ignore it, does not meanit did not happen......out of couriosity, What do you think is the alternative to a naturalistic origon of life? Magic? Divine Magic?
@@Vernon-Chitlen "Non living matter didn't become living without design and purpose." There is no designer and there is no purpose....it's matter acting under the laws of nature. Cope. "We have been "making" these building blocks?" Yes we have.
Looking at the way cells work, it looks like advanced technology. Let's say it started naturally, might it be that there's something about matter itself, or some "aether" that might shortcut all those combinations and thus beat the odds of a random combination?
@@daveblock _Show us one paper that has prebiotic work._ Here is one of thousands. *Emergent properties as by-products of prebiotic evolution of aminoacylation ribozymes*
@@cocoloco5533 Pay attention to what the title says...it uses a ribozyme..a ribozyme cannot be created outside of a living cell. See what Im saying? its all dishonest, they use things and conditions that have to be don in a lab.
-He lied when he claimed: “Peptides do not form under water”. -He lied when he claimed that Autocatalysis is not capable of solving the pre-R/DNA formation of proteins. Multiple times! -He lied about the nature of ool research in general (making a cell from scratch is not a priority).
Sweetie there is not a single example of protein synthesis or any biological molecule self replicating in prebiotic conditions. The whole point of abiogenesis is showing the reactions could happen in nature without humans…..there are zero that meet this requirement.
@@daveblock "any biological molecule self replicating in prebiotic conditions" How about: Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme PMCID: PMC2652413 NIHMSID: NIHMS86142 PMID: 19131595 by Tracey A Lincoln and Gerald F Joyce One of dozends of papers that show exactly that.
"Why don't you PUBLISH a paper!?" Because every talking point out of his mouth in that regard is either a blunt lie, a misrepresentation or irrelevant.
Why don't you reference the peer reviewed publication detailing the actual prebiotic process of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus forming a gene and or protein? Starting from all 98 elements, not the 6 that comprise 98% of what living things are made of? Throwing in the few essential trace elements like zinc ions.
@@Matze1988ok Creating life is not the goal of OOL research. The task of origin of life research is to elucidate plausible pathways in which each step can have taken place, and firmly demonstrate their plausibility. We get our experimental confirmation from systems chemistry, which shows us that abiogenesis was not the result of totally random and unpredictable processes, but rather ones that followed underlying physical-chemical principles which can be understood and utilized.
@@Vernon-Chitlen It is adorable how you don't realise that you are making my point.....yes, living things consist of those natural elements and their interactions. If you claim that there is something else involved then please demonstrate the existence of this ill-defined " incredient" that somehow interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. Ill wait.
Oh I am watching from the comment space. But find that I need to attend more to the Isaiah mysteries. Appreciating all your work, it guides my other learning and straightens my path. All best wishes for 2025. 📜🪱🐛🦖🐁 \ / 🤴🙏👶👧 🛣👵🙏
-He lied when he said that "“No real chemist ever going to use Dave Farina's answers as their answers." when Farina is just presenting the actual research aka "their answers" -He lied about Jack Szostack's presentation in public multiple times. He claimed this was from primary literature, which it was not and included pearls like: "Those are not sugars..He is lying to you" well, those were sugars....
@@Belmondo_RH Who has actually demonstrated the prebiotic process of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus forming a single protein or gene?
-He lies when he presents himself as an expert in ool research. Which he does, which he is not. -He lied ever time when he claimed that he was “cancelled” due to his religious beliefs.
Sweetie stop embarrassing yourself. Abiogenesis is 100% organic chemistry….Tour is one of the top organic chemists in the world. The fact you don’t know this disqualifies you from commenting
@@daveblock " Abiogenesis is 100% organic chemistry" Which is not true....and even it it were; he is not working in this field. He is however, lying a lot about abiogenesis research. "Tour is one of the top organic chemists in the world. " Only according to him. "The fact you don’t know this disqualifies you from commenting" What about the fact that Tour is a demonastrable liar....?
As long as you agree that life has evolved over the last 3 billion years, I don't see why it matters much how it got started. The otigin of life will probably always be an open question.
@@Vernon-Chitlen It's just my opinion. Whether abiogenesis is possible or not is an opinion that nobody woulrd argue about UNLESS they were making it about faith.
@jockyoung4491 It's a fact, I've bet my life that the non living elements, out of 98, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and phosphorus couldn't, didn't arrange themselves into DNA.
That was sure disappointing. Tour just repeated the same "OOL science can't explain everything so OOL science can't explain *anything* " nonsense he's been chirping for the last decade. He's sticking to the creationist playbook no matter what.
When has he mentioned Creation in his critiques of OOL? His approach is purely scientific. He's in good company. Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out the same weaknesses but without going into the chemistry. He stated that there is a one in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that life could arise spontaneously.
@@Peter-y5y9i Fred pulled that number straight from his nether regions the same way creationists do now. No one has near enough data to calculate an accurate probability for natural abiogenesis.
I think you have it backwards. Tour’s claim is the OOL can hardly explain anything not that they can’t explain everything. Also creationists DO have explanations for almost everything yet atheists don’t accept them.
What a lame excuse for not published his OOL critiques in professional peer-reviewed journals. Claiming all his evidence is already published by others, he just can't say what it is, or by whom, and where. 😄😄😄
How exactly do you publish a paper detailing how you can't find any processes that permit life to begin? That's like proving a negative. Not possible. Maybe get your quantum computer to do it and show us the way.
@@HuFlungDung2 You publish your *critiques* along with your evidence supporting your critiques. Honest scientists have been doing that for a century but Tour refuses.
@@20july1944 *He explains various aspects of it in all his videos* Flat Earthers explain in their videos why NASA is wrong about the "ball Earth" too. YT videos aren't acceptable science.
In the NWA 801 meteorite ribose was found at 4.5 parts per billion. In the Murchison meteorite ribose was found at 25 parts per billion. Too low in abundance..
The fact ribose was found in a meteorite from deep space is the important point. Why did Jesus, er, the Intelligent Designer put ribose in a non-Earth origin meteor?
A sampling of scientific literature references (first 3 featured in the video):
• Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story (Canto) - A. G. Cairns-Smith
• The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth - Leslie E. Orgel
• Origins : A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth - Robert Shapiro
• Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life - Robert Shapiro
**Look for an upcoming video on how Dr. Tour takes a critical look Otangelo Grasso's book "X-ray of Life :Volume 1"**
Why is Dr. Tour pushing a book by the scientifically untrained and well known Young Earth Creationist Otangelo Grasso?
Hi Dr James tour please write a paper about the impossibility of abiogenesis I usually argue with Atheist online and point to your research.They say such negative things about you so just write a paper that I can refer to silence the fools.
@@littleacorn2244 Why don't you read Grasso's article and find out.
Your knowledge reminds me of Festus and his response to Paul "Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, You rave! Your many letters turned you into madness."
The gospel was simple for Paul and it made perfect sense. Now you are a vessel to push back on the lies and wistful-wishful thinking of lazy science. Bless you doctor. Are you a son of Benjamin?
@@victorobanda769
Because you can't prove something impossible if you don't know how it happened. More importantly, why do you care? It is not a scientific question.
THANK YOU Dr. Tour for the incredible amount of work you do all day every day. Your work is VERY much appreciated. God Bless You and your family!!
I appreciate everything you put out and that you stick with pure science in your reasoning.
"...you stick with pure science in your reasoning"
Hilarious!
You are a genuine scientist, and much appreciated.
James Tour: "faith and belief goes beyond scientific evidence..." a "genuine scientist"..........He is the Eric Dubay of Biology at best.
@@Belmondo_RHYour confidence in life having a natural origin and the process of non living matter became living without design or purpose faith or belief?
@@Belmondo_RH you got it wrong, pal, nothing he says here has anything to do with religion. He's showing how scientifically nobody can explain life's origins. Maybe someday, but certainly not yet.
@@ferrantepallas "He's showing how scientifically nobody can explain life's origins. "
But everybody already knows that. There would be no resaon to argue about it UNLESS you were making it about religion.
@ "He's showing how scientifically nobody can explain life's origins" He is showing is how gullable his flock is, given that you really think this is not about religion.
Why is not publishing his "opinions" in scientific journals? Instead he is making the rounds through Jesus TV shows, Apologetic YT channels and holds sermons in fromt of his flock.
Thanks again Dr. Tour.
I worked for 20 years as volunteer apologist with Dr. Hugh Ross at Reasons To Believe. I was very excited to learn that you are Jewish as well as Christian. I have had my understanding of the Bible and Christianity filled out in such invaluable ways by learning from Messianic Believer ministries like Christian Jew Foundation. You have extra blessings from Yeshua, according to HIs numerous promises.
Life just requires a spirit - its not enough in chemistry. The spiritual life just needs God!
Any god in particular? Do 1.2 billion Hindu get theirs from Vishnu? Do Shinto Japanese get theirs from Kami? Do Zoroastrians get theirs from Zarathustra?
@@mirandahotspring4019 Don't be a typical Droid. You know there is only 1 God. The fact that somebody has an amazing idol of a marshmallow doesn't mean that they have a Creator; it means they have a marshmallow.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Thank You! for asking that question, i'm glad you are looking for solving these observations as i was when i was 15-30 years old - there is only one God and this is the God of truth and mind - if Shinto and Vishnu and even if some small american or south asia tribe wish to follow the truth about the nature, truth about the human behaviour and mind their decisions then they are following Christianity (because its the only one i know so i call it that way and paint it by the history i know). There is also a very important separation between profanum - the things that are available on earth and sacrum which are things that are expanding transcendentally above the earth and possible computations.
Regarding the Zarathustra - i think Nietzsche (the nihilist Nietzsche ) was lying about Zarathustrianism but it should also be ok as for a religion.
I strongly disregard babilonian Talmudic worshippers if they do follow the book by each letter. Everybody should have a critical approach to the words that are written.
Christianity is the religion of keeping the mind over the law (over the Right) not having a right over ones mind :D
God bless You Miranda!
That calm demeanor amplifies the points significantly, and could very well be a potent supplement in future discussions.
His Faith is THE REAL REASON he gets criticized. Particularly with Laymen.
It's not his faith _per se._ It's the fact he lies about science to push that faith. *THAT'S* why the science community has such problems with him.
@@cocoloco5533You obviously have no depth in science, Biology quashes the Fraud of evolution. Every life comes from life, never a spontaneous eruption of life from a clump of goo. Sad that you express nonsense.
@@Alec_Cox "fraud of evolution" 😆😆😄😄😆😆 Never mind evolution is the most well supported scientific theory in the entire history of science.
@BillG8718 Utter nonsense! What have the scientists ever done in a lab that makes it possible to create any life-form. ZIP, ZERO, NADA... The only thing they care about was is pseudoscience and government grants. If evolution were privately funded, it would go broke in an hour.
@@BillG8718 Evolution isn't the question -- origin of life is the question.
sara walker and lee cronin on assembly theory also posits that information is necessary for things to exist. the combinatorial gap in chemistry to achieve life from abiogenisis is a huge gulf without an intelligence behind it. there are limits, according to them, what random chemistry can do without intelligence
Mortal man can‘t create GOD‘s breath of life in his laboratory. ❤
The two main trolls on Tour's channel, are Dave himself and his "buddy" Aron ra-ra, playing with their multiple sock puppet accounts, with the help of a handful of wannabe sycophantic trolls that hang out on Dave and Aron's channels.
Stop noticing ‼️‼️‼️
@@codonmatrix4510 Dave's not here man
-He lied about our ability to make the basic building blocks of life for example.
-He lied when he claimed that we can not make: polypeptides, nucleotides, saccharides, lipids, and RNA. In a prebiotic manner. We are able to do this for a decade.
-He lied when he claimed: “Peptides do not form under water”.
-He lied when he claimed that Autocatalysis is not capable of solving the pre-R/DNA formation of proteins. Multiple times!
-He lied about the nature of ool research in general (making a cell from scratch is not a priority).
-He called the entire field a "scam" and still does. This example of quote-mining this typical. -He is still using this, even though he got callout out for it multiple times.
-He lied when he said " he cannot be sure how old the earth" even though he defended radiometric dating a few years earlier before he sold his soul to the Discovery Institute,
-He lied when he said that "“No real chemist ever going to use Dave Farina's answers as their answers." when Farina is just presenting the actual research aka "their answers"
The onus is on OoL researchers to publish papers that provide evidence for their hypothesis.
They have, hundreds of them every year. Which of those papers published in the last year have you read?
THE OOL Crowd has zip zero and Nada to back up their conjectures.
@@BillG8718That's a load of bull-pucky. Those papers are only published because they fit the evolutionists narrative. It's all rinse and repeat garbage that gets passed through, for the love of money and not true science, but is pseudoscience, because they have to have a quota of papers that get published.
@@Alec_Cox It's obvious you have no science education or experience at all. You really should stop embarrassing yourself. BTW the topic is abiogenesis, not evolution.
@@BillG8718 Absolutely none, I read the findings from them many years ago in articles from New Scientist and Nature. It turns out the findings were filled with over inflated claims.
I found a genuine Scintist. Wow you are genius. This king nd of mind that challenges a false scintists come about once in century. What a great mind. You are amaizing Dr.
Thanks to Dr.Tour for promoting my book.
Is your book available in an audio format, please?
@@danpatterson6937 i didnt think about that. But i checked, and ChatGTP can transcribe it. If i can complete the job, i will let you know.
@@otangelograsso1179 LOL! Otangelo Grasso is a well known creationist ignoramus with zero training in biology or genetics who claims in his self-published books to have disproven evolution. 🤣🤣🤣 Extremely telling but not surprising Tour would push a book by this creationist clown.
I talked to you in the RUclips comments before. I think below Salvador Cordovas videos. I knew you were smart. But I didn't know you were that good. This just made my day. :D
People who hate you criticize you over and over and over for not publishing peer-reviewed papers on OoL. I'm pleased that you gave a good answer here.
He didn't give an answer at all. He just made the lame excuse "the data is already published" but didn't say when or where or by whom. It was an exceptionally craven cop-out.
I don't hate Tour. I just wish he'd stop teaming with the DI to push his creationist garbage.
@@littleacorn2244
You're one of the sock puppet Dave Farina accounts..
@@sliglusamelius8578 Then you must be an animated dog turd given the power of speech by magic. 😄
@@BillG8718 He gave several examples of people who published the problems facing OoL researchers. Did you watch the video?
Thank you for promoting intelligence!
You misspelled "creationist lies".
@@cocoloco5533 it appears the public education system has failed you, but Christ won't fail you. Declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
@@refuse2bdcvd324 “But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder.” - Homer Simpson. 🙂
@@cocoloco5533 But Homer, what if God revealed himself by giving us the commandments that produce the best results for all humanity and all he asks is that we accept him 😇
@@refuse2bdcvd324 Heh. You can't even argue against a cartoon character.
Prebiotic chemistry can't sort, count or spell. How could a mindless, random process sort through 500 different types of amino acids, arranging only the 20 specific in only their left hand forms except glycine. In sequences as specific as 20 amino acid letters spelling protein words of anywhere from 50 to the 35,000 in the muscle protein Titin?Hand a person a couple thousand sets of the 20 particular amino acids and tell him to "spell," sequence a protein. You think those in a warm little pond have any advantage over a person with design and purpose? The simplest cell has 12.6 billion amino acids, averaging 300 each assembled into 42 million proteins. Absurditly ridiculous!
You still make ignorance based personal incredulity into an art form. Extant proteins aren't the only ones possible or the only ones which will support life. They're just the ones we ended up with after almost 4 billion years of evolution.
Maybe OOL researchers don't know the answers to your questions. But they don't think the process was entirely random. That is why they appeal to chemistry and chemical processes, and perhaps physics and physical processes.
As for your 42 million proteins, was that for the simplest cell possible or was it for the "average" cell known today, say, something like Saccharomyces cerevisiae?
//Absurditly ridiculous!//
That’s why OOL researchers know it’s a tough nut to crack, assuming the problem can be solved.
@ Srch: simple cell contains 42 million protein molecules biologists say Scinews jan 11 2018 Srch: absolute minimum set of genes.
mycoplasma genitalia 473
256 has been proposed. And ran across Carsonella ruddii, a symbiotic bacterium inside sap feeding insects. Around 160,000 base pairs and 182 protein coding genes
@@Vernon-Chitlen
I saw that article. It's where I got the point about S. cerevisiae from. FYI, that article points out that the yeast has about 6,000 proteins. The article was written in 2018. If you enter the question "How many different proteins does S cerevisiae have" you get this:-
"The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has an estimated 5,858 proteins. The genome of S. cerevisiae has about 6,275 genes, but only about 5,800 of these are thought to be functional. "
^^ Note those numbers. 5,858 proteins, 6,275 genes.
Now move forward three years to 2021. Do a search for the article "Scientists create simple synthetic cell that grows and divides normally". There you find the following:-
"... a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. ..."
^^ That is, this organism is about a factor of 10 smaller.
And here's the kicker. Scientists don't think the first cell was anything like our modern cells. Rather it was much simpler. So they are not aiming to explain the origin of something like S cerevisiae. Rather they are going to be aiming for something more simple, even simpler than the much smaller cell created by Venter.
@rolandwatts3218 Venter used existing cells (yeast) to assemble the genetic material they programed to insert into existing Mycoplasma capricolum cells. Just programed genetic material into existing, live, metabolically undisturbed Mycoplasma Capricolum cells. No where near a man made synthetic cell from scratch. You're confusing types of proteins to the number of proteins in the simplest cell. And you seem to be so blind to the obvious amount of design and purpose required for these so called synthetic cells. And your scientists "don't think" the first cell is anything like our modern cells? So the first cell didn't have any proteins, genes, cell membranes etc;? Whatever the minimum number of proteins or protein coding genes are required. Scientists cannot induce carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus to form a single protein or gene in a prebiotic manner. Yes or no?
We all agree that "we don't see how". That doesn't prove it impossible. And we'll never know if we don't look, so what is wrong with that?
The more the look the more they see their theories are wrong and their goal is moving further away. Common sense should tell them they are going in the wrong direction. Then of course atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed. Enough said.
"You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull." Mt 13:14-15.
If you conduct origins research where God is firmly excluded from consideration, then you will not recognize him, even if you manage to climb halfway up his leg. Initial assumptions matter.
No, of course it doesn't mean it's impossible. The problem is that there is so much lying literature out there saying that scientists have already done it, ie. made these necessary chemicals, and that fake news is deceiving the non-scientific public.
@@markm8188
Yes. So? Scientists are curiuos and want to find out if it is possible. Why does that bother you?
@jockyoung4491
It doesn't bother me in the least. Anyone can look all they want, but the problems have persisted, and will persist. James Tour has done a pretty good job arguing that the problems are insurmountable. Have a crack at it yourself, and explain where Mr. Tour has it wrong.
You really are the Eric Dubay of Biology. Well done!!
I would love to see Dr. James Tour in a podcast setting where Dr. Tour and other scientist from relevant science fields debate about these topics.
Great THANKS ! Keep on ! Are there any news on Your 5 Basic components needed for life ?
So the origin of life people are standing by a volcano and an eruption starts so they're hanging out and some basalt forms and hardens by the road they are on and some eruption splatter hits the slabs of basalt and cools rolling down the basalt slope and a tiny impure hardened ejecta iron bb flops off the end of a piece of basalt and onto the road there it sits lopsided and approaching ambient temperature and the origin of life people shriek " We've done it ! " as a vahicle pulls up on the road and stops and the driver says what have you done, and they respond, see, see it ? "We have made a Rolls Royce !"
HEY Otangelo Grasso! He's a big time contributor on a bunch of the creation evolution forums I post on. I comment on his stuff all the time! We see eye to eye on like 98% of stuff, except he's big into the Shroud of Turin and I'm kinda meh on that. Definitely linking him to this video!
Re: formation of the Sun during billions of years. Two billions years ago the Sun would be 70% cooler. That's another condition that should be taken into account when proposing ideas of the origin of life.
Questions: Regarding Assembly (Theory) Hypothesis, is it possible to determine the Assembly Index (AI) of Polypeptides, Polysaccharides, Polynucleotides, etc? If so, what would be the AI for these bio-molecules? And what would assembly hypothesis conclude about the intelligent origins of these molecules?
Can you please critique the amyloid hypothesis?
-He called the entire field a "scam" and still does. This example of quote-mining this typical. -He is still using this, even though he got callout out for it multiple times.
-He lied when he said " he cannot be sure how old the earth" even though he defended radiometric dating a few years earlier before he sold his soul to the Discovery Institute,
and literally nothing you said was mentioned in the video. go be a angry man screaming at the clouds somewhere else
I love how you credit god with so much but don't you have to prove he exists before you can claim he did something.
Science takes care of proving our creator. The evolutionist is doing their best to disproved the basic science but the more they try the further away they get.
@@daveblock Why on earth would you claim something that is a complete lie science does not deal with the supernatural so who are you trying to fool us or yourself?
@@daveblock "Science takes care of proving our creator." What a ways to say: I don't know what science is.
Darling, nothing about any field of science points to a deity. NOTHING.
@@truthgiver8286 Ok. Jack Szostak- “ The first simple cell must contain a genome, a form of metabolism and a functional phospholipid membrane. All three are dependent on each other so all must be created at the same time. We have no clue how this is possible “. Creation. I see I’m dealing with people that lack an education in a biological science. I probably need to use smaller words.
@@truthgiver8286 The earth has 600 and 300 times more uranium and thorium respectively than all other rocky surfaces in the Universe. This creates a hot core and a magnetic field that protects us from radiation and hold the atmosphere. The earth also has 30 times less sulfur which permits life. Tell me, how could this happen without a creator? Some minerals at extreme concentrations but others at a much lower. Science.
The 2024 Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine attest to the facts you have repeatedly presented. Is that why you now acknowledge your belief in God and the Salvation of Jesus Christ?
That question is poorly written, he always "acknowledged" his faith after some Nobel Prize winner attest to his research and findings? He always believed and have made public statements about his faith way before his videos got traction for mass attention or some Nobel prize winner to back up his claims about life's origins.
For real? Can you tell me what I need to search?
Leslie Orgel, the founder of the RNA world hypothesis, publicly declared at an origin-of-life conference “It would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the early Earth.”
Kinda late to be dishonestly out-of-context quote mining a 20 year old reference innit?
Parroting irrelevant creationist talking points is kind of pathetic.
absolutely love how you explain the difference between chemistry and biology. But again, The Bible is restoration history, spiritual re-creation of human beings, after they fell.
The God of creation, had an ideal in mind, purpose of creation, and a direction with a goal. God created all the laws which we call science today. Therefore the origin of life is found with the original ideal of God, Genesis 1 is the only pre-fall book in the Bible, and it describes the laws God used for creation.
Dr Tour, as I remember you saying that Dinosaur red blood cells have been found and you said that it can't survive deep time, can you cite the papers and point out closely that said that they have found it? You could even elaborate on the survivability of it purely based on chemistry in the context of geothermal gradient environments.
*Dinosaur red blood cells have been found* Dinosaur red blood cells have NOT been found. What was found were indications (not confirmed) of some molecular residues of hemoglobin breakdown products. The 1997 paper in _Nature_ by Dr. Mary Schweitzer is
*Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone*
The proposed mechanism for the preservation of these biological molecules is cross-linking with iron molecules which forms virtually indestructible polymers.
Mary Schweitzer-Science-Paleontology-13 Sep 2017
‘I don't care what they say about me': Paleontologist stares down critics in her hunt for dinosaur proteins
Defying conventional wisdom, Mary Schweitzer works to transform dinosaur paleontology into a molecular science
"The evidence, which she has laid out in a series of papers in Science and other journals, challenges traditional notions of what a fossil is: a stone replica of the original bone. If that "stone" includes proteins from the living animal, "I don't know what the definition is anymore," Schweitzer says.""
The atheistic science "elite" are trying to thwart her as well. They don't seem interested in truth, only in things that support their narrow atheistic religion. They fancy themselves as the high priests of scientism and don't really care about the truth. Money and control, money and control is all they are interested in.
@codonmatrix4510 Agreed but I was asking about red blood cells though.
@@sabhishek9289
It's not like they are living cells. LOL.
@@jockyoung4491 Well, ancient red blood cells not being alive doesn't reduce the significance of finding them at all.
It’s funny that no matter how much of an expert you become the main criticism is that you’re not enough of an expert…😅
Why do origin of life researchers only consider mainstream theories and not alternatives such as stellar metamorphosis theory? If they are so lost, and they don’t know what they are doing, wouldn’t it be beneficial to consider that maybe their own beliefs and theories are misguided?
Because stellar metamorphosis is a crank hypothesis that claims that planets are old stars that have lost mass and thus the difference between a "star" and "planet" is baseless distinction....which has frankly nothing to do with the origin of life.
@@Belmondo_RH Because its just as ridiculous as thinking hundreds of proteins required to build a first simple cell could just randomly form in the same place and work together as if there is a plan.
@@Belmondo_RHit has everything to so with it. Prebiotic chemistry happens inside of stars as they cool and collapse. The entropic cost is paid by dissolution of the star.
@@MrWolynski Prebiotic chemistry, no matter where it happens cannot create useful proteins so its all irrelevant.
_Why do origin of life researchers only consider mainstream theories and not alternatives_ Lack of evidence.
What irritates me the most with these origin of life apologists is that they respond in a very petulant manner when pressed with these basic questions. These aren't serious people.
What bothers me about the atheists or evolutionists is they cannot disprove basic science that shows creation so they just do evolution of the gaps...they are not educated.people.
@@daveblock That's the "basic science that shows creation" none of you creationist clowns can ever present. 😄
@@cocoloco5533 Oh really. Jack Szostak-"a first simple cell requires a genome, a form of metabolism and a functional phospholipid membrane, all three are dependent on the others so ALL MUST BE CREATED AT THE SAME TIME AND WE HAVE NO CLUE HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE.:" You cannot get a better explanation of creation . Time to sit down,
@@daveblock Yes it's true you are an uneducated idiot. You really think an out-of-context quote mined passage shows Dr. Szostak says abiogenesis is impossible? 😆😆🤣🤣 Please supply a reference where Dr. Szostak even said that. It sounds like more creationist bullsh1t.
@@daveblock
Obviously the first life was not a complete cell. Nobody has ever thought it would be.
Of course it is about faith. Whether abiogenesis is possible or not is an opinion that nobody would bother arguing about UNLESS they were making it about faith.
The GREAT ERROR of all the materialism-based OOL people is the problem of information.
Every time I look at their papers I am stunned at the utter LACK of any reference to the algorithmic, prescriptive information that is absolutely necessary for life. Where did it come from? How?
Algorithmic information CANNOT arise by any stochastic, chemical, material process.
By DEFINITION, it requires a planning, purposing mind.And yet that information is ubiquitous in al lliving things.
Not a single reference in any of the papers I've read to date talks about it.
They ALL just blind themselves to it and pretend to themselves that somehow, somewhere over the rainbow of materialistic balderdash, that information is just going to magically appear by the power of their Earth Mommy goddess.
They just DO not and WILL not "get it".
Please define biological information as you are using the term. Try not to use the meaningless creationist bafflegab terms you seem to be fond of.
You would be a maverick and a scientific miracle if your critisims of research regarding the different origins of life hypothesis have any substance. Entire fields of science would become unvalid and would be needed to be rebuild from the ground up.
So yeah, I really don't get why you don't write your own papers on this topic and on the boutique of overlapping fields. You would be a scientific genius like the ones in the range of 200 to 50 years ago. When science was less specialised. So I can't wait James. I would love for deeper understanding and you are the one that seees where all goes wrong, but you never produced anything for the community to improve their research methodology, datasets, scope or their methods of reaching a conclusion. So please, do it. I would love it.
Otherwise: It's clear that you are not serious.
Shows you have no education in the field. Papers are published about research that attempts to show how something happens….that is how the funding to do the work is obtained. No scientific work is done and published to prove a negative…..Tour is showing the flaws in published work. 100% of published abiogenesis research is nothing more than highly manipulated work done in a lab in conditions that nature cannot duplicate. Please get an education before commenting further.
@@daveblock you're talking about yourself, right?
Tour doesn't show the flaws. He makes up legions of strawmen and finds flaws in these.
If he would find significant flaws in the actual research he points towards, then he would make official critiques of the papers. And he would be proudly attaching them to his degree and expertise.
That way he would actually help the science. Because then it becomes useful. And given his strong opinions, he would have so much impact that he would kill entire fields of science... if he has valid critiques that are verifiable by others.
@@inajosmood Why are you commenting here? Seriously . Tour simply went to the materials and methods sections of the papers and pointed out the lengths to which the researchers had to go to force the reactions to happen. The whole point is to show all the chemistry can happen without humans, there is not a single paper published that does this. If you were educated in a biological science you would see that problem with your comments.
@@daveblock Ah, one of my favorite bits of creationist stupidity. Any scientific research into life's origins doesn't count since in was done in a lab by humans. 😆😆😄😄
YT needs to remove the top-newest feature. It is ridiculously biased and suppresses truth.
intersting funny dude
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
The biological molecules that do come to earth from outer-space are returning to where they originated from pre-flood.
That's pretty tough since a literal Noah's Flood was scientifically disproven over two centuries ago.
@ denying that something exists is a whole lot different than scientifically disproving it. What we know is that the entire world is covert in a mile or more thick layer of sediments, some of the strata crossing entire continents, containing billions of plant and animal fossils. Now I know that the evolutionary model claims that this has all happened uniformly over millions and millions of years. The problem is that if that were true we would be able to demonstrate it happening that way today. We cannot.
@@garyh2100 Show me the evidence all fossils and all strata across the whole planet were deposited by the same one-year event around 2400 BC.
@@littleacorn2244 How much erosion do you think would take place over "millions of years," in sedimentary rock? SEDIMENTARY. Do those rock layers show evidence of being eroded for millions of years before the next layer? Take a look at how fast St. Helens volcanic ash deposited and eroded and compare.
@@codonmatrix4510 OK, there's one creationist teenager who can't answer the question or provide any evidence.
What does Dr. Tour want to happen? For scientists to stop asking questions? That's not going to happen. If you think abiogenesis is impossible, then study something else. Others want to find out more, and they have every right to do that. What's the problem?
Tour wants all OOL research to stop and be defunded because it threatens his religious beliefs. It really is that simple.
After several years of interaction with the origins of life community, do you have any insights of your own as to how life may have started on a pre-biotic earth?
HINT: the title of his organization is "JesusAndScience".
He's already stated on his personal web page he believes his Christian God created the universe and everything in it including life.
Until the totally clueless OOL community fail to refute Dr Tour, we need to accept that science is totally unable to account for miracles. In the Beginning...
How totally clueless do you need to be to believe that everything around us came from nothing in the absence of an Almighty Creator?
@@cinemadart Until the totally clueless Dr. Tour decides to actually publish his critiques in a peer-reviewed journal the OOL community is perfectly justified in ignoring his religiously motivated blithering.
@@BillG8718 He's explained it many times and he's specifying more of the problems.
Remember there is more to creating a living thing than assembling all the pure molecules -- you need to arrange them in a functional configuration and even that may need some unknown step to come alive, doofus.
I want to know why OOL researchers are working in labs not in muddy puddles? Obviously life can happen by natural processes, but the problem is they are doing their research in labs. If they stopped trying to control all the variables it would happen! All they need is time!
Life started on earth before there was an oxidising atmosphere, so a reducing atmosphere nowadays can created in a lab to duplicate the conditions of a prebiotic earth.
You really have no clue how actual science is done.
Did you think I was being serious??? That was sarcasm.
@@richardhcarter Poe's Law: A parody of creationist idiocy cannot be distinguished from the real thing without a smilie or other humor emoticon.
Because it would not be possible under modern atmospheric conditions. Only in a lab can they study it under the conditions of the primitive Earth. It can't be done in the presence of oxygen.
It’s hilarious. You know that tendency that life has of .. moving of its own accord .. BEHAVIOUR .. more accurately .. behaviour of a conscious entity.
As an origin of life researcher you will have it all sewn up when you can coax those chemicals into some conscious self directed behaviour.
Why do they never address the fact that they haven’t a clue how that happens , within the materialist paradigm which dominates the scientific community. That being the case how can they hope to solve the puzzle?
The Universe (all that is was and will be) grew Einstein from a cosmic egg 🥚 💥… ordered, lawful, geometric, informational, atoms flipping bits as they interact .. therefore a computational, relational, and alive Universe.
Big Bang Plasma to Einstein … with some cooling clumping and relating and waiting around for 14 billion years . How it’s done .. the old way .. the way nature managed to do it .. the old fashioned way .. without the help of a single human thought or scientific theory .
🥚 to 🐓 🌱 to 🌳
The Universe grew it all. It’s organismic just like the organisms it grew from plasma via stars planets seas 🌊 and cells 🦠
They say “life is hard”
Origin of life is harder .. especially if it’s never occurred to you that the conscious organismic holonic Universe did it without a lab 🧪 or a 🧫
Just the process that every seed or egg uses but at cosmic scale 🥚 💥 👴🏻… hey presto .. I give you Einstein.
Just like an organism .. the universe is likely cyclic .. and eternally so . Consciousness is likely primary not matter . No less crazy than something from .. nothing .
We have to have some basic chemistry lessons. The vocabulary in not known. All these technical terms.
Origin of life research is extremely technical and I am not sure it would be possible for most people to follow anyway. Advanced chemistry and bioenergetics is more than I can follow, so it is hard to expect others to.
@@jockyoung4491Not at all, it's very simple. NOBODY has demonstrated the prebiotic chemistry required for non living matter becoming living.
@@Vernon-Chitlen Actually many of the prebiotic steps involved have been demonstrated. Just not the entire end-to-end process. Tour knows that but he lies about it just as you lie about it.
@cocoloco5533 No, you're the liar. The Miller Urey experiments are one of the most cited experiments as evidence for abiogenesis. Every experiment failed the scientific method. Never producing more than 14 of the 20 particular amino acids proteins are made of. And half of those the wrong Chirality.
@cocoloco5533 The limited progress in producing biomolecules all require large amounts of the design, purpose and foresight of the scientists. Just limiting the starting elements to the few 6-10 elements living things are made of instead of a prebiotic world's 98.
Claiming that abiogenesis is impossible is just as unscientific as claiming that it MUST be possible. Why argue about it? State your opinion and move on.
Is claiming that pigs can't fly just as unscientific as claiming that it MUST be possible? False equivalence. Is there ANY evidence that shows a pig can fly? How about any evidence that a cake has ever baked itself? What would logic, reason and observed experience dictate?
@@codonmatrix4510
Since we don't know how it happened, we can't know what the probabilty is. And scientists want to keep looking because they are curious. What is wrong with that?
@@jockyoung4491 I would say we have a pretty good idea of what the probability is. It's highly complex and integrated. Why then would you say that since some people just want to know, when many refuse to acknowledge or even consider that an intelligence of some kind was involved? Would that not also fall into the same category? What do the textbooks teach? Do you think it's fair to push only one hypothesis and ignore other possibilities? Should they just clearly say, we don't know, and leave it at that, or list the two possibilities equally, and let people make up their own minds?
@@codonmatrix4510
But they are not asking a yes or no question. They are trying to see how it MIGHT be possible, because they are curious. The only alternative is to stop asking questions, and scientists won't do that.
@@codonmatrix4510 _many refuse to acknowledge or even consider that an intelligence of some kind was involved?_ It's not acknowledged or considered since there is no evidence for the claim at all.
-He lied about our ability to make the basic building blocks of life for example.
-He lied when he claimed that we can not make: polypeptides, nucleotides, saccharides, lipids, and RNA. In a prebiotic manner. We are able to do this for a decade.
Do you have a clue what you are saying? We have been "making" these building blocks? Non living matter didn't become living without design and purpose. It should be obvious to you
Why are you spreading lie? Nothing used in biological life has ever been produced prebiotic.
@@daveblock "Nothing used in biological life has ever been produced prebiotic" It has, just becouse you ignore it, does not meanit did not happen......out of couriosity, What do you think is the alternative to a naturalistic origon of life? Magic? Divine Magic?
@@Vernon-Chitlen "Non living matter didn't become living without design and purpose." There is no designer and there is no purpose....it's matter acting under the laws of nature. Cope.
"We have been "making" these building blocks?" Yes we have.
Looking at the way cells work, it looks like advanced technology. Let's say it started naturally, might it be that there's something about matter itself, or some "aether" that might shortcut all those combinations and thus beat the odds of a random combination?
Well, even if there is such a mystical "natural force", nobody ever found it yet.
It wouldnt be random then.
What do you mean by "naturally"?
@@pigzcanfly444Hey man, How are you doing? I haven't seen you in a while. God Bless
@@lauramann8275
Explained exclusively by observable physical/chemical laws.
You don't have to be qualified to ask questions.
He is activly distributing disinformation aka lies.
@@Belmondo_RH Prove he is telling a lie. Show us one paper that has prebiotic work. Very sad you keep embarrassing yourself here.
@@daveblock _Show us one paper that has prebiotic work._ Here is one of thousands.
*Emergent properties as by-products of prebiotic evolution of aminoacylation ribozymes*
@@cocoloco5533 Pay attention to what the title says...it uses a ribozyme..a ribozyme cannot be created outside of a living cell. See what Im saying? its all dishonest, they use things and conditions that have to be don in a lab.
@@daveblock Another creationist dimwit too afraid to even look at the papers he claims don't exist. 😆
-He lied when he claimed: “Peptides do not form under water”.
-He lied when he claimed that Autocatalysis is not capable of solving the pre-R/DNA formation of proteins. Multiple times!
-He lied about the nature of ool research in general (making a cell from scratch is not a priority).
Sweetie there is not a single example of protein synthesis or any biological molecule self replicating in prebiotic conditions. The whole point of abiogenesis is showing the reactions could happen in nature without humans…..there are zero that meet this requirement.
@@daveblock Why don't you adrerss the lies I listed?
@@daveblock "any biological molecule self replicating in prebiotic conditions" How about: Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme PMCID: PMC2652413 NIHMSID: NIHMS86142 PMID: 19131595 by Tracey A Lincoln and Gerald F Joyce
One of dozends of papers that show exactly that.
"Why don't you PUBLISH a paper!?" Because every talking point out of his mouth in that regard is either a blunt lie, a misrepresentation or irrelevant.
Apparently all lies, yet nobody created life in a lab on those conditions
Why don't you reference the peer reviewed publication detailing the actual prebiotic process of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus forming a gene and or protein? Starting from all 98 elements, not the 6 that comprise 98% of what living things are made of? Throwing in the few essential trace elements like zinc ions.
@@Matze1988ok Creating life is not the goal of OOL research. The task of origin of life research is to elucidate plausible pathways in which each step can have taken place, and firmly demonstrate their plausibility. We get our experimental confirmation from systems chemistry, which shows us that abiogenesis was not the result of totally random and unpredictable processes, but rather ones that followed underlying physical-chemical principles which can be understood and utilized.
@@Vernon-Chitlen It is adorable how you don't realise that you are making my point.....yes, living things consist of those natural elements and their interactions.
If you claim that there is something else involved then please demonstrate the existence of this ill-defined " incredient" that somehow interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. Ill wait.
Oh I am watching from the comment space. But find that I need to attend more to the Isaiah mysteries. Appreciating all your work, it guides my other learning and straightens my path. All best wishes for 2025. 📜🪱🐛🦖🐁 \ / 🤴🙏👶👧 🛣👵🙏
You did this before. We asked several questions ... but never got an answer. What would make it this time different?
The 2024 Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine fully support his claims and the claims of all intelligent serious scientists.
@@jameskohl7959 Keep telling yourself these lies.
@@lizadowning4389 and you yours
@@jameskohl7959The prizes support his claims?
@@jameskohl7959
Ah consensus!
-He lied when he said that "“No real chemist ever going to use Dave Farina's answers as their answers." when Farina is just presenting the actual research aka "their answers"
-He lied about Jack Szostack's presentation in public multiple times. He claimed this was from primary literature, which it was not and included pearls like: "Those are not sugars..He is lying to you" well, those were sugars....
I think you don't understand what he is telling (sorry). 13 jan. 2025
@@radiofun232 I think you don't understand the difference between a scientist with integrety and a lying fundamental christian fanatic.
@@radiofun232 He is telling lies. Demonstrably so.
@@Belmondo_RH Who has actually demonstrated the prebiotic process of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus forming a single protein or gene?
@@Vernon-Chitlen I love how you Fanboys want to change the subject when confronted with the demosntrable fraudolence of your hero:)
-He lies when he presents himself as an expert in ool research. Which he does, which he is not.
-He lied ever time when he claimed that he was “cancelled” due to his religious beliefs.
Sweetie stop embarrassing yourself. Abiogenesis is 100% organic chemistry….Tour is one of the top organic chemists in the world. The fact you don’t know this disqualifies you from commenting
@@daveblock " Abiogenesis is 100% organic chemistry" Which is not true....and even it it were; he is not working in this field. He is however, lying a lot about abiogenesis research.
"Tour is one of the top organic chemists in the world. " Only according to him.
"The fact you don’t know this disqualifies you from commenting" What about the fact that Tour is a demonastrable liar....?
@@daveblock Can you read? Read the list of lies I compiled for you....he made all of this claims and all of them are false.
@@Belmondo_RH None are false. Tour is saying none can happen prebiotic. Dave is using highly manipulated work. You need an education
@@Belmondo_RH Ok. Show me some abiogenesis work that is not organic chemistry. I’m laughing at U now.
As long as you agree that life has evolved over the last 3 billion years, I don't see why it matters much how it got started. The otigin of life will probably always be an open question.
Then it is not science.
@@stellarspacetraveler
Science is used to look for ways it might have happened. Nobody is claiming more than they have evidence for.
Why are you assuming life has a natural origin?
@@Vernon-Chitlen
It's just my opinion. Whether abiogenesis is possible or not is an opinion that nobody woulrd argue about UNLESS they were making it about faith.
@jockyoung4491 It's a fact, I've bet my life that the non living elements, out of 98, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and phosphorus couldn't, didn't arrange themselves into DNA.
That was sure disappointing. Tour just repeated the same "OOL science can't explain everything so OOL science can't explain *anything* " nonsense he's been chirping for the last decade. He's sticking to the creationist playbook no matter what.
When has he mentioned Creation in his critiques of OOL? His approach is purely scientific. He's in good company. Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out the same weaknesses but without going into the chemistry. He stated that there is a one in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that life could arise spontaneously.
@@Peter-y5y9i Fred pulled that number straight from his nether regions the same way creationists do now. No one has near enough data to calculate an accurate probability for natural abiogenesis.
I think you have it backwards. Tour’s claim is the OOL can hardly explain anything not that they can’t explain everything. Also creationists DO have explanations for almost everything yet atheists don’t accept them.
@@vinnyv949 Tour's opinion and $6.50 will get you a venti latte as Starbucks. Creationists have lame excuses for most everything, not explanations.
@@BillG8718Show us the science then, genius. Oh, you're just spouting the same nonsense that OOL researchers have been publishing for 60 years.
What a lame excuse for not published his OOL critiques in professional peer-reviewed journals. Claiming all his evidence is already published by others, he just can't say what it is, or by whom, and where. 😄😄😄
He explains various aspects of it in all his videos, and he can't prove a negative beyond showing it is essentially impossible.
How exactly do you publish a paper detailing how you can't find any processes that permit life to begin? That's like proving a negative. Not possible. Maybe get your quantum computer to do it and show us the way.
@@HuFlungDung2 You publish your *critiques* along with your evidence supporting your critiques. Honest scientists have been doing that for a century but Tour refuses.
@@20july1944 *He explains various aspects of it in all his videos* Flat Earthers explain in their videos why NASA is wrong about the "ball Earth" too. YT videos aren't acceptable science.
@@BillG8718 We would need to compare one of his vids with a flat earth vid.
How do you think life arose?
In the NWA 801 meteorite ribose was found at 4.5 parts per billion. In the Murchison meteorite ribose was found at 25 parts per billion.
Too low in abundance..
The fact ribose was found in a meteorite from deep space is the important point. Why did Jesus, er, the Intelligent Designer put ribose in a non-Earth origin meteor?
@@cocoloco5533 How do you know it had a non Earth origin? Assuming again?
@@codonmatrix4510 From the meteorite's composition.